A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Recumbent Biking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

advisor wanted



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 30th 05, 02:21 PM
Peter Clinch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default advisor wanted

wrote:

Well, you seem to want to be able to take all kinds of poetic license.
Are you opposed to my doing the same?


So what poetic license have I taken?

It's like the scene in Jerry Maguire where Tom Cruise's client
isn't interested in Nice Words, he wants Tom's character to "show
me the money!". The change is I'm asking you to show me the
casualty savings. The data is there for you to look at,
governments with a vested interest in showing their mandatory
helmet laws have produced a beneficial effect haven't been able to
find those savings though. In the UK the government is pro-helmet
and seeks to encourage their use, yet in a written reply to a
parliamentray question the responsible minister had to admit there
was no known case of helmets being preoven to improve safety, and
he had a whole department of civil service statisticians to help him.

So:
"Show me the casualty savings!"

BS, and you know it.


Actually, I know it's true. Again, the data and research is out
there for several countries, so you show me the data that tells us
the extent to which compulsory seatbelt laws have improved things.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Nice that you have socialized medicine. We don't. But were you to go
to the ER what do you figure it costs you in terms of paying yourself?
If you are not aware of this factor, it means figuring out what the
time in the hospital cost you in terms of how much an hour you get
paid. The same principle can be applied to driving across town to save
a dime a galloin on gas, FWIW.


But this assumes I'd be spending more time there. As the
neurosurgeon expert witnesses observed by Brian Walker pointed out,
it isn't actually as straightforward as a helmet makes you safer,
period, and as David Jamieson, UK Government Minister, had to
admit, the [UK] Government knows of no case where cyclist safety
has improved with increasing helmet use (and again I emphasize that
this man is *pro* helmet).

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Again, where is your ddata on the non-reported accidnets?


Again, the non-serious accidents don't get reported, because they
are by definition not very serious. However, again I point out to
you that if serious accidents are being downgraded then there
should be a drop in the rate for serious injuries. There isn't.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

The only trend visible here is that you are using apples to make a
case about oranges and are remarkably without any data concerning less
than serious accidents. That is what is patently visible.


I'll tell you again.
The non-serious accidents don't get reported, because they are by
definition not very serious. However, again I point out to you
that if serious accidents are being downgraded then there should be
a drop in the rate for serious injuries. There isn't.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Tell it to the MIT researcher who was just fired for manupulating data
and using false data. He got caught, but now everyone ois wondering
about all the previous stuff that went through this process without
detection. Tell it to the cold fusion gang, too.


The national figures for several different nations are widely
available in raw form to be used and interpreted by anyone as they
see fit. Bogus use tends to be found out in time, as this chap at
MIT has discovered, but since one is working with openly available
data and there are lots of folks who know what they're on about
such cases don't remain at large indefinitely. And we've been
looking at these figures for a *long* time now, and even with a
vested interest in showing that the helmets they've mandated are
working well, governments who have introduced an MHL have been
conspicuous in their inability to show any clear casualty savings.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

See above. Even those folks you are waxing poetic about can be fooled.
Happens all the time.


Why do you assume that it must be me that's been fooled, and it
can't be you. You seem to be working on nothing but assumptions.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Precisely, and what about that helmet in those situations? Did they
prevent a serious injury to the point it bacame non-reportable? What
would the cost have been had the lack of a helmet elevated that injury
to a reportable one? ThatIS the problem with using one category of
data to make a categorical statement about bike injuries.


Again I have to point out that if helmets are degrading serious
injuries to being non serious then that will have an affect on the
serious figures. That you don't catch them elsewhere doesn't
affect a drop in the serious figures, but there is no such drop.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Hold it, now you seem to be on the other side. Either they work or
they don't.


Don't be simplistic. A good thick leather jacket will protect
against stray duckshot quite effectively, but that doesn't mean
it's worth a damn against targeted high velocity rifle fire.

With regard to helmet efficacy (or not) I have been stating the
point that they are no proven use against serious head injuries.
That is very different to saving you a nasty graze and a headache.
I've had those doing housework, yet in common with almost the
whole population I don't feel the need for a helmet doing my housework.

