Recumbent Accident Rates?

On Thu, 05 May 2011 21:51:16 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tºm Shermªn™
°_° " wrote:

While I wrote the above words, I did *not* write them as one paragraph.
Combining them is therefore false quotation. Please do not do this again.
If foam bicycle hats were effective, why does making previous non-users
wear them (e.g. Australia and New Zealand) fail to reduce the death rate
due to head injuries? That is all the proof a *rational* person needs
to know foam bicycle hats are ineffective beyond bump and scrape protection.
Those were Zionist lies from the very beginning, promoted by 5th
columnists in the US government (e.g. Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Abrams,
Libby), in the lobbying sector (e.g. AIPAC), and in the media (all the
mainstream outlets) in order to have the US fight a war of destruction
on Iraq on behalf of Israel and its goals of regional dominance.

My reader is programmed to strip out existing quoted material and
leave only the current writing to which I reply. When you write your
reply into the body of the previous message, it also deletes empty
lines on either side, so it appears as a single paragraph. If you use
the essay style, then it will leave your paragraphs intact when empty
lines are inside of your text. It deletes my writing, not yours. If
your writing depends on mine for its meaning, then you have a problem,
I suppose, but I don't. Get over it; it's a computer thing.

I will address your question; however, let's agree on the basics:

Do you agree that quitting smoking is a healthful lifestyle change
that everyone should do?

On 06/05/11 12:10, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 5/6/2011 4:11 AM, Peter Clinch wrote:
[...
Dunno. Guess not the 80 year old I often see cycling round Dundee
without one. Guess not the 90 year old Dr. Alex Moulton who goes for a
10 mile ride every day, also without one. And so on (and on).[...]

Which model does he ride?

Judging from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v_RHIY-O9M a New Series
Pylon (but not double pylon) is stainless steel with mosquito bars.
Though he was presented with an updated version of the original F-frame
in stainless steel on his 90th birthday
(http://www.moultonbicycles.co.uk/images/news/M60_3Q.jpg) called the
"Moulton 60".

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Thu, 5 May 2011 21:50:22 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote:

Oh. Well, _that's_ certainly conclusive!

What have you read on this subject?

Do you mean on the subject of research methodology? That's my
position, Frank. You can't start with existing abstracted data,
notice a correlation (or lack thereof) in the data, and conclude that
one causes (or does not cause) the other. When I took *that* class,
protestors were outside chanting about the war in Vietnam!

I'll bet that, if I took the time, I can find an example of you
quoting a rebuttal of some study you don't like for that very reason.
I can take all the data in the world on roosters; however, their
crowing does *not* cause sunrise.

I got bored with the silly helmet topic long ago... do as you please.

On Fri, 06 May 2011 13:33:46 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Phil W Lee
wrote:

Since you don't even know the research I am citing, how would you know
the methodology? The method was to use the same rider on the same route
at the same time of day, with and without a foam hat. Ultrasonic detection
was used to log the passing distance of motor vehicles. On average,
motorists gave 8.5cm more passing clearance when overtaking the bareheaded
subject. In two cases the subject was struck by passing traffic - both times
when wearing the foam hat.

A long brunette wig was found to increase passing clearance by an
average of 14cm. So how to you interpret the results now you know that this
was done properly? No doubt your religious belief in "'s'obvious innit"
will produce some additional objection. This is known as moving the
goalposts, or policy based evidence making, and is fundamentally dishonest.
You've managed to show that you don't bother to read the research you
are pointed to, but feel you can comment on it anyway.

I agree that I do not know that research. I disagree that you "cited"
anything, though.

How do I interpret it? Drivers like cyclists wearing helmets? They
dislike brunettes? Did they try it with a blonde wig?

I know! Helmet manufacturers are embedding magnets in the product.
That's it!

Boring.

On 06/05/11 15:46, Tom Lake wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2011 21:50:22 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
wrote:

Oh. Well, _that's_ certainly conclusive!

What have you read on this subject?

Do you mean on the subject of research methodology?

I suspect he means bicycle helmet effectiveness.

I'll bet that, if I took the time,
snip
I got bored with the silly helmet topic long ago... do as you please.

So in other words you won't take the time, so you won't make the bet, so
your stating you will bet is just bluster.

If you're not going to do the reading at least have the integrity to
admit you're not in a position to lecture those of us that have on what
might be contained in the reading.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On May 6, 4:58*am, Harry Brogan
wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2011 08:47:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski

wrote:

Why do people keep promoting an ineffective solution to a largely
nonexistent problem?

- Frank Krygowski

I can certainly agree that bicycle head injuries are rare. *I am a
member of the "over-the-handlebars" club and it wasn't a lot of fun
smashing my head against the sidewalk. *Now, just in case, I do wear a
helmet. *Simply because I don't want to end up with a more serious
injury than what I had then.

