#71
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
On Jul 12, 10:14*pm, !Jones wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:00:30 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tom Sherman °_° wrote: No, no, no. Try the whole population studies of cyclists in places like Australia and New Zealand as examples. Yes, yes, yes. Let me try it this way: I will be the researcher and you're the population; n=1. *Thus, I'm doing a "whole population study." * Based upon my observations, the entire population lacks a clue as to what a "whole population study" is. The problem is "whole population" means one thing in the language of a statistician, and (usually) another thing in the context of studying what happens to the citizens of a country. Tom is referring to the fact that, based on faulty case-control studies with self-selected subjects, helmets became mandatory for the whole population of Australia, then New Zealand. And despite the wonderful predictions, there was no detectable benefit. Again, helmets on all cyclists - or as close to "all" as strong promotion and strict enforcement could achieve - brought no reduction in serious head injuries per remaining cyclist. Jones, have you read Scuffham, P.A. et.al., "Trends in Cycling Injuries in New Zealand Under Voluntary Helmet Use," 1997, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol 29, No 1 ? Check it out. - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Extended stems
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:50:52 -0700 (PDT), Brian Huntley
wrote: On Jul 12, 3:06*pm, wrote: On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:36:55 -0400, Still Just Me *- wrote: On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 23:43:53 -0700 (PDT), Chalo wrote: Andre Jute wrote: !Jones wrote: OK, we had our helmets on... without them, it would have been E-room visit for sure. *(Never again will I mount any bike without my helmet!!!) *It was a very bad crash; however, we survived... at about 60 years old, that's the best one hopes for. I'm sorry to hear about your fall. We don't mention helmets here because the helmet haters start foaming at the mouth. This is the helmet that I imagine you wearing, And http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK...lmet-large.jpg Chalo Here's a photo of Andre, in helmet, ready to ride his girl's bike: http://thefedorachronicles.com/vinta...an-pith-helmet... Dear SJM, Frank Lenz, round-the-world attempt, India, 1895, Victor front-half-heart suspension pneumatic: *http://i10.tinypic.com/5ywikhu.jpg Other pith-helmet photos and illustrations of Lenz in the article, before he was murdered in Armenia: http://www.la84foundation.org/Sports...me_26/outXXVI0... Cheers, Carl Fogel Joff Summerfield recently wore a pith helmet on his around-the-world ride (journal and photos he http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/joff1) completed last November. Since he was on a penny-farthing, the helmet wasn't all that strange looking by comparison. Dear Brian, Please, make no odious comparisons, lest we end up discussing "strange looking" headgear and dwarf safety riders like these: http://i39.tinypic.com/1z38lzd.jpg The two stylish riders are Thomas Gaskell Allen and William Lewis Sachtleben, authors of "Across Asia on a Bicycle"--they left St. Louis, Missouri, in June, 1890, the day after they graduated from Washington University, and rode 15,000 miles in three years: http://books.google.com/books?id=ktAoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP19 Cheers, Carl Fogel |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:45:20 -0500, !Jones wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:14:08 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech RonSonic wrote: I often ride those trails without a helmet as there's nothing much to hit your head on. Yeah, well... if you want a sermon, you're asking the wrong person. *I* wear a helmet. Assuming you're of the age of consent, you make your own decisions. Which is really the point. The good citizens of Australia and New Zealand don't get to make their own decisions because legislators using flawed data made helmets mandatory. Since they did that there has been no evidence that the incidence of head injuries has improved. Helmet zealots will tell you the rate of head injuries declined in Australia, but ignore the fact that the number of people cycling reduced by a larger percentage, so the incidence per cyclist actually went up. There was a recent court case in the UK where a judge said a cyclist not wearing a helmet is partly responsible for his head injuries if a car ploughs into him/her. This is the unreasonable thin end of the wedge for helmet compulsion. Even the helmet manufacturers don't claim any benefit for helmets in collisions above 14 mph (I think that's the figure). Most of the cars round here are doing quite a bit more than 14mph when they pass me. I believe even some states in the US have helmet compulsion now. It's fast becoming a no-choice issue, when there's still no compelling evidence that they do any good. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
Peter Grange writes:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:45:20 -0500, !Jones wrote: On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:14:08 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech RonSonic wrote: I often ride those trails without a helmet as there's nothing much to hit your head on. Yeah, well... if you want a sermon, you're asking the wrong person. *I* wear a helmet. Assuming you're of the age of consent, you make your own decisions. Which is really the point. The good citizens of Australia and New Zealand don't get to make their own decisions because legislators using flawed data made helmets mandatory. Since they did that there has been no evidence that the incidence of head injuries has improved. Helmet zealots will tell you the rate of head injuries declined in Australia, but ignore the fact that the number of people cycling reduced by a larger percentage, so the incidence per cyclist actually went up. There was a recent court case in the UK where a judge said a cyclist not wearing a helmet is partly responsible for his head injuries if a car ploughs into him/her. This is the unreasonable thin end of the wedge for helmet compulsion. Even the helmet manufacturers don't claim any benefit for helmets in collisions above 14 mph (I think that's the figure). Most of the cars round here are doing quite a bit more than 14mph when they pass me. Way to skew the facts. Most collisions dont happen at top speeds. They happen in stop start traffic. And not all are "head on", they are "brushes" which cause the cyclist to topple. I believe even some states in the US have helmet compulsion now. It's fast becoming a no-choice issue, when there's still no compelling evidence that they do any good. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 20:07:41 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote: Tom is referring to the fact that, based on faulty case-control studies with self-selected subjects, ... Which was what I pointed out right up front. I believe I said, "The study has serious design issues," when I mentioned it. You'll have to define the term "case-control" because it's not in my vocabulary; one sees that type of study (Thompson, et. al.) called "correlational" or "comparative" in the US literature; however, I have seen at least one text (Gay, et. al., 1998) call it a "causal-comparaitve" design... which led students into deep confusion because the *last* term one may use in such a design is "cause". Jones |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 23:18:08 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech Still Just Me
- wrote: On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:42:55 -0500, !Jones wrote: You will never see such a study. For similar reasons, you'll never see a study on smoking that shows it causes lung illness; you'll never see a study that shows firing bullets into your brain causes death, either. The "helmets don't help" crowd have difficulty understanding the issues with these (helmet-injury) statistics. There are other factors besides helmets at work here, obviously. I recall about 1995 or so, Austin, TX passed an ordinance requiring bicyclists to wear helmets... it was not well received; people would wear helmets with no straps, etc. Then the state repealed its motorcycle helmet law, leaving Austin in the absurd position of requiring a helmet of a mo-ped rider if he or she were pedalling the machine; however, under engine power, no helmet was required. Jones |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:07:52 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Peter Grange
wrote: Which is really the point. The good citizens of Australia and New Zealand don't get to make their own decisions because legislators using flawed data made helmets mandatory... Well, they're a democracy; the good citizens of Australia and New Zealand can jolly well vote their legislators out of office if they don't like what they do. If you don't live there, it's not your problem. Jones |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:07:52 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Peter Grange
wrote: There was a recent court case in the UK where a judge said a cyclist not wearing a helmet is partly responsible for his head injuries if a car ploughs into him/her. This is the unreasonable thin end of the wedge for helmet compulsion. Do you happen to have a citation on that? Actually, I think it's "bang on" in that it goes directly to personal freedom. My personal freedom ends where I expect you to pay me when I'm injured for exercising it. I would not compel you to wear a helmet; however, I would certainly agree that, should you choose not to use a helmet and (hopefully never) suffer head trauma, then it's your problem, not mine, even if I'm at fault for the precipitating event. I saw a personal injury insurance policy that explicitly didn't apply to any injury suffered if one sustained it while participating in a whole list of sports without a helmet. Actually, you could have your foot amputated and, if you weren't wearing a helmet, the policy technically would be void. Jones |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
On Jul 13, 5:07*am, !Jones wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:07:52 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Peter Grange wrote: There was a recent court case in the UK where a judge said a cyclist not wearing a helmet is partly responsible for his head injuries if a car ploughs into him/her. This is the unreasonable thin end of the wedge for helmet compulsion. Do you happen to have a citation on that? *Actually, I think it's "bang on" in that it goes directly to personal freedom. *My personal freedom ends where I expect you to pay me when I'm injured for exercising it. *I would not compel you to wear a helmet; however, I would certainly agree that, should you choose not to use a helmet and (hopefully never) suffer head trauma, then it's your problem, not mine, even if I'm at fault for the precipitating event. In Oregon, we have a MHL for children under 16, however the same statute provides that the failure to wear a helmet may not be offered as evidence of comparative fault in a personal injury action -- filed by any plaintiff, regardless of age.-- Jay Beattie. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 07:07:40 -0500, !Jones wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:07:52 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Peter Grange wrote: There was a recent court case in the UK where a judge said a cyclist not wearing a helmet is partly responsible for his head injuries if a car ploughs into him/her. This is the unreasonable thin end of the wedge for helmet compulsion. Do you happen to have a citation on that? Actually, I think it's "bang on" in that it goes directly to personal freedom. My personal freedom ends where I expect you to pay me when I'm injured for exercising it. I would not compel you to wear a helmet; however, I would certainly agree that, should you choose not to use a helmet and (hopefully never) suffer head trauma, then it's your problem, not mine, even if I'm at fault for the precipitating event. I have absolutely no problem with personal choice, and taking the consequences with that choice. There is however no credible evidence that wearing a helmet will afford me any protection in a motor vehicle accident, so saying I take some responsibility for my injuries if I'm not wearing one is just plain nonsense. I saw a personal injury insurance policy that explicitly didn't apply to any injury suffered if one sustained it while participating in a whole list of sports without a helmet. Actually, you could have your foot amputated and, if you weren't wearing a helmet, the policy technically would be void. Jones |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unicycling extended my lifeline! | SkierAlex | Unicycling | 4 | June 2nd 08 05:53 PM |
Unicycling extended my lifeline! | uniaddict | Unicycling | 0 | June 2nd 08 07:24 AM |
Unicycling extended my lifeline! | nimblelight | Unicycling | 0 | June 1st 08 11:05 PM |
hyper-extended themb | mornish | Unicycling | 17 | June 24th 06 06:43 AM |
Extended Cloak of Invisibility | Danny Colyer | UK | 7 | December 14th 03 11:30 PM |