|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1321
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:08:42 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote in message et: Oh please. There are no "sides" here. There are two people, Guy and Frank, that ignore the volumes of evidence, and there is the ROW (rest of world), that looks at things objectively. For certain values of objective. And note that the list of sceptics is substantially larger than Scharf asserts - and includes the UK's foremost cycling expert, among others. Always remember who it is that is proposing an intervention, and where the burden of proof therefore lies. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound |
Ads |
#1322
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:08:42 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote in message et: It is true that cycling is not a dangerous activity, and that no mandatory helmet laws are necessary, but there is no debate that helmeted cyclists fare better than non-helmeted cyclists, when crashes do occur. Forgot to insert the standard rejoinder to this particular canard: that assumes that crashes are equally likely in the helmeted and unhelmeted community. The one thing that almost all the helmet studies prove beyond question is that the crash rates are different between the two communities. Unfortunately those with the research budgets are too busy trying to replicate TR&T 1989 to find out why this is. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound |
#1323
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:27:22 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message : Let's define their "side" as the inside of the tiny little circle that includes Guy, Frank, and maybe 5 or 6 others who are not arguing on this thread at present. Including the CTC, Britain's largest cycling organisation, with 80,000 members. The entire board is sceptical and they played a leading role in defeating the helmet bill last year. Keep digging, Bill. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound |
#1324
|
|||
|
|||
Benjamin Lewis writes:
Bill Z. wrote: "Just zis Guy, you know?" writes: My "side"'s argument is that the evidence is far from clear,and that the burden of proof remains solidly with those proposing intervention, not with those urging scepticism. On the contrary, your side has been claiming that helmets are not effective and "our" side is suggesting that your claims are based on inadequate evidence. We are the ones being skeptical, and we are not "promoting" helmets so we have no burden of proof - rather, it is your responsibility to prove your claims. rest of Guys' garbage snipped, together with the rest of his messages today - he's in "reply to everything I say" mode again and I've more important things to do than to respond to long cut and paste jobs posted by this troll. It's interesting how the stuff you snip, which you claim offhand to be garbage, always seems to be the strongest arguments against your criticisms... I wonder to whom you think this tactic is convincing? I didn't find it particular convincing (the first few lines told me it was a re-hash of his previous rants) and snipped it for the reason I said - I have a bunch of things to do today and really don't have time for the umpteenth iteration of a reply to a cut and paste job. We've gone over what is wrong with Guy's arguments time and time again, whether you like it or not. If you prefer, however, I'll include you in Guy's and Frank's tiny circle. They could use company - I'm sure they are lonely. :-) I'll ignore the other three messages from Guy (i.e., flush them unread.) -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#1325
|
|||
|
|||
Steven M. Scharf wrote: Bill Z. wrote: On the contrary, your side has been claiming that helmets are not effective and "our" side is suggesting that your claims are based on inadequate evidence. Oh please. There are no "sides" here. There are two people, Guy and Frank, that ignore the volumes of evidence, and there is the ROW (rest of world), that looks at things objectively. To me, that's an amazing statement. It's made by a person who has, IIRC, posted no properly cited references to any papers studying this issue. And it's being made about the two posters who have posted the greatest number of such references. I'm quite familiar with the "volumes of evidence," as shown by the citations I've used. I'm familiar with the content of dozens of pertinent research papers, including their strong points, their weak points, and the discussions that have taken place in the research community. From Mr. Scharf's posts, I'm led to believe he is almost totally unfamiliar with any of the above - apparently because he feels, as The World's Greatest Authority, that there's no need to actually learn anything! ;-) It is true that cycling is not a dangerous activity, and that no mandatory helmet laws are necessary, but there is no debate that helmeted cyclists fare better than non-helmeted cyclists, when crashes do occur. Have you actually read, say, "Trends in Cycle Injury in New Zealand under Voluntary Helmet Use"? Do you realize it belies your final sentence above? |
#1327
|
|||
|
|||
|
#1328
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Z. wrote:
Sigh - more propaganda and debating tricks. Posting "the greatest number of such references" and then (purposely?) misinterpreting them, while ignoring anything that disagrees with their world view, does not constitute a respectable argument, and that is what Krygowski et al. do. I think that most everyone recognizes this by now. The data I posted was uniquely relevant, because it compared injury and fatality rates among helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists, as well as pedestrians, and motorists. It also provided the actual numbers of helmeted versus non-helmetd cyclists, so the data could be normalized, and even when normalized there was a significant difference in fatality rates. Gardening and sofa-sitting injury rates are not going to impress the Ontario ministers when they decide whether or not to enact the MHL. Fortunately, they wont ever see such nonsense. |
#1329
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message nk.net... .... It is true that cycling is not a dangerous activity, and that no mandatory helmet laws are necessary, but there is no debate that helmeted cyclists fare better than non-helmeted cyclists, when crashes do occur. I doubt that even most helmet skeptics would deny that bike helmets confer at least some benefit for those cyclists who do find themselves involved in a crash, but the real question of course is: a) just how significant a benefit is confered? (obviously not nearly as much as the 30-35% benefit demonstrated for motorcycle helmets, let alone the absurdly inflated 85% figure still quoted by most helmet promoters); and more importantly b) does increased helmet use, particularly that produced by a mandatory helmet law, actually result in a net increase or decrease in the overall safety record of the cyclists involved? A simplistic focus on just the first part of this question while ignoring all the implications inherent in the second part is of no benefit at all to either cyclists or society in general. Riley Geary |
#1330
|
|||
|
|||
Riley Geary wrote:
I doubt that even most helmet skeptics would deny that bike helmets confer at least some benefit for those cyclists who do find themselves involved in a crash, but the real question of course is: Unfortunately, there are a few people that do deny this. Not many, but a few. a) just how significant a benefit is confered? (obviously not nearly as much as the 30-35% benefit demonstrated for motorcycle helmets, let alone the absurdly inflated 85% figure still quoted by most helmet promoters); and more importantly It can't be reduced to a single percentage. For fatalities, the data shows around a 40% benefit, when crashes occur. 40% is not magnitudes of difference, but unfortunately it is high enough for some people to use as a justification for repressive laws. b) does increased helmet use, particularly that produced by a mandatory helmet law, actually result in a net increase or decrease in the overall safety record of the cyclists involved? I doubt if you'll ever find data that specific. You can't do a double-blind test, for obvious reasons. A simplistic focus on just the first part of this question while ignoring all the implications inherent in the second part is of no benefit at all to either cyclists or society in general. Well I don't want to ignore the implications, but they are immaterial. The fact that helmets reduce injuries and fatalities in the unlikely event of a crash does not warrant the passage of intrusive laws. We need to focus on the fact that serious crashes occur infrequently enough that education, rather than mandates, are sufficient to encourage helmet use. I can assure you that if anyone shows up at hearings in Ontario, and argues that a helmet law isn't needed because more people hurt themselves gardening (or couch-sitting) than cycling, that this will only serve to strengthen the resolve of the misguided ministers pushing the MHL. We need to argue from defensible positions, and not descend to that sort of lunacy. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | Social Issues | 1716 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
Another doctor questions helmet research | JFJones | General | 80 | August 16th 04 10:44 AM |
First Helmet : jury is out. | Walter Mitty | General | 125 | June 26th 04 02:00 AM |
Fule face helmet - review | Mikefule | Unicycling | 8 | January 14th 04 05:56 PM |