To sock or not to sock?

On 05/05/11 04:45, Tom Lake wrote:

But I fail to understand why anyone would suggest that proper shoes do
not reduce foot injuries... it's counter intuitive.

Next to me is a gait and footwear research centre. Chatting with
verious Indian gentlemen in there about foot injuries in India where
there are significant numbers of both shod and unshod people, there is
apparently a significantly greater injury record for those that wear shoes.

Counter-intuitive is not the same as "wrong".

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Helmet
laws haven't exactly worked; however, protective equipment certainly
does.

So where are the casualty savings?

All I'm saying is that protective equipment generally
works.

It was "certainly" just now... but still, where are the casualty savings?

Helmets work great at stuff like bashing tree-branches out of your way
without getting a scratch or bump off-road, but if they generally helped
on the road for A to B cycling then there needs to be a reason why
serious head injury rates fail to decrease as more of them are worn.
"It's counter intuitive" is not actually good enough (even though I
agree that it is indeed counter-intuitive).

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 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?

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

On Thu, 05 May 2011 21:56:23 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tºm Shermªn™
°_° " wrote:

We have been over the problems with Scuffham changing conclusions many
times. Comparing rates over 4 decades apart is hardly them same as comparing
consecutive years before and after Liddite™ mandatory foam bicycle hat
use implementation.

My point was that studies on the efficacy of protective clothing span
a wide range of findings. By carefully choosing findings that support
*my* side of the discussion and dismissing those which tend not to, I
can "prove" just about anything.

That tactic isn't new to studies of protective clothing. In fact, any
topic that doesn't lend itself to an experimental method (abortion,
the death penalty, gun control, and auto seat belts come to mind) will
tend to that type of debate.

Scuffham finds helmets don't work and you wave his work like the US
flag at Ground Zero. Later, he looks at more data and finds something
else. "That study is INVALID!" you say. I say that whether a study
is valid or not depends on whether or not it supports your prejudice,
not on its data and methods.

But, then... having been around Usenet a few days, I expected that.
In a day or so, I'll move on. I can only argue about something as
trivial as this for a short time.

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.

Bicycle helmets aren't exactly a multi-billion dollar industry. Heck,
I can show you identical discussions on handgun safety devices. There
was quite a similar set of studies where one found one thing and the
other contradicted the original. The one finding they worked was
attributed to money from people wanting to sell safety devices. I'm
sure Scuffham was visited at night by helmet industry goons who
threatened his family yadayadayada...

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.

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 Fri, 06 May 2011 14:29:59 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Phil W Lee
wrote:

Maybe you should configure it correctly then. No, it's an operator thing.
Absolutely not. "everyone" would include non-smokers, and they certainly
shouldn't quit, as that would entail taking it up first.

Argumentative today, aren't we?

As to your first sentence: Phil, in your life, you must have met
people before who just heard a "different drummer". These people
don't do what you think they *should* do. I am just one of those
people, Phil. It's OK, friend... I'm not going to demand that you
configure your reader to match my preferences; I just don't plan to
conform to yours. In fact, I deliberately configured it thus to pique
those who like to write their reply into the OP's text... I kinda
*like* it when they yell at me. I've been yelled at, cussed at, kill
filed, and threatened with legal action in just about every forum to
which I have ever posted; I don't expect this one to be any different.

The second is a silly parsing of syntax; my meaning is clear as is
yours.

Are you old enough to recall "Doctor's" brand cigarettes? They were
around in the US in the '50s; dunno 'bout the UK. They sued Camel
cigarettes about 1959 or so for saying "More doctors smoke Camels ..."
as a trademark thing. (I suppose Camel has both camels and
dromedaries under trademark because their icon is clearly a
dromedary!) Anyway, the tobacco industry successfully defied
regulation for *years* citing a lack of causal evidence proving
ciggies were the culprit in health issues. There were lots of studies
in the '60s that denied any link.

So, why shouldn't people smoke? (Ignore the fact that it stinks for
now... assume I'm smoking in my own space with the door closed.) I
say it's just a Baptist thing... they contribute lots of PAC money,
you know.

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/