Recumbent Accident Rates?

On 5/5/2011 5:58 PM, Tom Lake (Space Alien) wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2011 14:14:54 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
wrote:

No, Tom, my parents never forced me to wear a helmet. Bike helmets
did not exist until I was long out of my parents' control, legal or
otherwise.

I post about this issue because it's something I became interested in;
and, having become interested, I decided to learn about it (something
that's part of my nature, it seems); and having learned quite a lot, I
realized that the deeply held beliefs of helmet proponents were proven
false by available data and facts.

When someone enters the discussion and states things that I know to be
false, I point out the mistakes.

About accepting positions: I'll accept your right to wear a helmet,
just as I'll accept your right to wear purple riding shorts. And I
won't try to change your deeply held beliefs. I will, however,
counter any effort to spread misinformation to others.

Haha... you're too smart for me, Frank. I've been outed! I'm really
an Alien from Outter Space. I control you puny humans' thought
processes by transponders embedded in bicycle helmets.
BAWWWhahaha...

What's the deal with "purple riding shorts"? I haven't mentioned
them. Why bring up the color of someone's clothing?

Why do you think that *I*, with a paltry five or six postings about
bicycle helmets have "deeply held beliefs"? I said that I didn't
care. You are the one with about 2,340 or so postings to helmet
threads... I'd say that, compared to you, I'm pretty luke warm. I've
got a *long* way to go before I'm going to approach your record.

I suspect that the normal people on this group are getting tired of
this.

Bye, Earthling. But you *will* be refuted! Your children will wear
helmets, mark my words. They already wear seat belts... "click it or
ticket", huh, Frank?

We could ask Frank's adult children if they wear Magic Foam Bicycle Hatsâ„¢.

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

Tom Lake (Space Alien) wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2011 14:14:54 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote:

About accepting positions: I'll accept your right to wear a helmet,
just as I'll accept your right to wear purple riding shorts. And I
won't try to change your deeply held beliefs. I will, however,
counter any effort to spread misinformation to others.

What's the deal with "purple riding shorts"? I haven't mentioned
them. Why bring up the color of someone's clothing?

It's Frank's way of giving you a big sloppy kiss.

On clothing, I saw a dude warming up for an iron man event near Port
Macquarie not long ago. He was riding his tri bike in leopard skin DTs
and mid thigh black leg warmers. Make of that what you will.

JS.

On Thu, 05 May 2011 18:02:48 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tºm Shermªn™
°_° " wrote:

What you state is one of the faults in the case-control studies such as
Thompson-Rivara-Thompson, the source of the bogus 85% head injury
reduction claim used to support mandatory foam hat usage laws. The
children whose Liddite™ parents made them wear foam hats had
significantly different demographics than the lidless children.

However, certain countries (e.g. Australia, New Zealand) have introduced
mandatory foam bicycle hat usage, enforced by traffic citations. Helmet
usage rates dramatically increased, but death rates due to head injuries
did not drop. Frank Krygowski has posted the citations many times.

Does not apply to the studies of death rates from head injuries while
cycling both before and after Liddite™ laws were enacted by legislators
mislead by the foam hat selling funded lobbies (e.g. Safe Kids).

No need, as wearing of foam bicycle hats has failed to show any real
life average benefit when the usage rates double or triple.

It's not a "fault" of the study any more than an inability to fly is a
fault of a tractor. It's simply a property of that type of study; you
start with existing data and study them. I'd bet half of the studies
published on any topic use post facto data. I think you'll find that
*all* helmet studies are thus. That doesn't make them flawed; they
have their limitations; however, they're the best we've got or ever
will have. It's a stronger design than a whole-pop because I can
scale the results; whole-pops only apply locally.

As for New Zealand, you'll find studies all over the map. I can cite
contradictory findings by the same researcher; try these: Scuffham,
1995 the year after the law went into effect; compare that to the same
author's 2000 and 2002 studies with six and eight years' worth of
data. Are they still post facto studies? Absolutely. Both have the
same limitations. I'll bet you wave one of them (the one with which
you agree) and pronounce the others "discredited"... that's the usual
drill, anyway. It's called "cherry picking", BTW and Usenet is
positively rife with it.

Look at it this way: smoking rates in the United States have dropped
by half from 1965 to 2006 falling from 42% to 20.8% of adults (CDCP,
2007), yet the rate of death from respiratory and heart disease has
not seen a similar reduction; in fact, it has climbed slightly over
the same period. If I apply your logic to those numbers, I would
conclude that there are no harmful effects from tobacco use... in
fact, it may even be a healthful exercise for your lungs.

Do you agree?



Works Cited:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (November 2007).
"Cigarette smoking among adults, United States, 2006". MMWR Morb
Mortal Wkly Rep. 56 (44): 1157-61. PMID 17989644.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5644a2.htm.


Scuffham PA, Langley JD. Trends in cycle injury in New Zealand under
voluntary helmet use. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 1997
Jan;29(1):1-9. 1997.


