Another Helmet Thread

On 20/06/13 12:33, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 7:27:21 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 20/06/13 00:37, fk wrote:

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:27:13 AM UTC-4, James wrote:

On 19/06/13 13:02, fk wrote:
That process shouldn't be labeled "faith." Most people call
that
sort of thing "science."


I thought most people called that statistics.


"Statistics is the science of learning from data." See

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6077/12.summary for
example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_D...and_Statistics

:-) So your rebuttal is to link to a description of a TV show?

Statistics can be abused.

And so often are.

--
JS

On Jun 19, 3:36*pm, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 5:42:16 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
On Jun 19, 7:28*am, fk wrote:

Dan, the article is copyrighted. *Accident Analysis & Prevention's subscription costs hundreds of dollars per year, and they don't put their articles online for free, AFAIK.

Ah, I see.

So what do you make of the study I linked to:

http://www.occup-med.com/content/7/1/9

First, it's a "review," really just a quick summary of a group of other studies. *The studies chosen for the review are variable in the extreme,

I thought that was one of it's strengths, actually.

... many of them having little to do with bike helmets.

Isn't that also a strength? Wouldn't a review of these variable
studies from around the world actually tend to smooth out most of
those things like biases and confounding factors and such that you
like to shoot down studies with?

*(As an aside, it seems to have many minor English problems, some of which obscure its meaning to a degree.)


Presumably translated from German. The international perspective was
another strength for me. I didn't have trouble with the meaning. In
fact, if anything, those little translation issues give me a moment to
ponder the meaning and digest it in the overall context.

It appears to be prejudiced in favor of helmet use.

I wonder why that might be :-)

*It overstates, by implication,

IOW it doesn't actually say what you are about to say.

... the relative danger of bicycling compared to other activities: *"Bicycle traumata are very common and especially neurologic complications lead to disability and death in all stages of the life." Well sorry, but relative to other sources of such injuries, they are certainly not.


How about straight up? Does it hold water straight up?

*Recall, for example, that bicyclists are only 0.6% of American brain injury fatalities.


Aside form the fact that that's neither here nor there; again, the
worldwide perspective (as opposed to "American") was a strength of the
article for me.

It also bases its comments on the _assumption_ that bike helmets are an essential safety measure.

I would say they assume (not presume), based on the evidence, that
helmets protect against head injuries; I don't see "essential" in the
"necessary" sense - maybe in the "fundamental" sense.

*For example, when noting that most German neurosurgeons don't wear helmets when biking, it labeled that "cognitive dissonance,"


Perhaps an unfortunate characterization, but defensible, and
considered.

... with no appreciation for the fact that the surgeons may be making a perfectly rational assessment of risk and purported benefit.


Because that is not what the review or article is about at all. It's
an up-to-date, objective review of the data. Isn't that your mantra?
"Look at the data."

*For another example, measurements of kids' attitudes toward helmets are labeled as positive if the kids like helmets.


Hmm... well, again, based on the evidence...

*IOW, dissent isn't tolerated, even if it might be educated and rational.


In *your* other words. "Tolerated"? Look, I know this stuff makes
*you* see red, because of your rationalized fringe belief, which you
have adopted to support your cross to bear, and because it
*completely* undermines your propaganda spiel; and I think because of
this *you* are the intolerant one.

I'm very familiar with one of the papers cited, the one by Crocker. *This review notes that alcohol use was very significantly correlated with injuries, etc. *But this review chooses not to mention one of pro-MHL Crocker's main findings, which was that helmet use was not significantly correlated (or actually inversely correlated) with serious TBI. *Given that the purpose of the review was to summarize helmet findings, that omission seems biased indeed.


Again, not what they're considering. And your characterizations are
consistent: "chooses not to mention", "pro-MHL", etc. Your bias is
showing.

Several of the findings are summarized, with apparent approval, by saying that helmets reduce injury, even if the reduction is small.


You mean they say what it actually says?

*That is, however, a very weak criterion for any practical decision, such as whether to wear a helmet, whether to recommend helmets, whether to mandate them, etc.


Not what the article is about.

"The area of bicycle trauma research is by nature multidisciplinary
and relevant not only for physicians but also for experts with
educational, engineering, judicial, rehabilitative or public health
functions. Due to this plurality of global publications and special
subjects, short time reviews help to detect recent research directions
and provide also information from neighbour disciplines for
researchers."

(Here it comes... )

*It should be obvious that the degree people push bike helmets greatly exceeds the degree that we push other strategies that would also reduce injury if used. *Would you disagree that knee protectors would reduce skinned knees (actually cycling's most common injury)? *Does that really mean we should promote them?


It should be obvious what grudge driven zealous propaganda you are
spewing.

I could say more, but all in all, this looks to me like a quick and easy....

Another of your dismissive characterizations.

"Look, I got published!" work.

Bitterly dismissive - with a smarmy exclamation point!

*I'm not seeing anything original, and I'm not seeing unbiased and competent evaluation of the work of others.


Neither am I - not in this evaluation from you, anyway.

On Jun 19, 3:42*pm, sms wrote:
On 6/19/2013 1:31 PM, Duane wrote:









On 6/19/2013 4:28 PM, SMS wrote:
On 6/19/2013 7:31 AM, Duane wrote:

But I can tell you that my son has been under a MHL instituted by his
mom and me since he started riding a bike and it doesn't bother him at
all. *Nor his friends.

The MHLs for children under 18 probably contribute to increased cycling
rates because too many parents believe that a helmet is all that is
necessary to ensure safety while cycling. This leads to lack of
education in safe cycling practices.

I guess it can if you don't do anything but give them a bike and a
helmet. *I don't know many people that do this but I guess they're out
there.

Perhaps the parents do tell them "ride safely" and it goes in one ear
and out the other, or they have no idea what that means. But it's rather
terrifying to be driving anywhere near a school at the beginning or end
of the school day.

And helmets don't change that; but this fact doesn't change the value
of a helmet.

On Jun 19, 5:08*pm, sms wrote:
On 6/19/2013 2:42 PM, Dan O wrote:

snip

Dan, the article is copyrighted. *Accident Analysis & Prevention's subscription costs hundreds of dollars per year, and they don't put their articles online for free, AFAIK.

Ah, I see.

The Scuffham "study" is only valid if you believe that comparing...

snip

And you also believe in the mythical land of New Zealand :-)

On Jun 19, 7:59 pm, James wrote:
On 20/06/13 12:33, wrote:



On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 7:27:21 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 20/06/13 00:37, fk wrote:

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:27:13 AM UTC-4, James wrote:

On 19/06/13 13:02, fk wrote:
That process shouldn't be labeled "faith." Most people call
that
sort of thing "science."

I thought most people called that statistics.

"Statistics is the science of learning from data." See

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/3.../12.summaryfor
example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_D...and_Statistics

:-) So your rebuttal is to link to a description of a TV show?

Statistics can be abused.

And so often are.


I would go so far as to say *usually* are.

On Jun 20, 12:21*am, Dan O wrote:
On Jun 19, 7:59 pm, James wrote:

On 20/06/13 12:33, fk wrote:

Statistics can be abused.

And so often are.

I would go so far as to say *usually* are.

Dan, if you believe that, then next time you or your kid or spouse get
seriously ill, you need to reject whatever the best doctors in your
area recommend. Because all the remedies will have been tested and
chosen based on statistics.

You also need to throw out your bicycle. Because the materials and
processes used to construct nearly every part will have been managed
by the technique called Statistical Process Control. It's quite
standard in manufacturing.

You need to forget about insurance. Insurance companies rely heavily
on data and statistics to not only decide your rates, but to invest
the money you or your employer have paid for premiums. And you
certainly don't want to be associated with a company that uses such
techniques, do you?

Speaking of investments, you probably don't want your money in the
bank, let alone the stock market. Banks use statistics heavily in
analyzing their own investments. And if they are *usually* wrong,
they're bound to crash and make you lose all your money. The FDIC
couldn't help, because they use statistics too.

Really, the best thing for a dedicated statistics skeptic to do is to
pour every penny into the next lottery ticket. Because the following
odds probably don't apply to you, right?
http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...ry-infographic

- Frank Krygowski

On Jun 19, 10:04 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 20, 12:21 am, Dan O wrote:

On Jun 19, 7:59 pm, James wrote:

On 20/06/13 12:33, fk wrote:

Statistics can be abused.

And so often are.

I would go so far as to say *usually* are.

Dan, if you believe that, then next time you or your kid or spouse get
seriously ill,

Thanks for the thought (your statement treats it as a forgone
conclusion).

... you need to reject whatever the best doctors in your
area recommend. Because all the remedies will have been tested and
chosen based on statistics.


Oh yeah, the drug companies are awesome.

You also need to throw out your bicycle.

You *are* a smarmy one, aren't you.

Because the materials and
processes used to construct nearly every part will have been managed
by the technique called Statistical Process Control. It's quite
standard in manufacturing.


I'm sure they fudge stuff all the time.

You need to forget about insurance. Insurance companies rely heavily
on data and statistics to not only decide your rates, but to invest
the money you or your employer have paid for premiums. And you
certainly don't want to be associated with a company that uses such
techniques, do you?


Oh yeah, insurance companies are peachy, too.

Speaking of investments, you probably don't want your money in the
bank, let alone the stock market. Banks use statistics heavily in
analyzing their own investments. And if they are *usually* wrong,
they're bound to crash and make you lose all your money. The FDIC
couldn't help, because they use statistics too.


Oh yeah - Banks. (Jeez, man - this is some collection of entities
you've chosen to defend the use of statistics with.)

Really, the best thing for a dedicated statistics skeptic to do is to
pour every penny into the next lottery ticket. Because the following
odds probably don't apply to you, right?http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...ds-winning-lot...


You're looking at it from the wrong end. I don't need to count up the
number of tickets purchased and interpret the data to simply start at
the other end and calculate the probability. I don't play the
lottery.

Even in the most earnest applications, statistics will inevitably be
misused. It's just in the nature of human interaction and societal
motives. You are a prime example. Message, propaganda, bias, etc.

Wow, these all ring a bell:

* Who says so? (Does he/she have an axe to grind?)
* How does he/she know? (Does he/she have the resources to know
the facts?)
* What’s missing? (Does he/she give us a complete picture?)
* Did someone change the subject? (Does he/she offer us the right
answer to the wrong problem?)
* Does it make sense? (Is his/her conclusion logical and
consistent with what we already know?)

On Jun 19, 11:32 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Jun 19, 10:04 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Jun 20, 12:21 am, Dan O wrote:

On Jun 19, 7:59 pm, James wrote:

On 20/06/13 12:33, fk wrote:

Statistics can be abused.

And so often are.

I would go so far as to say *usually* are.

Dan, if you believe that, then next time you or your kid or spouse get
seriously ill,

Thanks for the thought (your statement treats it as a forgone
conclusion).

... you need to reject whatever the best doctors in your
area recommend. Because all the remedies will have been tested and
chosen based on statistics.

Oh yeah, the drug companies are awesome.

You also need to throw out your bicycle.

You *are* a smarmy one, aren't you.

Because the materials and
processes used to construct nearly every part will have been managed
by the technique called Statistical Process Control. It's quite
standard in manufacturing.

I'm sure they fudge stuff all the time.

You need to forget about insurance. Insurance companies rely heavily
on data and statistics to not only decide your rates, but to invest
the money you or your employer have paid for premiums. And you
certainly don't want to be associated with a company that uses such
techniques, do you?

Oh yeah, insurance companies are peachy, too.

Speaking of investments, you probably don't want your money in the
bank, let alone the stock market. Banks use statistics heavily in
analyzing their own investments. And if they are *usually* wrong,
they're bound to crash and make you lose all your money. The FDIC
couldn't help, because they use statistics too.

Oh yeah - Banks. (Jeez, man - this is some collection of entities
you've chosen to defend the use of statistics with.)


To the extent that these shining entities - such paradigms of goodness
- use statistics honestly, it is *internally* for the purpose of
keeping themselves afloat in antagonistic circumstances, which IMO is
an abuse.

With respect to the external use of statisitics to influence
perceptions, well...

"There is a general perception that statistical knowledge is all-too-
frequently intentionally misused by finding ways to interpret only the
data that are favorable to the presenter."

Have you never been through an election cycle? Never seen a TV
commercial? Seen "studies" that you took issue with?

Really, the best thing for a dedicated statistics skeptic to do is to
pour every penny into the next lottery ticket. Because the following
odds probably don't apply to you, right?http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...ds-winning-lot...

You're looking at it from the wrong end. I don't need to count up the
number of tickets purchased and interpret the data to simply start at
the other end and calculate the probability. I don't play the
lottery.

Even in the most earnest applications, statistics will inevitably be
misused. It's just in the nature of human interaction and societal
motives. You are a prime example. Message, propaganda, bias, etc.

Wow, these all ring a bell:

* Who says so? (Does he/she have an axe to grind?)
* How does he/she know? (Does he/she have the resources to know
the facts?)
* What’s missing? (Does he/she give us a complete picture?)
* Did someone change the subject? (Does he/she offer us the right
answer to the wrong problem?)
* Does it make sense? (Is his/her conclusion logical and
consistent with what we already know?)

On Sunday, June 16, 2013 8:57:16 AM UTC+2, T0m $herman wrote:
People who start another helmet discussion should be shot or preferable just ignored. Wearing or not wearing a helmet is a non issue for:
- people who wear helmets,
- people who don't wear helmets

so for everone. It only triggers people who have to much time or idiots by default.

Lou

On 6/19/2013 7:22 PM, James wrote:
On 19/06/13 22:27, Duane wrote:
On 6/19/2013 12:54 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
snip
Smaller target? You pile drive in to the ground when you go OTB, and
your head snaps to the right or left. It's not like you're going to
miss the ground.

Went down on my side last night. Head snapped to the right but I was not
going down hard enough to prevent me from stopping it. I will report
that the helmet did NOT cause me to hit my head. I would also say that
I wish my shoulder was wearing a helmet. That smarted.

I've had a few crashes in races and out training over the years. I've
always worn a helmet, mostly because it is the law here and I don't like
fines.

(I took the helmet off one very hot day while climbing Tawonga Gap - a
6% climb - just my luck, a policeman traveling in his car in the
opposite direction stopped and from in his aircon'd cabin, and told me
to put it back on. He was nice enough not to fine me that day.)

I have never damaged a helmet, or my head, in any of those crashes.
Wearing a helmet has never _caused_ me to hit my head either.

I've fallen a few times. Hit my head once. Was glad that there was a
helmet on it at the time.

I think that the spiel is that if you do hit your head wearing a helmet
it's beause of the extra inch or whatever of width and without it your
head miraculously stops before impact.