advisor wanted

James Lane said:

I have not cited anyone as an authority. Wishful thinking on your
part. I merely said they have a summary of helmet standards. They do.
They also state that CPSC is equivalent to a previous SNELL
standard. True or not, I do not know, but will be looking at the
actual standards (once I get fully back to this desk).

"However, those helmets passing Snell's B-95 or N-94 standard will
automatically qualify because Snell's standards exceed CPSC's"

Source: Snell Memorial Foundation http://www.smf.org/articles/bcomp.html

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

you know? said:

On 21 Nov 2005 14:41:07 -0800, [email hidden] said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Be sure to get a Snell approved helmet (B90 is the most commonly
available bicycle helmet).

The most commonly available helmet in the US is CPSC certified, not
Snell, and B95 is the current standard. In most of Europe, Snell
certified helmets are all but unobtainable.

Here is a list of Snell certified helmets:
http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_B-90A_B-95A_B-90C_B-95C.html

Note the lack of any products from the market leader, Bell Sports.

Of course, missing is B-90S because Bell probably meets that as there
are minor differences between that and CPSC. Otherwise why drop only
one of the B-90 standards from their webpage. By eliminating that
standard, they prevent Bell from being listed.

Smart tactics, but a bit transparent. Yes, I know that this is not
directed toward Bell, but toward CPSC.

jim

James Lane said:

Smart tactics, but a bit transparent. Yes, I know that this is not
directed toward Bell, but toward CPSC.

It is not just the standard, but the fact that with Snell approval Snell
actually tests the helmet for compliance. With CPSC it's self-certification.

Dave Larrington said:

Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> wrote:

[Light-O-STULL]

Moreover, they haven't yet invented the lightweight portable power station
or Several hundred kilometre mains lead required to recharge your
super-duper hi-power burn holes in errant badgers light when it runs down in
the middle of a "400"...

Practical fuel cells for cycling can not arrive too soon. Then I can
use 100/55 W (high/low beam) halogen driving lights on my HPV's.

Fried badger, anyone? 😉

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"ever get suspicious about chain saw oil attracting wood dust?
generally mucking up after two cuts?
try dumping hot oil into a container just right sized for inserting
the running blade on the job. rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.....
plus 750 rpm! " - G. Daniels

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:30:48 -0800, James Lane
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your paranoia is showing.

Quoted message said:

And your stupidity. If you understood CI and the range of activities
that it encompasses, you would realize how dumb the statement was that
I replied to.

Your paranoia is showing. What I said was that a lot (i.e. not all)
of CI is simply low-level data gathering. Of the type which you
failed to do in the case of this debate, funnily enough.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The site under question also states that it could not put up
any of the other research due to copyright issues. That is a bogus way
to skate out on it.

No, it is absolutely accurate. I can give you copyright dates and
holders of the research it does not print in full. Some holders are
content to waive or extend copyright, others are not. That's just how
it is. If you think it sucks, write to the New England Journal of
Medicine and the Cochrane Collaboration and tell them so.

Quoted message said:

More importantly, can you PROVE the site requested copyright
permission from those it said it could not get clearance from? Or did
they merely say that to keep that information from being available?
THAT is the issue. Stay focused.

See if you can find the full text of those reports /anywhere/ on the
web, including at helmet advocacy sites like BHSI. Or do you denounce
every site discussing this issue as lacking credibility because none
of them include full text of the reports?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are they unwilling or is that just some bs? I seriously doubt the
veracity of that claim as it is also used to expalin why NO OTHER
research to the opposite is included. Not just that one study.

Of course they are unwilling! They make money from reprints! Jeez,
anyone would think you'd never asked a commercial publisher for
permission to publish their copyright material on a website or
something!

Quoted message said:

Bull. Prove they refused, put up the denial of use. Everyone makes
money from reprints, but usually allow fair usage in covering their
papers. And at that, it could be paraphrased without permission.

Don't be an idiot. Why on earth should it be necessary to "prove"
that a copyright holder has withheld permission to freely distribute
copyrighted material? Your contention is absurd. Very few, if any,
academic journals grant free access to their contents. Like I say,
see if you can find the full text /anywhere/ on the web.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I understand perfectly well what you are doing: you are looking for
excuses not to believe the conclusions, based on your failure to
actually read the evidence.

Wrong, nice ASSumption, but not a fact in sight. I always look at the
reporting sources initially to see where they are coming from, are
they fair and balanced or one-sided and if the latter, what axes they
are grinding. Any, ANY, researcher would the name does that initially.

Ah, so when you read the 1989 Seattle study, what did you make of the
differences between the study populations in tables 3, 4 and 5?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you'd devoted a tenth of the energy to pursuing the evidence that
you've devoted to arguing, you'd be a lot better informed.

And if you devoted a tenth the energy to not making it necessary for
me to repeat myself ad nauseum, I would have more time to do these
things.

Ridiculous. Nobody asked you to come along and debate from ignorance.
The fact that it took several exchanges before you acknowledged that
you are woefully uninformed is a point against you, not me!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You also cite BHSI as an authority. That site also fails to print the
contents of the studies you want to see, and for the same reason. And
that site certainly fails any objectivity test which cyclehelmets.org
would fail.

I have not cited anyone as an authority. Wishful thinking on your
part. I merely said they have a summary of helmet standards. They do.
They also state that CPSC is equivalent to a previous SNELL standard.
True or not, I do not know, but will be looking at the actual
standards (once I get fully back to this desk).

So, you cited them as an authority, then, as stated.

And as it happens, they are wrong, contradicted by Snell ("However,
those helmets passing Snell's B-95 or N-94 standard will automatically
qualify because Snell's standards exceed CPSC's", from the Snell
Memorial Foundation website) and also contradicted by a reading of the
standards. You have read them and compared them, haven't you? Also,
as stated, CPSC is self-certified with no external validation, whereas
Snell is serial numbered, externally validated and lot-traceable.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So here's what you do: go away and read the evidence. Come back then.
In the mean time, shut up, because Tony and I know substantially more
about the evidence than you do. You haven't even read the evidence
which underpins your own position, let alone the opposing one!

You might know more, but you cannot pose as anything other than what
you are - anti-helmet. You might know more, but your level of research
seems to skip right over the basics of examining the reporting source.

So you keep saying. That statement is at odds with the documented
evidence, per my website, which has several pictures of me wearing my
magic foam hat. In fact, the allegation of being "anti-helmet" is
probably the single most common strawman used by zealots to try to
attack sceptics.

What I am is a sceptic. I am not campaigning for laws to ban helmet
use, in the way that zealots campaign for laws to mandate them. I
have read the evidence on both sides and find that, on balance, there
is as much evidence indicating no effect as there is indicating
effect, and that the pro-helmet evidence is invariably of a type well
known to be vulnerable to confounding, often wrong and sometimes very
badly wrong. All this is documented.

You don't appear to have done stage 1 of the basic research yet.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:33:13 -0800, James Lane
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So why did you keep arguing for so long after it became apparent that
you were deeply unfamiliar with the subject on which you were tackling
people who have spent some considerable time researching it?
That's a rhetorical question, by the way.

Quoted message said:

But my answer is not. I have been talking about the reporting source,
in case that flies right over your head for the dozenth time. That I
do know something about, at least enough to examine where they are
coming from and are they grinding an axe - something that went right
over your head, pitiable researcher that you claim to be.

I make no claims to be a researcher, I am just a reasonably
intelligent person whose response to being informed of the conflicting
evidence was to go out and read it, rather than attack everybody who
contradicted my cherished beliefs.

And the fact is that one of your major grounds for criticism of the
sceptical side is that we are unwilling to persuade prestigious
academic journals to waive copyright in order to save you the effort
of a trip to the library. Sorry, but that's just how it is. I had to
get the data from the library, from authors and from the publishers by
paying them actual money. I was interested enough to actually do
that.

It seems you are more concerned to maintain your cherished beliefs
than to find out any facts. In the case of other religious believers
who refuse to read or address sceptical work, this is often an
indication of a deeper insecurity in the strength of their faith, so I
hold out some small hope that you might one day come to address the
evidence rather than the messenger.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:36:28 -0800, James Lane
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do feel free to give me named examples of people campaigning for laws
banning helmet use.

Quoted message said:

Have to check with those Harley people, I think they tried in various
states, but lost. Of course, the antis may not try it because they
know they would be soundly thrashed, but instead of at least putting
up a legislative fight, they prefer to snipe from the sidelines,
chickens that they are.

No, they were campaigning *against* laws to *compel* helmet use, a
completely different situation. And in some cases they succeeded,
around half of states currently allow unhelmeted motorcycling. Funnily
enough, those also appear to be the states with the lowest
motorcyclist casualty rates - which is chicken and which egg is hard
to say.

You are once again confusing scepticism with opposition. It is
reasonable to be sceptical, it is the default position in science
generally. It is reasonable to require those proposing an
intervention to prove their case.

Quoted message said:

I wonder why, with all that evidence that gives credence to their
position, why they are afraid to fight for what they believe. Makes
one wonder doesn't it.

You seem to be denouncing sceptics on the grounds that they will not
go try to force their views on others in the way zealots do.

No, even that does not express the full absurdity of your position,
since most sceptics are in favour of allowing personal choice. What
you are actually doing is denouncing sceptics for failing to accept
only one side of the debate!

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 07:26:48 -0800, SMS <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

What is true is that there is no conclusive proof that wearing a helmet
reduces the chance of a head-impact collision, and the number of such
collisions is sufficiently rare that over the whole bicycling population
the statistical difference in death and injuries for helmeted versus
non-helmeted cyclists is insignificant. However there is conclusive
proof that in the event of a head impact accident, a helmet greatly
reduces the severity of injury, and reduces the likelihood that the
injury will turn into a fatality.

For values of "conclusive proof" which excludes any whole population
actually demonstrating a reduction in head injury rates from an
increase in helmet use (and several showing the exact opposite).

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:27:00 -0800, SMS <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Be sure to get a Snell approved helmet (B90 is the most commonly
available bicycle helmet).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The most commonly available helmet in the US is CPSC certified, not
Snell, and B95 is the current standard.

Quoted message said:

Many bicycle stores in the U.S. sell Snell certified helmets, in fact I
just purchased one two days ago. B95 is not so common, because it
requires more of a full-face helmet, i.e.

Nope. B95 does not require full-face, it's just that some full-face
lids conform to B95. The Specialized Allez is not full-face, and is
listed as B95A certified.

You are also evading the point: in the US, CPSC is the dominant
standard, according the evidence I can find. Please feel free to cite
otherwise, but given that the market leader is not Snell certified
this may be difficult.

Quoted message said:

The CPSC helmets are more common because it's a lesser standard, easier
to meet and the manufacturer can self-certify.

Correct. That is precisely my point.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:01:21 -0800, James Lane
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Of course, missing is B-90S because Bell probably meets that as there
are minor differences between that and CPSC.

One of which is external validation. So, line by line, what are the
differences between the two standards? Or are you making it up again?
My friend Brian Walker, the helmet tester, tells me there are
differences; I only have the Snell standards so I have to rely on him.
Who's your source?

And according to Brian both CPSC and EN1078 are both weaker than Snell
B85. Neither standards body has disputed this, to my knowledge.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Just zis Guy said:

Or are you making it up again?

I find it fascinating that someone who claims to do CI for a living
consistently makes bold statements without having done the most basic
investigation first.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 18:32:52 -0800, SMS <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

The studies have been posted in every helmet thread. Those that have a
philosophical opposition to helmets simply will not believe them.

Once again you accuse others of your own worst fault. The conflicting
evidence has been detailed for you every single time you have repeated
this falsehood, and every single time you have continued to assert
that "all" the evidence agrees, when it patently does not.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:07:12 -0800, SMS <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

In fact I have never maintained that. What I have stated, and what every
lighting expert agrees with, is that the brighter, battery powered
lights provide more visibility, make you more visible, and are hence safer.

Really? So you can cite published, peer-reviewed studies can you?
Excellent news: I've been looking for conclusive proof that lighting
improves safety for some time, and as yet have found nothing but proof
by assertion.

Please cite fully, so I can follow them up.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 16:08:45 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Wearing body armour will
arguably make you safer than not wearing it, but that in itself is not
enough reason to make people wear it. If safety is really your #1
indisputable priority you would be, but for almost everyone it turns out
it isn't...

This might apply where there is actual published evidence to support
the device increasing safety, but this appears absent in the case of
lights (let alone massively bright vs. adequately bright lights).

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Just zis Guy said:

This might apply where there is actual published evidence to support
the device increasing safety, but this appears absent in the case of
lights (let alone massively bright vs. adequately bright lights).

Nonsense!

A coherent light source of proper frequency and intensity will ionize
all obstructions in the cyclist's path. This is definitely a safety
benefit. 😉

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"ever get suspicious about chain saw oil attracting wood dust?
generally mucking up after two cuts?
try dumping hot oil into a container just right sized for inserting
the running blade on the job. rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.....
plus 750 rpm! " - G. Daniels

"snippage>

It's too bad there weren't any bicycle h*lm*t safety studies available in
1940. You guys could have neutralized the German army by boring them to
death with this silly prattling on about the DATA! Jeez enough! My eyes are
starting to bleed from all the fumes this festering pile is generating.

gotbent, the past tense of getbent.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

gotbent said:

"snippage>

It's too bad there weren't any bicycle h*lm*t safety studies available in
1940. You guys could have neutralized the German army by boring them to
death with this silly prattling on about the DATA! Jeez enough! My eyes are
starting to bleed from all the fumes this festering pile is generating.

I believe every argument in this thread has been made several times
over on one or more of the rec.bicycles.* Usenet newsgroups.

We could instead make a long thread be posting the entire dialog of
"The Holy Grail" one line at a time. 😉

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:55:09 -0600, "gotbent" <[email hidden]> said
in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It's too bad there weren't any bicycle h*lm*t safety studies available in
1940. You guys could have neutralized the German army by boring them to
death with this silly prattling on about the DATA! Jeez enough! My eyes are
starting to bleed from all the fumes this festering pile is generating.

Silly boy. There were no helmet studies in 1940 because nobody was
gullible enough back then to believe that cycling was some kind of
extreme sport!

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Just zis Guy said:

Silly boy. There were no helmet studies in 1940 because nobody was
gullible enough back then to believe that cycling was some kind of
extreme sport!

Guy

Wasn't there a folding bike used by the parachute regiment? I'm sure
riding a bike around Normandy on D-Day 1944 would qualify as an extreme
sport, regardless of how good your troopers helmet was.
Kids today have got it easy.

DD said:

Wasn't there a folding bike used by the parachute regiment?

The Welbike was a motor scooter rather than a pedal bike IIRC. No
evidence that it was ever the slightest use to the paratroopers, but
apparently much sought after for cheap and economical motor transport in
continental Europe after hostilities ceased...

Quoted message said:

riding a bike around Normandy on D-Day 1944 would qualify as an extreme
sport, regardless of how good your troopers helmet was.

The Dutch army had a bicycle unit that I presume saw some degree of
action in 1940, though with the speed of the occupation I would imagine
not very much.

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 [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/