Thanks for your input, but I'll continue to wear one!!!!! *

And that's fine, Harry. I understand how such a crash could have that
effect on a person.

But isn't it interesting that the number of serious head injuries that
occur inside cars, or while traveling on foot, completely eclipses the
number that occur while bicycling - yet you never hear of motorists or
pedestrians who adopt your tactic?

- Frank Krygowski

On May 5, 9:51*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
huge snip
Those were Zionist lies from the very beginning, promoted by 5th
columnists in the US government (e.g. Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Abrams,
Libby), in the lobbying sector (e.g. AIPAC), and in the media (all the
mainstream outlets) in order to have the US fight a war of destruction
on Iraq on behalf of Israel and its goals of regional dominance.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

I thought that was because we wanted control over Iraqi oil, to raise
world oil prices. That seems to have worked pretty good.

On May 6, 10:46*am, Tom Lake wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2011 21:50:22 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank

Krygowski wrote:
Oh. *Well, _that's_ certainly conclusive!

What have you read on this subject?

Do you mean on the subject of research methodology?

No, on the subject of helmet efficacy. Also on the more fundamental,
related subject: realistically evaluating the risk of serious head
injury while cycling.

I got bored with the silly helmet topic long ago... do as you please.

.... and the fox said "I'm not interested in those grapes anyway.
They're probably sour." - Aesop

- Frank Krygowski

On May 6, 8:26*am, Tom Lake wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2011 21:48:29 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank



Krygowski wrote:
That's merely a slightly more sophisticated way of saying "statistics
can prove anything." *It's pretending that humans are incapable of
rationally evaluating studies, data and conclusions.

Scuffham and his flip-flops have been discussed here before. *And
while I don't know for sure (although he mailed his first paper on
this topic to me personally), I suspect he got in some professional
trouble by pointing out that an examination of all available hospital
records in his country showed no helmet benefit - only a decades-long
decrease in percent hospitalizations due to head injury, long
predating helmet use. *He did, after all, work for the very agency
that was promoting the all-ages mandatory helmet law. *Can you imagine
publishing a paper that proved your bosses' biggest effort was a sham?

In any case, his subsequent paper saying "Wait, I found a benefit!"
was thoroughly, mathematically rebutted by Robinson, who pointed out
that instead of examining the entire time series data, he simply
picked a tiny selection of data points and removed the time
coefficient that he'd previously discovered. *THAT is cherry picking,
as classic as it gets.

Again, all this has been discussed. *Yes, we can cite the specific
papers. *Perhaps you should do some reading, to catch up. *You might
start he

Statistics certainly *can* show that A causes B; however, that kind of
study can't.

Statistics can (and do) show that ordinary cycling does not impose any
unusual risk of serious head injury, despite propaganda to the
contrary. And statistics can (and do) show that widespread adoption
of bike helmets has not had a beneficial effect on serious head injury
rates. Really, that's all that's needed to adequately understand this
issue.

But if you'd like more, an examination of helmet design and
certification standards, plus some knowledge of physics and
physiology, give good understanding of why bike helmets are likely to
be ineffective.

Bicycle helmets aren't exactly a multi-billion dollar industry. *Heck,
I can show you identical discussions on handgun safety devices.

You persist in trying to change topics. If you really want to discuss
smoking or handgun safety devices, you might start a different thread.

Actually, this topic is starting to bore me. *I can't think of a more
trivial topic on which to spend years and thousands of postings.

Well, we could discuss the psychology of those who:
1) fail to study a topic, yet
2) give advice and solicit debate from those who have studied the
topic, and then
3) say "I'm getting bored" instead of "I have much to learn."

- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 06 May 2011 14:42:41 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Phil W Lee
wrote:

No, but the automotive industry is, and they have every reason to
attempt to shift the blame for the vast death toll onto the victims.
No, his bosses wanted to promote helmets, so they made him cherry pick
some of the data from his original study so that it reversed the
conclusion. He was smart enough to do so in such a way that it could be easily
dismissed as cherry picking by anyone who bothered to study it, thus
managing to avoid trouble with his employers and retain some kind of
integrity. Bugger off then.

So... bicycle helmets are promoted by Japanese auto makers? Over on
the motor racing groups, they say it's an attempt by the ecologists to
kill their sport. The dopers blame the juicers. Personally, I like
the one about the multi-billion dollar Chinese helmet industry
promoting it as an avenue to world domination.

But, I do savor conspiracy theories. I figure I can work 9-11,
Hitler, *and* the Jews into this one. Do you have any more?