Not true. That is an ASSumption.


"Show me the casualty savings!"

But, one or two or three at some point become those hundreds or
thousands do they not?


They should, yes. So why do those thousands not add up to any
improvement? Perhaps the anecdotes aren't as clear as the reports
assume them to be?

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Aggregate data is like a generalization. There are always exceptions.
Anecdotal evidence is that one and two and three. . .


And since the aggregate is no change, that suggests that there are
2 or 3 the other way where they made things worse...

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Getting up out of bed is far more hazardous. So what? Neither compare
to cycling in any form.


But they do compare very well. Pedestrian serious injury rates
from RTAs have closely mirrored cyclist serious injury rates over
the time we've got figures for, and this happens in different
countries too. Where one jumps, the other jumps (as happened after
compulsory seatbelt legislation has been passed). So they do
compare, because they act the same way over time. One is an
excellent control for the other.

walked far more miles than I have cycled over the last 14-15. Walking
has only resulted in a tweaked ankle or two.


You might tell people on ventilators after being run over when they
were crossing the road that your anecdote is more meaningful than
theirs.

One last thought, and you really should address this with real data
rather than on-the-fly assumptions, because the data is out the

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Ads
  #22  
Old October 30th 05, 02:23 PM
rBOB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default advisor wanted

Again, you are using apples to make statements about oranges and are clueless that you are doing it.

I'm agnostic on this issue and generally stay out of these discussions
but I wish you would stop writing this over and over. It is perfectly
legitimate to ask: Why has society deemed it appropriate / necessary /
mandatory to wear a helmet while cycling but not while walking,
driving, running, descending staircases, etc, etc...)?

  #23  
Old October 30th 05, 03:07 PM
Michael J. Klein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default advisor wanted

rBOB wrote:
I have a few pictures of my LIGHT PURPLE Earth Cycles Sunset Lowracer [TM] that I could post, but no convenient place to post them.



Good advice from others on the photos. If you don't want to open new
accounts, the easiest way to post the odd photo or two on the web (IMO)
is http://tinypic.com/

You don't need to register or do anything special--just upload it from
your desktop.

also, imageshack.us is an excellent free image hosting service.

--
Michael J. Klein & Asian Castings Consortium

Yangmei Jen (Hukou), Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC
Please replace mousepotato with asiancastings
Mozilla Thunderbird
  #24  
Old October 30th 05, 03:19 PM
Rich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default advisor wanted

rBOB wrote:

It is perfectly
legitimate to ask: Why has society deemed it appropriate / necessary /
mandatory to wear a helmet while cycling but not while walking,
driving, running, descending staircases, etc, etc...)?


Possible answers:
We're moving much slower while walking
We have seatbelts and airbags for driving
We also moving slower runnning then biking
We have banisters to hold onto while descending staircases

The U.S. is a safety consious country when it comes to personal
activities. Right or wrong, helments are the safety item of choice for
any activity involving moving at a speed greater then running (roller
skating, skateboards, skiiing, etc..). It's an easy sell.

Rich
  #25  
Old October 30th 05, 03:40 PM
Butch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default advisor wanted

Hi Peter, Sorry for the delay in response but the weather is so great
I have been out riding. I am sorry if I upset you so much, I suspect
you must be quite young to be so naive. You don't seem to get the
point that when a helmet works the accident is not major and is not
reported. For your information in our country Health care is so
expensive that most people seldom go to ER. In fact belive it or not
the fellow that broke his leg in two places not only did not go to the
ER but finished the ride another 40 miles on the broken leg (he had no
insurance). It was only days later when he could not walk that a friend
and xray tech snuck him into a clinic after hours and xrayed the leg.
The man who landed on his head was taken in an ambulance, I seriously
doubt if anyone at the hospital took any data. I am 62 years old and
have a wife and 34 year old son, together we have been to the ER 7
times and 2 of those were for the pregnancy and two for appendix.
Where I live if you call an ambulance you get a bill for $462.00 and we
are less than 2 miles from the hospital. In my opinion as a retired
engineer the medical industry has the poorest form of statistical data
of anyone. For example my Mom got a mitral valve replacement aprox. 20
years ago, she was one of the first to get a valve made from the muscle
of a pig. Her doctor took me aside and said, he was sorry they had to
use that valve because they could not get the mechanical model to fit.
He said no way she would live 7 years. She went back to the Dr 18
months later it was fine, 5 years later the Dr wanted her to come back
in for more tests, she refused because it was to far and she had no
transportation, the Dr sent an ambulance to the house and did the
tests. Sounds great huh, but 17 years after the valve replacement she
died, from other causes, I called the Dr and asked if he wanted the
heart to examine, he said no he had written his paper and was no longer
interested. I talk to cancer patients often they say that the Dr's
are only interested in what happens for 5 years after that they don't
seem to care. As for your comments about pedestrian injuries/ deaths
in the UK, I believe you, I have been to London several times you drive
on the wrong side of the road and even have written on the curbs LOOK
RIGHT trying to warn the rest of the world that the crazy Brits are
coming from the wrong side.haha That ought to keep you going for a
week. I am going out and enjoy another perfect day.
Happy Trails Butch

  #26  
Old October 30th 05, 05:25 PM
Colin McKenzie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default advisor wanted

Lest anyone think Peter is a lone voice...

Butch wrote:
Hi Peter, Sorry for the delay in response but the weather is so great
I have been out riding. I am sorry if I upset you so much, I suspect
you must be quite young to be so naive. You don't seem to get the
point that when a helmet works the accident is not major and is not
reported.


Which should mean, if they work, that reported injury rates go down as
more people wear them. Whereas what we find is that the trend for
cyclists is the same as for pedestrians regardless of changes in
cyclists' helmet-wearing rate.

For your information in our country Health care is so
expensive that most people seldom go to ER.


Luckily Peter is quoting UK stats, where people go to Casualty (ER)
for any injury they haven't got a plaster to fit. Among other things,
these stats show walking and cycling to be about equally hazardous,
and to vary the same way over time - despite cycle helmet wearing
rates increasing from 0 to about half of cyclists in the last 20 years.

One of the reasons people perceive cycling to be dangerous is the
relentless propaganda saying it is, from those promoting helmets.

Wear a helmet, if you wish, to prevent those small injuries you're not
going to go to the ER for. But forget about it saving your life.

Colin McKenzie

--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

  #27  
Old October 30th 05, 06:08 PM
Tony Raven
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default advisor wanted

wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:43:01 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote:


But it isn't "misguided advice", it is reporting the simple truth
that population data does not show any noticable improvement in
head injury rates with increased helmet wearing. That that *fact*
runs counter to "common sense" doesn't make it wrong.


It is misguided because it concerns only "serious" accidents and I'm
betting you agree that far more less than "serious" accidents happen
than serious. Where are the stats for those, the ones that without a
helmet might have called for an ER visit and stitching?

Put -'em up if you gottem, but I'm lookin' forward to your sounds of
silence.


I'll put them up for Pete if I may.

Do you know the definitions of a "serious" injury? In most countries
your "ER visit and stitching" would be counted as serious in the
official definitions.

In the US, in 1991 18% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 568,000
cyclist accidents requiring hospital treatment. 12% were head injuries.
By 2000, 30% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 627,160 cyclist
accidents. 12% were head injuries. So whatever all those extra helmets
were doing they were not reducing head injuries.

In the UK the proportion of female under-16 cyclists wearing helmets is
double that of males. The proportion female under 16 cyclists suffering
head injuries is virtually identical to that of males. So whatever all
those extra helmets are doing for the girls, they are not protecting
them from head injuries.

The country with the lowest head injury rate for cyclists is Holland.
They also have the lowest helmet wearing rate in the developed world at
0.1%. Curiously the USA is the reverse with six times the death rate per
km cycled and a 38% helmet wearing rate.

In Australia where helmets are mandatory and enforced, one state has
repealed the helmet law. That state now has the highest cycling rate
and lowest head injury rate in Australia.

