Re: published helmet research - not troll

Frank Krygowski said:

Another source is the Vehicular Cyclist site, at
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/ with it's "Helmet FAQ." There are lots
of citations listed there, too.

This site (at least, the so-called "Helmet FAQ"😉 was created by a rabid
anti-helmet person who would spew continued personal abuse at anyone
who disagreed with him in the slightest. You should note Krygowski's
tactics. He posts a link to Randy's site for "balance" but immediately
disparages it.

Quoted message said:

Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
www.bhsi.org This "institute" (named Randy Swart) is working to
make it illegal for anyone of any age to ride a bike at any time
without a helmet. I quote: "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute
supports carefully drawn mandatory helmet laws covering all age
groups."

Randy's site is not "rabid," even if you don't agree with everything
he says (or anything he says, for that matter.)

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Frank Krygowski said:

In general, we seem to have the public (under the influence of heavy
promotion) believing that helmets are a godsend. Meanwhile, competent
statisticians who examine the actual data are much, much more skeptical
of both the supposed benefit, and the supposed need.

I read in my local paper (The Lansing State Journal) that riding without
a helmet makes you 14 times more likely to get killed. That claim exceeds
any made by Swart. Imagine a helmet that is 100% effective in preventing
brain injury. This 14x claim would still require that 93% of all fatal
crashes involve fatal brain injury with no other mortal wounds.
Gannett News printed the claim as if it were an established fact.

Mitch.

"Frank Krygowski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

patrick said:

I know, I know. this has been hashed to hell and back,
but I figured some of you might actually want to read
real research.

There has been plenty of "real research" cited on this topic.

For example, you might visit http://www.cyclehelmets.org and track down
some of the cited articles. Regarding the effect of helmet use on
fatalities, you can visit http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1012 and
see citations at the page bottom.

Another source is the Vehicular Cyclist site, at
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/ with it's "Helmet FAQ." There are lots of
citations listed there, too.

Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
www.bhsi.org This "institute" (named Randy Swart) is working to make
it illegal for anyone of any age to ride a bike at any time without a
helmet. I quote: "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute supports
carefully drawn mandatory helmet laws covering all age groups."

Be aware that there is _very_ serious discussion taking place in many
scholarly publications regarding the effectiveness of helmets. In
general, we seem to have the public (under the influence of heavy
promotion) believing that helmets are a godsend. Meanwhile, competent
statisticians who examine the actual data are much, much more skeptical
of both the supposed benefit, and the supposed need.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski said:

Be aware that there is _very_ serious discussion taking place in many
scholarly publications regarding the effectiveness of helmets.

What makes it so serious, compared to other discussions? Letters after people's
names? Big egos? Feeding frenzy at the hog trough of research dollars?
Self-importance typically associated with these things? Or is it earnest
effort, for once!

Quoted message said:

In
general, we seem to have the public (under the influence of heavy
promotion) believing that helmets are a godsend. Meanwhile, competent
statisticians who examine the actual data are much, much more
skeptical of both the supposed benefit, and the supposed need.

Ah, but there's no money to be made in telling people they don't need helmets!
And no political points gained from being "anti-safety."

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole said:

Frank Krygowski said:

Be aware that there is _very_ serious discussion taking place in many
scholarly publications regarding the effectiveness of helmets.

What makes it so serious, compared to other discussions? Letters after people's
names? Big egos? Feeding frenzy at the hog trough of research dollars?
Self-importance typically associated with these things? Or is it earnest
effort, for once!

Maybe "serious" doesn't describe it well enough.

When you log onto the web sites for some of these journals, you can find
discussions between the original authors and other knowledgeable
scientists who discuss their work.

A recent paper out of Scotland reached some very pro-helmet conclusions,
for example; but correspondents were able to point out errors in
computation that invalidated its results. That was interesting, because
it pitted two (or more) statistics experts against each other, with one
emerging a clear loser.

The discussions take place at a much higher level than the typical
wreck.bike discussions (if you can believe such a thing!) For example,
no time is wasted on tales like "My buddy ran into a swarm of
butterflies, and I _know_ his helmet saved his life!!!!" ;-)
It all tends to be very scientific, very mathematical.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Frank Krygowski said:

The discussions take place at a much higher level than the typical
wreck.bike discussions (if you can believe such a thing!) For example,
no time is wasted on tales like "My buddy ran into a swarm of
butterflies, and I _know_ his helmet saved his life!!!!" ;-) It all
tends to be very scientific, very mathematical.

Uh oh. I'm afraid you may have just woken up the Anti-Science Beast. Or
perhaps I should say "drawn the attention of" -- the Beast never sleeps.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
-- Ambrose Bierce

(Bill Z.) said:

You should note Krygowski's tactics.

Yours are exactly the same tactics. Hmmm.

Frank Krygowski said:

Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
www.bhsi.org This "institute" (named Randy Swart) is working to make
it illegal for anyone of any age to ride a bike at any time without a
helmet. I quote: "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute supports
carefully drawn mandatory helmet laws covering all age groups."

And Randyt thinks that stopping using the Thompson, Rivara and
Thompson figure of 85% efficacy would be "unhelpful" despite it's
being derived by comparing entirely different populations and
ascribing all the difference to helmet use. In other words, he is a
True Believer :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 06:09:37 GMT, [email hidden] (Bill Z.)

wrote in message : said:

He posts a link to Randy's site for "balance" but immediately
disparages it.

No need - Randy does his own auto-disparaging.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:37:51 -0400, Mitch Haley <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I read in my local paper (The Lansing State Journal) that riding without
a helmet makes you 14 times more likely to get killed.

Assuming that's true, what does that matter if the odds of being
killed are extremely small.?

JT

"John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote...

Quoted message said:

Assuming that's true, what does that matter if the odds of being
killed are extremely small.?

I have a hard time believing you don't wear a helmet, John Forrest.

Jim "academically speaking" Flom

Tim McNamara said:

(Bill Z.) said:

You should note Krygowski's tactics.

Yours are exactly the same tactics. Hmmm.

Liar.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Just zis Guy said:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 06:09:37 GMT, [email hidden] (Bill Z.)

wrote in message : said:

He posts a link to Randy's site for "balance" but immediately
disparages it.

No need - Randy does his own auto-disparaging.

Randy is no more biased than Avery (who did the one Frank liked.)
But note the assymetrical treatment in Frank's post.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

(Bill Z.) said:

Tim McNamara said:

(Bill Z.) said:

You should note Krygowski's tactics.

Yours are exactly the same tactics. Hmmm.

Liar.

Read your own post.

Tim McNamara said:

(Bill Z.) said:

Tim McNamara said:

[email hidden] (Bill Z.) writes:

> You should note Krygowski's tactics.

Yours are exactly the same tactics. Hmmm.

Liar.

Read your own post.

I know damn well what I posted and you are lying.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Bill Z." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Frank Krygowski said:

Another source is the Vehicular Cyclist site, at
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/ with it's "Helmet FAQ." There are lots
of citations listed there, too.

This site (at least, the so-called "Helmet FAQ"😉 was created by a rabid
anti-helmet person who would spew continued personal abuse at anyone
who disagreed with him in the slightest. You should note Krygowski's
tactics. He posts a link to Randy's site for "balance" but immediately
disparages it.

Quoted message said:

Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
www.bhsi.org This "institute" (named Randy Swart) is working to
make it illegal for anyone of any age to ride a bike at any time
without a helmet. I quote: "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute
supports carefully drawn mandatory helmet laws covering all age
groups."

Randy's site is not "rabid," even if you don't agree with everything
he says (or anything he says, for that matter.)

Sorry, but your opinion has no more weight than Frank's and at least Frank
is willing to discuss matters. Randy is not.

"Bill Z." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy said:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 06:09:37 GMT, [email hidden] (Bill Z.)

wrote in message : said:

He posts a link to Randy's site for "balance" but immediately
disparages it.

No need - Randy does his own auto-disparaging.

Randy is no more biased than Avery (who did the one Frank liked.)
But note the assymetrical treatment in Frank's post.

Zauman, you haven't changed in 12 years. Randy's site is even set up so that
you can't find the anti-helmet information but he puts it there in hard to
find locations so that he can say that it's really there. Avery doesn't like
helmet laws and is up front about it.

"Jim Flom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:hlrAc.94$K53.91@edtnps89...

Quoted message said:

"John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote...

Quoted message said:

Assuming that's true, what does that matter if the odds of being
killed are extremely small.?

I have a hard time believing you don't wear a helmet, John Forrest.

Jim "academically speaking" Flom

Yeah but after he read about Lance's health problem he's been sitting on it.

Tom Kunich said:

"Bill Z." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Randy's site is not "rabid," even if you don't agree with everything
he says (or anything he says, for that matter.)

Sorry, but your opinion has no more weight than Frank's and at least Frank
is willing to discuss matters. Randy is not.

Randy has no duty to participate in usenet discussions.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB