Raged motorist strikes two cyclists

Festivus wrote:

> I do understand statistical analysis. To have a truly sound conclusion,
> you need to give helmets to randomly selected members drawn from the
> same population of riding skills and habits. You have to be diligent in
> collecting data on all incidents in those groups, not through the biased
> selection mechanism of emergency room visits.

The ER data actually significantly underestimate the helmet benefits
because helmet wearers are far less likely to be taken to the ER with a
concussion or other head injury in the first place.

For the very serious accidents, where even a helmet could not prevent
critical injury or death, the statistics will show no benefit for helmet
usage. The ER studies all conclusively show the benefit of wearing a
helmet, even without factoring in all the avoided ER visits.

SMS > wrote:

> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>> A time series study, by its nature, does not require comparing two
>>> groups at the same time. Effectively, the control group is the
>>> population of cyclists before the massive use of helmets. That
>>> group is compared with the population of cyclists after the massive
>>> use of helmets began.
>>
>> CLUE: There is no "massive" use of helmets. Except, perhaps, among
>> children in those jurisdictions where helmet use is mandated for
>> children.
>
> I don't know where you are, but in my area helmet use is definitely
> massive, for both children and adults. I'm definitely in the minority
> when I ride without a helmet.
>

Beaverton, Oregon. A burb of Portland.

In article >,
SMS > wrote:
>
>The AHZ's will invent a thousand reasons why the ER statistics should
>not be believed, but their arguments are very, very weak. Even weaker
>are the bizarre arguments involving driving helmets, cancer, walking
>helmets, etc.

Sneering at the arguments and calling them bizarre doesn't make them
any less valid.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >,
SMS > wrote:
>Festivus wrote:
>
>> I do understand statistical analysis. To have a truly sound conclusion,
>> you need to give helmets to randomly selected members drawn from the
>> same population of riding skills and habits. You have to be diligent in
>> collecting data on all incidents in those groups, not through the biased
>> selection mechanism of emergency room visits.
>
>The ER data actually significantly underestimate the helmet benefits
>because helmet wearers are far less likely to be taken to the ER with a
>concussion or other head injury in the first place.

That mechanism does not cause underestimate of helmet benefits.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article >,
> SMS > wrote:
>> The AHZ's will invent a thousand reasons why the ER statistics should
>> not be believed, but their arguments are very, very weak. Even weaker
>> are the bizarre arguments involving driving helmets, cancer, walking
>> helmets, etc.
>
> Sneering at the arguments and calling them bizarre doesn't make them
> any less valid.

That's true, it would not be possible for anything to make them less
valid than they already are. On the other hand, it _is_ important to
discredit the people that promote these bizarre arguments (walking
helmets, driving helmets, cancer comparisons, etc.).

It is vital that the people that set public policy understand that these
anti-helmet arguments are simply the statements of a tiny lunatic
fringe, and they will not hold them against the general cycling
community when setting policies and proposing legislation.

I think we have the same goal, preventing mandatory helmet laws. Many of
us believe that the best way of achieving this goal is to be honest
about the proven benefits of helmets in a head-impact bicycle crash.
Others believe that if they attack the ER studies and statements from
the medical community, they will prevent legislation. The latter method
won't work because the politicians will look at the bizarre arguments
promulgated by the AHZ's, shake their heads in bewilderment and do what
the medical community wants. It's similar to how the neo-cons attempt to
equate Democrats with Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, when in reality
most Democrats are far more centrist, and are aghast at the crap pouring
from the far left.

In article >,
SMS > wrote:
>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>> In article >,
>> SMS > wrote:
>>> The AHZ's will invent a thousand reasons why the ER statistics should
>>> not be believed, but their arguments are very, very weak. Even weaker
>>> are the bizarre arguments involving driving helmets, cancer, walking
>>> helmets, etc.
>>
>> Sneering at the arguments and calling them bizarre doesn't make them
>> any less valid.
>
>That's true, it would not be possible for anything to make them less
>valid than they already are. On the other hand, it _is_ important to
>discredit the people that promote these bizarre arguments (walking
>helmets, driving helmets, cancer comparisons, etc.).

You don't discredit anyone by refusing to confront the argument and
instead simply sneering at them.

>It is vital that the people that set public policy understand that these
>anti-helmet arguments are simply the statements of a tiny lunatic
>fringe, and they will not hold them against the general cycling
>community when setting policies and proposing legislation.
>I think we have the same goal, preventing mandatory helmet laws. Many of
>us believe that the best way of achieving this goal is to be honest
>about the proven benefits of helmets in a head-impact bicycle crash.

Then why don't you be honest? It appears you've simply decided that
those who set public policy will be impacted negatively by arguments
against the effectiveness of helmets (regardless of their validity)
and so you will attempt to shout those arguments down to appease the
lawmakers. It won't work; you can't gain ground by yielding the
helmet-law-proponent's points. They're control freaks, so trying to
say "Yes, helmets prevent head injuries. Yes, there's no significant
downside to helmet use. But no, there shouldn't be mandatory helmet
laws" just won't work.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Aug 23, 3:03 pm, "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S"
> wrote:
> On Aug 23, 7:52 am, wrote:
> > Helmet skeptics
> > do not say that ER statistics should not be believed. In fact, I make
> > use of such statistics regularly in these discussions. What we say is
> > that simple case-control ER studies with self-selected helmeted
> > subjects are fundamentally flawed - and that those are the type of
> > studies that helmet proponents most rely on.
>
> > Think about that. "Self-selected" means the person being studied has
> > personally chosen whether to adopt a certain intervention. And a case-
> > control study with self-selected subjects should not be accepted to
> > determine the effectiveness of any medication or other health-related
> > intervention.
>
> > Why? Because the person choosing the intervention automatically
> > proves himself to be different from those who do not choose it. That
> > person is likely to have other behavioral differences that affect the
> > results.
>
> > The classic example is post-menopausal women who choose hormone
> > replacement therapy. HRT was touted for years as a health benefit,
> > because the first women who chose to take hormones were found to have
> > less heart disease, fewer cancer deaths, etc.
>
> > But when large population, _randomized_ studies were done a few years
> > ago, researchers found that HRT was actually a significant risk,
> > causing _more_ such health problems, not fewer. The explanation?
> > Those women who were early adopters of HRT were very health
> > conscious. Their better health was caused simply by their overall
> > attention to their health - i.e. better diet, more checkups, and more
> > exercise. Probably more bike riding!
>
> WTF made you a doctor AND a shrink?

A person doesn't have to be a doctor to read and understand scientific
papers detailing errors in studies. A person has to understand
mathematics and be reasonably intelligent.

>What does gynecological science have to do with helmets?

Hormone replacement therapy isn't generally considered gynecological.
It's a general health issue for women.

Learn before you post.

- Frank Krygowski

On Aug 24, 7:00 am, wrote:
> On Aug 23, 3:03 pm, "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 7:52 am, wrote:
> > > Helmet skeptics
> > > do not say that ER statistics should not be believed. In fact, I make
> > > use of such statistics regularly in these discussions. What we say is
> > > that simple case-control ER studies with self-selected helmeted
> > > subjects are fundamentally flawed - and that those are the type of
> > > studies that helmet proponents most rely on.
>
> > > Think about that. "Self-selected" means the person being studied has
> > > personally chosen whether to adopt a certain intervention. And a case-
> > > control study with self-selected subjects should not be accepted to
> > > determine the effectiveness of any medication or other health-related
> > > intervention.
>
> > > Why? Because the person choosing the intervention automatically
> > > proves himself to be different from those who do not choose it. That
> > > person is likely to have other behavioral differences that affect the
> > > results.
>
> > > The classic example is post-menopausal women who choose hormone
> > > replacement therapy. HRT was touted for years as a health benefit,
> > > because the first women who chose to take hormones were found to have
> > > less heart disease, fewer cancer deaths, etc.
>
> > > But when large population, _randomized_ studies were done a few years
> > > ago, researchers found that HRT was actually a significant risk,
> > > causing _more_ such health problems, not fewer. The explanation?
> > > Those women who were early adopters of HRT were very health
> > > conscious. Their better health was caused simply by their overall
> > > attention to their health - i.e. better diet, more checkups, and more
> > > exercise. Probably more bike riding!
>
> > WTF made you a doctor AND a shrink?
>
> A person doesn't have to be a doctor to read and understand scientific
> papers detailing errors in studies. A person has to understand
> mathematics and be reasonably intelligent.
>
> >What does gynecological science have to do with helmets?
>
> Hormone replacement therapy isn't generally considered gynecological.
> It's a general health issue for women.
>
> Learn before you post.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

I learned long ago that idiots dance instead of peeing. It has nothing
to do with this thread either.

Quit shaming the other cyclists with this troll sex post.

>|<

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:

> You don't discredit anyone by refusing to confront the argument and
> instead simply sneering at them.

LOL, it's up them to come up with coherent arguments against all the ER
studies, not up to me to respond to incoherent babbling.

You're going to have to accept that there will not be a double-blind
study of injury severity after head-impact accidents, with and without
helmets. Once you understand that, you can move forward and accept the
ER studies even though they are not perfect. But understand that they
are imperfect in a way that actually understates their benefit, because
of all the ER visits that are avoided in the first place.

As others have stated, the number of head-impact accidents where a
helmet would make a difference is very small, simply because the number
of head impact accidents is very small. There is no need for compulsion.
It's a personal freedom issue of how much risk you want to accept. For
some reason, this isn't good enough for some AHZ's, they really want to
convince themselves that the helmet provides no protection at all.

There are some key ways to know whenever someone in the helmet debates
knows not of what they speak:

1. They use the phrase "foam hat" in an effort to make the reader
believe that any protection device which uses foam to absorb shock is
somehow worthless.

2. They make irrelevant comparisons with other activities such as
driving or walking.

3. They mis-use "self-selection" in an attempt to "prove" that the ER
studies must be false because the believe, with no evidence, that a
helmeted cyclist is more likely to visit the ER after a head-impact crash.

4. They demand double-blind surveys and tests, knowing full well that it
isn't possible (or at least not ethical) to perform them.

5. The try to work in cancer, PMS, ED, or other medical conditions.

You need to work against MHLs in a logical, coherent, calm manner, not
by incoherent babbling about how doctors and nurses that actually see
the difference a helmet makes, must be wrong.