Starting to see a pattern?

Whatever common sense is telling you about the protective effect of
helmets, experience around the world says its wrong.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon
  #28  
Old October 30th 05, 06:12 PM
Rich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default advisor wanted

Tony Raven wrote:

In the US, in 1991 18% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 568,000
cyclist accidents requiring hospital treatment. 12% were head injuries.
By 2000, 30% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 627,160 cyclist
accidents. 12% were head injuries. So whatever all those extra helmets
were doing they were not reducing head injuries.

In the UK the proportion of female under-16 cyclists wearing helmets is
double that of males. The proportion female under 16 cyclists suffering
head injuries is virtually identical to that of males. So whatever all
those extra helmets are doing for the girls, they are not protecting
them from head injuries.

The country with the lowest head injury rate for cyclists is Holland.
They also have the lowest helmet wearing rate in the developed world at
0.1%. Curiously the USA is the reverse with six times the death rate per
km cycled and a 38% helmet wearing rate.

In Australia where helmets are mandatory and enforced, one state has
repealed the helmet law. That state now has the highest cycling rate
and lowest head injury rate in Australia.


Very interesting information, and I'd like to read more. Can you post
links to the studies or web sites where you got them?
  #29  
Old October 30th 05, 06:23 PM
Tony Raven
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default advisor wanted

Rich wrote:
rBOB wrote:

It is perfectly
legitimate to ask: Why has society deemed it appropriate / necessary /
mandatory to wear a helmet while cycling but not while walking,
driving, running, descending staircases, etc, etc...)?


Possible answers:
We're moving much slower while walking
We have seatbelts and airbags for driving
We also moving slower runnning then biking
We have banisters to hold onto while descending staircases

The U.S. is a safety consious country when it comes to personal
activities. Right or wrong, helments are the safety item of choice for
any activity involving moving at a speed greater then running (roller
skating, skateboards, skiiing, etc..). It's an easy sell.


Which is curious seeing as cycling helmets are not designed or certified
for speeds higher than running. If your assertion was right then the
manufacturers would surely be designing for and claiming protection for
higher than running speeds but they don't.

In addition to which the risk of head injuries from trips, falls etc
while walking is just the same as the risk of head injuries while
cycling. Since many many more people walk and more often, why are they
not the primary target for helmets?

Cycling is a very safe activity compared to all the other risks people
take in their daily lives but for some reason people want to portray it
as so uniquely dangerous that it requires special protective equipment.
And guess what? The number one reason people give for not cycling is
its dangerous. I wonder where they got that idea from?

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon
  #30  
Old October 30th 05, 06:48 PM
Bertie Wiggins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default advisor wanted

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:25:02 +0000, Colin McKenzie
wrote:

Lest anyone think Peter is a lone voice...

Butch wrote:
Hi Peter, Sorry for the delay in response but the weather is so great
I have been out riding. I am sorry if I upset you so much, I suspect
you must be quite young to be so naive. You don't seem to get the
point that when a helmet works the accident is not major and is not
reported.


Which should mean, if they work, that reported injury rates go down as
more people wear them. Whereas what we find is that the trend for
cyclists is the same as for pedestrians regardless of changes in
cyclists' helmet-wearing rate.

For your information in our country Health care is so
expensive that most people seldom go to ER.


Luckily Peter is quoting UK stats, where people go to Casualty (ER)
for any injury they haven't got a plaster to fit. Among other things,
these stats show walking and cycling to be about equally hazardous,
and to vary the same way over time - despite cycle helmet wearing
rates increasing from 0 to about half of cyclists in the last 20 years.

One of the reasons people perceive cycling to be dangerous is the
relentless propaganda saying it is, from those promoting helmets.

Wear a helmet, if you wish, to prevent those small injuries you're not
going to go to the ER for. But forget about it saving your life.


It is worth noting that Holland has a high proportion of its
population using bikes, a very low proportion of its cyclists wearing
helmets and a low head injury rate among cyclists.

http://home.comcast.net/~steveheadley1/biketowork.jpg
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.