The most common errors by the Anti-Helmet Zealots about the New Yorkstudy of bicycling fatalities and serious injuries

Tim McNamara, who should know better, gives us a concise summary of
the errors of the Anti-Helmet Zealots in relation to the landmark New
York study. McNamara, who admittedly isn't the sharpest knife in the
drawer, writes:

"The New York study ... offers two pieces of
measurement. No context is provided in which to understand the
numbers, resulting in the statements being meaningless."

First of all, Timmie, there are *three* distinct pieces of information
that have been offered to you again and again and which you pretend
are only two pieces. Here they are, three pieces separated into bullet
points for your convenience:

• Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
• Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
• Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal
crashes

Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf

Next, dear Timmy, you claim "No context is provided in which to
understand the numbers". This is just silly. The context is a full
universe compilation covering eight years in one of the major cities
of the world. This is not a sample, this is a universe *larger* than
the sort of incredibly expensive sample of around 3000 retained and
stratified respondents, rarely achieved, which a statistician would
consider representative of the entire nation! This, in short, is a
quality of information for which professional statisticians will
sacrifice their first-born. Your claim that there is "no context"
merely displays a profound (and profoundly disturbing) ignorance of
statistical method and meaning.

The authorities in New York made a compilation covering the years 1996
to 2003 of all the deaths (225) and serious injuries (3,462) in
cycling accidents in all New York City. The purpose of the study was
an overview usable for city development planning, not helmet
advocacy, so helmet usage was only noted for part of the period among
the seriously injured, amounting to 333 cases.

The fact that this is a huge and complete universe allows us, with the
due cautions noted, to make *at the very least* these conclusions.
(And I for one would not argue if people were to hypothesize well
beyond my perhaps overly-cautious conclusions.)

•The concatenation of the *three* facts cited above suggests very
strongly that not wearing a helmet may be particularly dangerous.
• It looks like wearing a helmet saved roundabout 33 cyclists or so
(of the 333 seriously injured for whom helmet use is known) from
dying.
• If those who died wore helmets at the same rate of 13% as those in
the study who survived, a further 22 or so could have lived.
• If all the fatalities had been wearing a helmet (100%), somewhere
between 10% and 57% of them would have lived. This number is less firm
to allow for impacts so heavy that no helmet would have saved the
cyclist. Still, between 22 and 128 *additional* (to the 33 noted
above) New Yorkers alive rather than dead for wearing a thirty buck
helmet is a serious statistical, moral and political consideration
difficult to overlook.
• With a caution, we can project these figures nationally in the USA
to say that of 716 cycling fatalities nationwide every year, helmet
use could have saved at least 70 and very likely
more towards a possible upper limit of around 400. Once more we have
arrived at a statistical, moral and political fact that is hard to
igno Helmet wear could save many lives.

I trust this illuminates the darkness that surrounds your posts,
Timmie.

Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
Tim McNamara, who should know better, gives us a concise summary of
the errors of the Anti-Helmet Zealots in relation to the landmark New
York study. McNamara, who admittedly isn't the sharpest knife in the
drawer, writes:

"The New York study ... offers two pieces of
measurement. No context is provided in which to understand the
numbers, resulting in the statements being meaningless."

First of all, Timmie, there are *three* distinct pieces of information
that have been offered to you again and again and which you pretend
are only two pieces. Here they are, three pieces separated into bullet
points for your convenience:

• Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
• Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
• Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal
crashes

Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf

Next, dear Timmy, you claim "No context is provided in which to
understand the numbers". This is just silly. The context is a full
universe compilation covering eight years in one of the major cities
of the world. This is not a sample, this is a universe *larger* than
the sort of incredibly expensive sample of around 3000 retained and
stratified respondents, rarely achieved, which a statistician would
consider representative of the entire nation! This, in short, is a
quality of information for which professional statisticians will
sacrifice their first-born. Your claim that there is "no context"
merely displays a profound (and profoundly disturbing) ignorance of
statistical method and meaning.

The authorities in New York made a compilation covering the years 1996
to 2003 of all the deaths (225) and serious injuries (3,462) in
cycling accidents in all New York City. The purpose of the study was
an overview usable for city development planning, not helmet
advocacy, so helmet usage was only noted for part of the period among
the seriously injured, amounting to 333 cases.

The fact that this is a huge and complete universe allows us, with the
due cautions noted, to make *at the very least* these conclusions.
(And I for one would not argue if people were to hypothesize well
beyond my perhaps overly-cautious conclusions.)

•The concatenation of the *three* facts cited above suggests very
strongly that not wearing a helmet may be particularly dangerous.
• It looks like wearing a helmet saved roundabout 33 cyclists or so
(of the 333 seriously injured for whom helmet use is known) from
dying.
• If those who died wore helmets at the same rate of 13% as those in
the study who survived, a further 22 or so could have lived.
• If all the fatalities had been wearing a helmet (100%), somewhere
between 10% and 57% of them would have lived. This number is less firm
to allow for impacts so heavy that no helmet would have saved the
cyclist. Still, between 22 and 128 *additional* (to the 33 noted
above) New Yorkers alive rather than dead for wearing a thirty buck
helmet is a serious statistical, moral and political consideration
difficult to overlook.
• With a caution, we can project these figures nationally in the USA
to say that of 716 cycling fatalities nationwide every year, helmet
use could have saved at least 70 and very likely
more towards a possible upper limit of around 400. Once more we have
arrived at a statistical, moral and political fact that is hard to
igno Helmet wear could save many lives.

I trust this illuminates the darkness that surrounds your posts,
Timmie.

Anyone with even half a brain should know that helmets at least prevent
some injuries. Andre Jute is swatting mosquitoes with a sledge hammer. But
when you argue with idiots, you start to look like an idiot yourself. I
should know since that is what I mostly do on Usenet.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota