|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1341
|
|||
|
|||
Steven M. Scharf wrote: Mitch Haley wrote: As opposed to the League of American Hand-Wringers, which has had in place a mandatory helmet law for over a decade. Their magazine will not publish a picture of a caucasian touching a bicycle if he/she isn't wearing a foam hat, and they strongly encourage affiliate clubs to discriminate against unhelmeted riders. Mitch Haley's comment is generally correct. The League does specify that helmets must be worn by all cyclists shown in their magazine's photos. I believe they will allow rare exceptions, especially if the cyclists are obviously indigenous to some other country - but they are determined to promote the fantasy that "real cyclists" never ride without foam hats. However, regarding Steven Scharf's comment: Well part of the discrimination is due to their insurance program. They offer good rates to clubs, but the company than underwrites the insurance has the condition that clubs insured through them must require helmets on all rides. Scharf, you are amazing! There seems to be no end to the mistaken information you give as fact! No, the League's insurance company does NOT require helmets. And although the League does strongly recommend helmets, they do not require them. Here's a link to the "Safety Checklist" they want clubs to use when organizing a ride: http://www.bikeleague.org/members/safeychecklist.pdf Note they "strongly recommend" but do not require helmet use. Here's a link to the sample waiver that their insurance company wants clubs to use: http://www.bikeleague.org/members/sample_waiver.pdf Note that the word "helmet" does not even appear in that document. I ran a League-affiliated century ride for seven years. We had many hundreds of riders each year. I did NOT require helmets, and was never told to require helmets. And lack of a helmet never caused a problem for any rider. It really is time for you to double check your facts before putting your "World's Greatest Authority" stamp of approval on them! |
Ads |
#1342
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Z. wrote: Wrong - your "side" is making statements that helmets are ineffective. It is up to you to back up that claim. Personally, my view on the effectiveness of helmets is this: The certification standard for helmets involves a test for only linear deceleration in a roughly 14 mile per hour impact of a headform, less body, onto a flat surface. I believe that helmets are somewhat effective in mitigating injuries in crashes that duplicate that test. However, I believe most crashes that cause significant injury differ quite a bit from that test. That is, most significant bike crashes involve impact speeds that are higher than 14 mph. And _most_ cyclists have their head still attached to their body! So, not surprisingly, I think that the actual protection of helmets is largely limited to the tests they are designed and certified to pass. I don't know why this would seem surprising. Neither Steven nor I have proposed any "intervention" (so suggesting that on your part is a red herring.) Oh please. Here we are in a thread discussing a mandatory helmet law, and you and Steven are arguing as hard as you can against anything anyone says against that law! |
#1343
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 16:48:54 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote in message et: Well part of the discrimination is due to their insurance program. False. Frank has already shown that this is not true. 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 |
#1344
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 19:40:03 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message : Logical fallacy: burden of proof. We are not proposing an intervention, the burden of proof lies solely with those who are. Wrong - your "side" is making statements that helmets are ineffective. It is up to you to back up that claim. Neither Steven nor I have proposed any "intervention" (so suggesting that on your part is a red herring.) My "side" is challenging the helmet zealots to prove their case, especially in the context of those zealots trying to force their judgment on others (check the thread title). The fact that they seem unable to do so, preferring to resort to ad-hominem, reversed burden of proof, appeals to belief or simply putting their fingers in their ears and chanting "tra la la I'm not listening" may be seen as significant. I am a small part of the group who produce http://www.cyclehelmets.org - a site you denounce as "not credible" but without citing grounds. Others who belong to or advise that group include John Franklin, Britain's foremost cycling expert, Dr Richard Keatinge, a former consultant epidemiologist, Professor Mayer Hillman, Professor John Whitelegg, Dr Robert Davis, Professor John Adams and others (and in the UK the title of professor is not given to any university lecturer with tenure, my friend Prof. Higson is considered a shooting star having achieved a professorship at the age of 40, less than twenty years after his first appointment). You cite as a credible source http://www.bhsi.org, run by Randy Swart who has said in an email to me that he will not correct a known wrong figure because it would not be helpful to those promoting helmets. You downplay your position here - I wonder why? You are inclined to argue ad nauseam against those who are sceptical, chiding them as "anti-helmet" even when there is external objective evidence to disprove this assertion, while at the same time randomly claiming that you are not promoting helmets. Anybody who is prepared to spend literally months arguing the aerodynamic benefit of helmets based on evidence which says the opposite looks, to the outsider, like a helmet zealot of the worst kind. If you are not promoting helmets, why do you spend so much time arguing with those whose knowledge of the research evidence is clearly so much greater than your own? Why not leave it to helmet promoters who have at least studied the evidence in detail? Frank and I are arguing the merits of research evidence from the standpoint of actually having read it - you have admitted openly to working only from abstracts in certain cases - denial of this is pointless, I recently cited the post itself in the archive. Are you simply arguing for the sake of it? You admitted previously that you have not read the 1989 Seattle study - the most influential helmet paper in the world. Have you read it yet? Have you read the papers cited by the Cochrane review? Have you read all the Scuffham papers, including the one which you had not read previously because the library was closed for the holidays? I'll snip the rest of what you say today as well - I'm busy and really don't have time to deal with your trolling and continual bogus arguments. Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening". Nice bit of projection, though - amazing how often you have plenty of time to bandy ad-hominem arguments, but run out just before you get round to posting actual evidence. Congratulations on your skilful steering of the thread away from your failure to cite evidence for your assertions re high-mileage cyclists and back into the ad-hominem, where you are evidently at your most comfortable. To clarify: your evidence is still awaited for the twin assertions that high-mileage cyclists (definition of high-mileage not yet given and also required) have a greater annual crash rate and a higher helmet wearing rate. 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 |
#1345
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. There really is no argument over the logic that helmets do reduce head injuries, but I would like the option of making the decision to wear a helmet for myself. I have seen pedestrians who needed helmets, and this is a true statement, having seen people slip on ice and hit their heads. I was born in Chicago and went through some nasty winters where the streets and sidewalks were covered in sheet ice. The streets got salted but the sidewalks didn't, and there were plenty of downed pedestrians. My sister broke her hip in one such incident, bad for her, but better than breaking her head. Just throwing in a different point of view here. Bill Baka |
#1346
|
|||
|
|||
Riley Geary wrote:
snip Well, how about the fact that in every US case for which we have reasonably reliable data, the imposition of a mandatory helmet law for motorcyclists has resulted in a significant *decrease* in the apparent safety effectiveness of those motorcycle helmets? Riley Geary As a bicyclist who also likes to ride motorcycles I can say that a helmet has a very negative effect on perception of ones surroundings. This is mainly due to the effect of messing up the ability to hear things that a full head motorcycle helmet causes. Bare headed I am much more able to sense my environment and correct for things as opposed to being encased in a head only protecting helmet. At any rate, motorcycle and bicycle helmet issues should be separate due to the type of helmet involved and the speeds. Bill Baka |
#1347
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Baka wrote:
As a bicyclist who also likes to ride motorcycles I can say that a helmet has a very negative effect on perception of ones surroundings. This is mainly due to the effect of messing up the ability to hear things that a full head motorcycle helmet causes. Bare headed I am much more able to sense my environment and correct for things as opposed to being encased in a head only protecting helmet. This is true. However look at the statistics on fatalities of motorcyclists in states that dropped their motorcycle MHLs. Not surprising that the rates went way up, i.e. in Lousiana they went from 26 to 55, in Kentucky from 24 to 38 (this was for the year after the repeal). Not magnitudes difference, but around 50-100% increase. Still, motorcyclists should be free to make the decision to wear a helmet or not, just as cyclists should. But it does no good for people to try and claim that helmets are ineffective, when all the studies prove otherwise. The bike club I was in was very pro-choice in terms of helmets, until they were forced to require helmets due to the terms of insurance from L.A.B.. Most people had been wearing helmets even prior to the requirement, but it wasn't a big deal if someone showed up without one (unless the ride leader required them). |
#1348
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message ink.net... Riley Geary wrote: I'm afraid you're still attempting to read far more into the Florida data than is actually warranted, despite all the reasons I laid out in a previous post as to why they should be treated with considerable caution. Every study suffers from the possibility of self-selection. The term more commonly used in the literature to describe the phenomenom we're talking about is "selective recruitment." I don't read too much into any study, but the Florida data at least finally is a direct comparison in injury and fatality rates between helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists, when accidents occur. So what do you make of the Florida motorcycle data indicating helmeted motorcyclists there were twice as likely to find themselves in a fatal crash relative to their bare-headed counterparts, at least until the MHL was repealed in 2000? Or do you think that bicyclists are somehow exempt from the same sort of risk compensation processes evidently at work among motorcyclists? It's far more useful than statistical data from New Zealand, where you're comparing whole population data without taking into account all the external factors. In any study you're going to have the problem that, on average, the people that wear helmets are going to be the higher-educated, more careful, more experienced, riders. In the absence of a MHL, this will probably be the case--at least in places like North America, Australia, and New Zealand where helmets have long since become a familiar part of the local cycling culture. I doubt the same generalizations would necessarily apply in those parts of Europe, Asia, and elsewhere that have seen relatively little use of bike helmets thus far. It certainly wouldn't be the most experienced cyclists in such cultures who would be among the earliest adopters of helmets. Rather, it would probably be among the most fearful and/or cautious subgroup of cyclists. I don't know how you could ever account for this self-selection factor in a study. Very simple really--just observe the differences in apparent helmet effectiveness between states with a MHL and states without such a behaviour modifying statute; or even better, the before-and-after changes observed within the same state as it either adopts or repeals a MHL. Not only do we have the examples of Florida and Louisiana that I've already discussed, we also have SDS data from Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, and Pennsylvania as well that indicates helmet users in most states with a MHL for motorcyclists have a worse safety record overall relative to their unhelmeted counterparts. Riley Geary |
#1349
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message nk.net... 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. Once again, you seem to be confusing an apparent safety benefit, resulting most likely from selective recruitment of helmet users among Florida's bicyclists, with the real thing--which remains to be determined, but is almost certainly much less than 40%. Or do you really believe that bike helmets are even more effective at preventing death among bicyclists than motorcycle helmets have been demonstrated to be among motorcyclists? This might actually be the case for the relatively small minority of non-traffic-related cycling fatalities, but is almost certainly not the case for the overwhelming majority of traffic-related cycling fatalities. 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. We hardly need any "double-blind" tests, just accurately recorded helmet use data for both fatally and non-fatally injured bicyclists--the same as what we have for a significant number of states where motorcyclists are concerned. Unfortunately, such data has been exceedingly hard to come by thus far where bicyclists are concerned. 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. They are hardly "immaterial." Let's assume for the moment that the real safety benefit of bike helmets really was a 40% reduction in the likelihood of a fatal injury. Would it really be to anyone's benefit if the imposition of a MHL on otherwise unwilling bicyclists thereby caused those now helmeted cyclists to get into potentially fatal crashes 3 times as often on average as they had when they didn't use helmets? The fact that helmets reduce injuries and fatalities in the unlikely event of a crash does not warrant the passage of intrusive laws. The argument that risk compensation and the over-hyped safety benefits of helmets conspire to prevent the reduction in injuries and fatalities promised by the helmet promoters is what should really be effective in defeating these needlessly intrusive and counterproductive 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. But do we really want to mindlessly encourage helmet use even in the absence of a MHL? The case of Utah seems rather cautionary with respect to motorcycle helmets. Utah is the only non-MHL state I'm aware of where the substantial majority of motorcyclists (70%) still use motorcycle helmets, with the result being that motorcycle helmet use has no apparent overall safety benefit at all. Riley Geary |
#1350
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |