The Hypocrisy in Frank Krygowski's professions of faith

On Aug 22, 9:36 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Aug 22, 8:59 pm, "MikeWhy" wrote:

Helmet wearers are extremely under-represented in fatalities. You would have
to explain why this is not relevant when discussing helmet effectiveness in
reducing bicycle deaths.

So, are you now claiming that a certified-for-mere-14mph helmet is
actually very effective in preventing cycling fatalities? That's
contrary to what we've heard from your team before, when you folks
were saying "It's not about the fatalities."


Admittedly, I have trouble keeping track, but which "team" said:

"The Dutch and Danes fall
from their bicycles, unhelmeted. There should be monstrous levels of
death and debilitating head injuries."

Yeah, right.

I'm with you, though, that common bicycle helmets suck.

Are you simultaneously claiming that the only significant difference
between a helmet wearing cyclist and one who chooses not to wear a
helmet is that hat? In other words, do you disagree with Crocker that
other coincident factors were the actual causative mechanisms?

More specifically, whom do you observe more frequently riding facing
traffic - helmet wearers or those without helmets? Who do you suppose
are more often biking drunk? Who more often rides at night without
lights? Who more often ignores stop signs?

And do you think that slapping a helmet on a wrong-way, no-lights,
stop-sign-running drunk cyclist will change him into a careful law-
abider?


No, not at all (no way, no how, in fact) - but he may have already
been a much safer bicyclist than the holier-than-thou-stop-sign-school-
marm.

If so, you have no comprehension of the term "confounding factor."
Which is not surprising, since you've absolutely refused to read
anything of substance on this issue you're discussing.

Dan O wrote:
On Aug 22, 9:36 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Aug 22, 8:59 pm, "MikeWhy" wrote:

Helmet wearers are extremely under-represented in fatalities. You
would have to explain why this is not relevant when discussing
helmet effectiveness in reducing bicycle deaths.

So, are you now claiming that a certified-for-mere-14mph helmet is
actually very effective in preventing cycling fatalities? That's
contrary to what we've heard from your team before, when you folks
were saying "It's not about the fatalities."


Admittedly, I have trouble keeping track, but which "team" said:

"The Dutch and Danes fall
from their bicycles, unhelmeted. There should be monstrous levels of
death and debilitating head injuries."

Yeah, right.

I'm with you, though, that common bicycle helmets suck.

The fatality statistic alone makes a darn good argument by inference that
helmets are indeed effective in reducing greatly the likelihood of death by
bicycling. A successful argument to the contrary would have to invalidate
statistics as a science; invalidate the report that found very high negative
correlation between helmet wear and fatalities; or explain the as yet
unvoiced confounding factors that invalidate this conclusion.

In any case, the test standard for bicycle helmets is relevant only to the
extent that the word "helmet" is understood to mean a bicycle helmet
certified by its manufacturer as meeting or exceeding the applicable
standards.

Are you simultaneously claiming that the only significant difference
between a helmet wearing cyclist and one who chooses not to wear a
helmet is that hat? In other words, do you disagree with Crocker
that other coincident factors were the actual causative mechanisms?

More specifically, whom do you observe more frequently riding facing
traffic - helmet wearers or those without helmets? Who do you
suppose are more often biking drunk? Who more often rides at night
without lights? Who more often ignores stop signs?

And do you think that slapping a helmet on a wrong-way, no-lights,
stop-sign-running drunk cyclist will change him into a careful law-
abider?


No, not at all (no way, no how, in fact) - but he may have already
been a much safer bicyclist than the
holier-than-thou-stop-sign-school- marm.

I will state for the record unreservedly that my opinions and observations
did not in any way influence the reported finding that 97% of the study
fatalities were not wearing helmets. That needed saying only because Frank
needs help keeping his thoughts on track. In other words, it goes without
saying.


If so, you have no comprehension of the term "confounding factor."
Which is not surprising, since you've absolutely refused to read
anything of substance on this issue you're discussing.

See above. Frank Krygowski's inability to think critically and stay on topic
is the single most confounding factor in this discussion.

So far, the conclusion stands as stated: Helmet wearers are very
significantly under-represented in the bicycling fatalities reported by the
NY study. Ergo, wearing a helmet while bicycling is effective at reducing
the likelihood of death by bicycling.

On Aug 23, 1:42*am, "MikeWhy" wrote:


The fatality statistic alone makes a darn good argument by inference that
helmets are indeed effective in reducing greatly the likelihood of death by
bicycling. A successful argument to the contrary would have to invalidate
statistics as a science;

That's not even remotely true. Statistics as a science includes
evaluating the effects of confounding variables in studies. The
report you are touting makes no effort to even list confounding
variables, let alone account for them using statistical methods.

Briefly, your knowledge of statistics is obviously lacking. Although
they won't educate you on the techniques, some of the papers I've
cited will at least give you an idea of what competent statisticians
do to account for extraneous variables.

So far, the conclusion stands as stated: Helmet wearers are very
significantly under-represented in the bicycling fatalities reported by the
NY study. Ergo, wearing a helmet while bicycling is effective at reducing
the likelihood of death by bicycling.

Let's remember: Crocker of Austin Texas thought that his study would
show similar benefits for adult cyclists. He actually ran the study
expecting it would give him ammunition with which to push for an all-
ages mandatory helmet law. But he found instead no detectable benefit
for helmets.

And why? Because he included data on alcohol use. Including that
confounding variable showed that it was the alcohol in the blood
stream, not the lack of a helmet, that correlated with head injury.
The helmets were not protecting to any statistically significant
degree.

This illustrates the problem with simplistic correlations like the one
you - and that propaganda's authors - are making.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Let's remember: Crocker of Austin Texas thought that his study would
show similar benefits for adult cyclists. He actually ran the study
expecting it would give him ammunition with which to push for an all-
ages mandatory helmet law. But he found instead no detectable benefit
for helmets.

And why? Because he included data on alcohol use. Including that
confounding variable showed that it was the alcohol in the blood
stream, not the lack of a helmet, that correlated with head injury.
The helmets were not protecting to any statistically significant
degree.

This illustrates the problem with simplistic correlations like the one
you - and that propaganda's authors - are making.

Has there been an update since 2008?

http://www.goodhealth.com/articles/2...ohol_use_risky

"We found that bicycle riders who had been drinking or using drugs - far
away more alcohol than drugs - were four times more likely to have a
head injury. While riding the bike after consuming alcohol, only one out
of 40 patients was wearing a helmet, so it appears that one of the first
things that happens is that riders don't bother with helmets."

The study has been extended for another year to confirm another finding:
That cyclists without helmets are twice as likely to have a significant
head injury.

"We looked at experience of the rider, street conditions, weather
conditions, type of street, location in city and use of drugs or
alcohol. In all truthfulness, I suspect data will show that wearing a
helmet improves safety, but we won't know for sure until the study
reaches statistical significance," adds Dr. Crocker.

This article (are there newer ones?) doesn't seem to fully support your
claims.

On Aug 22, 9:35*pm, Tim McNamara wrote:

Despite a passionate plea by Gene Daniels that his despicable
behaviour acts as a barrier to newbies entering RBT, the hypocrite Tim
McNamare nonetheless changed the thread title to "The Time Wasting of
Andre Jute".

Andre Jute
"Using proper names for personal attacks in subject lines is
offensive and clearly threatening for the first time reader seeking
advice. Perjorative subject line material is not in our best
interests. The practice is directly comparable to ongoing diatribes on
colostomy." -- Gene Daniels aka "kolldata"

On Aug 23, 2:43*am, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:

Despite a passionate plea by Gene Daniels that his despicable
behaviour acts as a barrier to newbies entering RBT, the hypocrite Tom
Sherman nonetheless changed the thread title to "The Hypocrisy in
André Jute's professions of faith". This is standard scummy behaviour
from Liddell Tommi.

Andre Jute
"Using proper names for personal attacks in subject lines is
offensive and clearly threatening for the first time reader seeking
advice. Perjorative subject line material is not in our best
interests. The practice is directly comparable to ongoing diatribes on
colostomy." -- Gene Daniels aka "kolldata"

On Aug 23, 3:29*am, Tim McNamara wrote:

Despite a passionate plea by Gene Daniels that his despicable
behaviour acts as a barrier to newbies entering RBT, the hypocritical
scumball Tim McNamare returns for a second bit at the cherry, this
time changing the thread title to "The Time Wasting of Jute".

Andre Jute
"Using proper names for personal attacks in subject lines is
offensive and clearly threatening for the first time reader seeking
advice. Perjorative subject line material is not in our best
interests. The practice is directly comparable to ongoing diatribes on
colostomy." -- Gene Daniels aka "kolldata"

On Aug 23, 3:47*am, Dan O wrote:

Despite a passionate plea by Gene Daniels that his despicable
behaviour acts as a barrier to newbies entering RBT, the mindless
scumbag Dan Overman nonetheless changed the thread title to "Andre's
time wasting show".

Andre Jute
"Using proper names for personal attacks in subject lines is
offensive and clearly threatening for the first time reader seeking
advice. Perjorative subject line material is not in our best
interests. The practice is directly comparable to ongoing diatribes on
colostomy." -- Gene Daniels aka "kolldata"

On Aug 23, 3:52*am, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/14/2010 7:25 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
[...]
"Tom Sherman °_°" wrote
Too long, did not read.
Bill Sornson wrote:
And this was vital to share with the group /because/...???

So we know Tom Sherman is alive and well

A doubtful proposition. He's a windup dollie who repeats the same
phrase when you press his belly button. Prove he's not!

Andre Jute
I beat Eliza

On Aug 23, 5:36*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Despite a passionate plea by Gene Daniels that his despicable
behaviour acts as a barrier to newbies entering RBT, and multiple
complaints from himself about the practice, the hypocritical slimeball
Frank Krygowski nonetheless commented in a thread called "The Time
Wasting of Andre Jute".

Andre Jute
"Using proper names for personal attacks in subject lines is
offensive and clearly threatening for the first time reader seeking
advice. Perjorative subject line material is not in our best
interests. The practice is directly comparable to ongoing diatribes on
colostomy." -- Gene Daniels aka "kolldata"