Scuffham P. Head injuries to bicyclists and the New Zealand bicycle
helmet law. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2000 Jul;32(4):565-73.
2000.

Taylor M, Scuffham P., New Zealand bicycle helmet law-do the costs
outweigh the benefits? Injury Prevention, 2002;8:317-320. 2002.

On Thu, 05 May 2011 18:07:45 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tºm Shermªn™
°_° " wrote:

Studies have shown that motorists pass closer to lidded cyclists than
those riding sans foam bicycle hat. Dr. Mengele, where art thou? As history
shows, the "obvious" can be scientifically wrong. The answer is obvious to anyone
who is rational and has bothered to study the issue - bicycle foam
hats provide bump and scrape protection, but do not significantly reduce
serious brain injuries and deaths. Why boast of your ignorance?

Well, again, there simply aren't any data to support that. There
aren't any to support that helmets *do* reduce closed head trauma,
either because the research design, as you pointed out, does not allow
such a conclusion.

It has been my experience that the best way to "prove" something is to
find what the person really believes to be true. Remember the
"proven" weapons of mass destruction in Iraq back in 2002... what ever
happened to them?

On Fri, 06 May 2011 01:51:32 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Phil W Lee
wrote:

No, that is incorrect.
There are studies showing risk compensation as a result of foam hat
use, and most worrying of all, that it occurs among motorists as well.

Absolute nonsense!

More cherry-picking is all.

If a researcher uses post facto data and says helmets cause injury
reduction, you're all over it and rightly so. OTOH, when the study
agrees with your preconceived shape of the world, it suddenly becomes
a proven fact even though both studies had an identical design.

To use the term "as a result of...", the research must divide a sample
into two groups and randomly assign the participants; this is known as
operational control of the independent variable. If the study allowed
the participants to choose in which group they would be, it's not an
experimental design. Unless the researcher assigns people to the
helmeted and non-helmeted groups, all you can find is correlation.

Sheese... did they quit teaching basic research methodology to
undergrads? Back in 1970 (when I had to walk to school... two
miles... ) it was required core. I took it in my junior year, I
recall. Did you know that studies have shown that virtually *every*
sentence citing: "Studies have shown..." is utter nonsense. That's
been proven, you know!

On Fri, 06 May 2011 01:57:35 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Phil W Lee
wrote:

And it would still be invalid. since it takes no account of any of the
things that may adversely affect foam hat effectiveness.

Risk compensation is one (both from the rider feeling "better
protected" and taking more risks and the motorist passing closer to
helmeted riders). Rotational brain injuries are another caused by the
higher friction of a helmet on the road that a bare head. The
increased head size also make a head impact more likely in any given
incident.

You really don't "do" science, do you?

Of course it would be invalid... unless it found that with which you
agree; then it would gain elevated status fairly quickly, I expect.

The increase of moment is the first point I've see in this whole
discussion.

You're aware that smoking cigarettes exercises your lungs, right? How
else do you explain that respiratory illness increased during a time
when cigarette use dropped by 50%? I think you should start smoking.

It would make as much sense as the rest of your writing, anyway.

On May 5, 3:58 pm, "Tom Lake (Space Alien)" wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2011 14:14:54 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank



Krygowski wrote:
No, Tom, my parents never forced me to wear a helmet. Bike helmets
did not exist until I was long out of my parents' control, legal or
otherwise.

I post about this issue because it's something I became interested in;
and, having become interested, I decided to learn about it (something
that's part of my nature, it seems); and having learned quite a lot, I
realized that the deeply held beliefs of helmet proponents were proven
false by available data and facts.

When someone enters the discussion and states things that I know to be
false, I point out the mistakes.

About accepting positions: I'll accept your right to wear a helmet,
just as I'll accept your right to wear purple riding shorts. And I
won't try to change your deeply held beliefs. I will, however,
counter any effort to spread misinformation to others.

Haha... you're too smart for me, Frank. I've been outed! I'm really
an Alien from Outter Space. I control you puny humans' thought
processes by transponders embedded in bicycle helmets.
BAWWWhahaha...

What's the deal with "purple riding shorts"? I haven't mentioned
them. Why bring up the color of someone's clothing?


Because it's smarmarific!

Why do you think that *I*, with a paltry five or six postings about
bicycle helmets have "deeply held beliefs"? I said that I didn't
care. You are the one with about 2,340 or so postings to helmet
threads... I'd say that, compared to you, I'm pretty luke warm. I've
got a *long* way to go before I'm going to approach your record.

I suspect that the normal people on this group are getting tired of
this.


To say the least.

Bye, Earthling. But you *will* be refuted! Your children will wear
helmets, mark my words. They already wear seat belts... "click it or
ticket", huh, Frank?

On May 5, 3:50 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 5/5/2011 4:14 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[...]

I post about this issue because it's something I became interested in;
and, having become interested, I decided to learn about it (something
that's part of my nature, it seems); and having learned quite a lot, I
realized that the deeply held beliefs of helmet proponents were proven
false by available data and facts.[...]

What - you do not believe in the well proven fact that Magic Foam
Bicycle Hats™ prevent up to 70% of *LEG* injuries? Heathen!


I won't mess with percentages, tending to think much of the
"statistics" thrown out here as "proof" are a manipulation and in no
way universally applicable anyway, but try this on for size: A good
bicycle helmet *can* prevent leg injuries.

In a crash, a bare-headed but otherwise sane rider will act
(consciously and instinctively) to protect their head from even
moderate glancing impact, which can override the relaxed tumbling that
helps prevent unnatural forces on the limbs.

(I know this may sound kooky, but Devil's Advocate has its place. So
there :-)

--
Yours,
Dan

On 5/5/2011 8:24 PM, Tom Lake wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 18:07:45 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tºm Shermªn™
" wrote:

Studies have shown that motorists pass closer to lidded cyclists than
those riding sans foam bicycle hat. Dr. Mengele, where art thou? As history
shows, the "obvious" can be scientifically wrong. The answer is obvious to anyone
who is rational and has bothered to study the issue - bicycle foam
hats provide bump and scrape protection, but do not significantly reduce
serious brain injuries and deaths. Why boast of your ignorance?

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.

Well, again, there simply aren't any data to support that. There
aren't any to support that helmets *do* reduce closed head trauma,
either because the research design, as you pointed out, does not allow
such a conclusion.

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.

It has been my experience that the best way to "prove" something is to
find what the person really believes to be true. Remember the
"proven" weapons of mass destruction in Iraq back in 2002... what ever
happened to them?

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.

On 5/5/2011 8:15 PM, Tom Lake wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 18:02:48 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tºm Shermªn™
" wrote:

What you state is one of the faults in the case-control studies such as
Thompson-Rivara-Thompson, the source of the bogus 85% head injury
reduction claim used to support mandatory foam hat usage laws. The
children whose Lidditeâ„¢ parents made them wear foam hats had
significantly different demographics than the lidless children.

However, certain countries (e.g. Australia, New Zealand) have introduced
mandatory foam bicycle hat usage, enforced by traffic citations. Helmet
usage rates dramatically increased, but death rates due to head injuries
did not drop. Frank Krygowski has posted the citations many times.

Does not apply to the studies of death rates from head injuries while
cycling both before and after Lidditeâ„¢ laws were enacted by legislators
mislead by the foam hat selling funded lobbies (e.g. Safe Kids).

No need, as wearing of foam bicycle hats has failed to show any real
life average benefit when the usage rates double or triple.

It's not a "fault" of the study any more than an inability to fly is a
fault of a tractor. It's simply a property of that type of study; you
start with existing data and study them. I'd bet half of the studies
published on any topic use post facto data. I think you'll find that
*all* helmet studies are thus. That doesn't make them flawed; they
have their limitations; however, they're the best we've got or ever
will have. It's a stronger design than a whole-pop because I can
scale the results; whole-pops only apply locally.

As for New Zealand, you'll find studies all over the map. I can cite
contradictory findings by the same researcher; try these: Scuffham,
1995 the year after the law went into effect; compare that to the same
author's 2000 and 2002 studies with six and eight years' worth of
data. Are they still post facto studies? Absolutely. Both have the
same limitations. I'll bet you wave one of them (the one with which
you agree) and pronounce the others "discredited"... that's the usual
drill, anyway. It's called "cherry picking", BTW and Usenet is
positively rife with it.

We have been over the problems with Scuffham changing conclusions many
times.

Look at it this way: smoking rates in the United States have dropped
by half from 1965 to 2006 falling from 42% to 20.8% of adults (CDCP,
2007), yet the rate of death from respiratory and heart disease has
not seen a similar reduction; in fact, it has climbed slightly over
the same period. If I apply your logic to those numbers, I would
conclude that there are no harmful effects from tobacco use... in
fact, it may even be a healthful exercise for your lungs.

Do you agree?

Comparing rates over 4 decades apart is hardly them same as comparing
consecutive years before and after Lidditeâ„¢ mandatory foam bicycle hat
use implementation.


Works Cited:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (November 2007).
"Cigarette smoking among adults, United States, 2006". MMWR Morb
Mortal Wkly Rep. 56 (44): 1157-61. PMID 17989644.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5644a2.htm.


Scuffham PA, Langley JD. Trends in cycle injury in New Zealand under
voluntary helmet use. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 1997
Jan;29(1):1-9. 1997.


Scuffham P. Head injuries to bicyclists and the New Zealand bicycle
helmet law. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2000 Jul;32(4):565-73.
2000.

Taylor M, Scuffham P., New Zealand bicycle helmet law-do the costs
outweigh the benefits? Injury Prevention, 2002;8:317-320. 2002.

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