tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4786784182488135171.post9121758931539756970..comments2023-07-21T17:26:24.127+04:00Comments on Ron George: Statisculation & Sporting Prejudice In Anti-Helmet PropagandaRonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16268869622833968439noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4786784182488135171.post-86408640812080258062009-04-12T18:49:00.000+04:002009-04-12T18:49:00.000+04:00I'd imagine they'd do just as well as they...I'd imagine they'd do just as well as they had for all those years they didn't have them.<br><br>I think it's a fine thing Ron is giving up because as I have seen, there's no disuading him from his opinion.<br><br>That's as it will be, there are always going to be disagreements but after the issue has been kicked around for over 20 years one would think that if there was a definitive benefit to wearing helmets while riding bicycles, most people would wear them. That there are still only a minority of people who choose to wear helmets speaks volumes about what people think of themBradnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4786784182488135171.post-74802901985364557082009-04-12T09:50:00.000+04:002009-04-12T09:50:00.000+04:00Anon @ 5:27pm : Not surprising at all. Actually, n...Anon @ 5:27pm : Not surprising at all. Actually, not only do they NOT favor helmets, a majority of them are also not in favor of the rules of traffic. <br><br>http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/study-finds-cyclists-disobey-traffic-laws/<br><br>Not even helmets can protect for plain stupidity.Philnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4786784182488135171.post-81323475726042240282009-04-12T06:25:00.000+04:002009-04-12T06:25:00.000+04:00an expected response. Those who are arrogant rarel...an expected response. Those who are arrogant rarely engage in self reflection. They're so wrapped up in themselves that they can't understand a different point of view.<br><br>you should try a little humility. It's a wonderful quality.Byronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4786784182488135171.post-38219147734529558492009-04-12T03:42:00.000+04:002009-04-12T03:42:00.000+04:00wow. after reading through this, I find the basele...wow. after reading through this, I find the baseless arrogance outstanding. <br><br>one day Ron (and others) you'll learn, but I hope it's not the hard way. Until then, try to be more humble and try not to display your contradictory ignorance to openlyByronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4786784182488135171.post-50644536326418403352009-04-12T01:37:00.000+04:002009-04-12T01:37:00.000+04:00'cmon Phil. Use your noggin. How many people i...'cmon Phil. Use your noggin. How many people in NYC wear a helmet? Is it surprising to find out in places where everybody wears helmets, those who die are wearing helmets and in places where they don't, they aren't?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4786784182488135171.post-8434527899945152672009-04-11T23:41:00.000+04:002009-04-11T23:41:00.000+04:00Here's a study linking alcohol use and bicycle...Here's a study linking alcohol use and bicycle deaths. <br><br>http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/study-links-alcohol-and-bike-deaths/<br><br><br>Of the 220 or so plus fatalities in NYC during a 10 year study, only 3% of those who died wore helmets. The rest didn't wear them and head injuries contributed to three quarters of bicycle deaths.<br>The NYC Department of Health and Hygiene has advised that the takeaway from this is that helmets save lives. I don't doubt it. Great job on this blog Ron.Philnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4786784182488135171.post-43891756612803852662009-04-10T03:48:00.000+04:002009-04-10T03:48:00.000+04:00but you see, I would say I'm only a helmet ske...but you see, I would say I'm only a helmet skeptic when someone claims they can provide protection beyond what they're capable of.<br><br>I wore a helmet for over 20 years, far before it was the popular thing to do. I campaigned for their use and ran instruction courses for children where I would explain why it is they should wear them.<br><br>The trouble is that too many people are claiming an effectiveness that is far beyond a helmets capacity to provide.<br><br>This problem becomes even more exaggerated when helmet promoters spread misinformation about the proportion and severity of head injuries cyclists receive.<br><br>There's nothing at all wrong with wearing a helmet, but spreading misinformation like Ron has here, runs counter to anything resembling the advocacy cycling deserves.Bradnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4786784182488135171.post-73090336989970849282009-04-10T03:20:00.000+04:002009-04-10T03:20:00.000+04:00True, thus he would proably not be able to objecti...True, thus he would proably not be able to objectively judge the qualities of any pro-helmet paper either.<br>Which I guess also would apply for myself (prolly also for Brad or for any other sceptic bastard).<br>So at least, he could be consistent and strap on a high quality helmet on every car-trip (while remembering the oil-refinery simile).Just a cyclistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4786784182488135171.post-57918391817951205372009-04-10T03:06:00.000+04:002009-04-10T03:06:00.000+04:00... the irony runs deep when Ron complains about S...... the irony runs deep when Ron complains about Statisculation and engages in it. <br><br>Even in the related blog, Latest Research : Bicycles Second To Automobiles In Child Injuries, he engages in some pretty shoddy research that doesn't distinguish between minor or severe injuries.<br><br>I know there will be those who will side with Ron, but I think any reasonably intelligent person with a modicom of common sense and maybe a bit of experience can see Ron hasn't backed his opinions up very well and can pass over this blog without missing much of any value.Bradnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4786784182488135171.post-14556652222021475012009-04-10T01:29:00.000+04:002009-04-10T01:29:00.000+04:00Ron, if you could come up with a pro-helmet study ...Ron, if you could come up with a pro-helmet study that is not outdated, that uses unpecable statistical models and - last but not least - contains unbiased correlations and causations... well, then you'd have a case.<br>As it is now you just sound angry.Just a cyclistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4786784182488135171.post-58922232012265782352009-04-09T20:26:00.000+04:002009-04-09T20:26:00.000+04:00actually, that we're even spending time respon...actually, that we're even spending time responding to this blog shows we can be a bit wasteful at times.<br><br>Still, a bit of time I can spare, a lot I won't.Bradnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4786784182488135171.post-78833240009242404882009-04-09T18:41:00.000+04:002009-04-09T18:41:00.000+04:00Ron, your response is somewhat ironic. Your claim ...Ron, your response is somewhat ironic. Your claim that cycling is dangerous is the scare tactic and to show the mortality of all of those who do cycle is lengthened over those who do not is the exact opposite of what you write. Cycling is in itself inherently healthy and to bury your head in the sand on the issue does no one any favors. That you do so is no surprise. It's clear you're buried neck deep already and have no inclination to dig yourself out anytime soon.Bradnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4786784182488135171.post-68549487636626100622009-04-09T02:39:00.000+04:002009-04-09T02:39:00.000+04:00Cycling is not leisure time sport. Cycling is a me...Cycling is not leisure time sport. Cycling is a means of transport.Just a cyclistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4786784182488135171.post-43065606445314274452009-04-06T14:45:00.000+04:002009-04-06T14:45:00.000+04:00I didn't know that you were a vehicular cyclis...I didn't know that you were a vehicular cyclist Ron. I guess we could go on quarreling about that as well but suffice to say that I think vehicular cycling has got its merits as well as helmets do.<br><br>Obviously there is a difference in our perceptions of cycling safety and safety priorities. Perhaps this can, in part, be attributed to your inclination towards racing. Not sure though.<br><br>The CPSC-link was too much filled with exclamation marks to be taken seriously.<br><br>I still remember your posting from last year about the "odds of dying in a bicycle crash"... while you seem not. :)<br><br>Let's just be friends, I like most of your blog anyways. Good riding.Just a cyclistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4786784182488135171.post-54110099620987495492009-04-06T05:06:00.000+04:002009-04-06T05:06:00.000+04:00Bike_Boy, I guess that what you are aiming at is p...Bike_Boy, I guess that what you are aiming at is pretty much the same as some of Ron's arguments in his post. Which also is exactly along the same line as some of the latest publications from the "pro-helmet" scientists; to attack the questions raised by "helmet-sceptic" scientists, head on:<br><br>-Health benefits lost by less cycling<br>-Safety in numbers<br>-Risk compensation<br><br>It appears that the will of proving the effectiveness of the "panacea" appears to be really strong, for some reason. Seem to be somewhat unusual for scientific publications anyways.Just a cyclistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4786784182488135171.post-21335557750513453772009-04-06T02:12:00.000+04:002009-04-06T02:12:00.000+04:00all due respect Ron, but I think you're out to...all due respect Ron, but I think you're out to lunch on just how dangerous cycling is. <br><br>You're entitled to your opinion of course, but it contradicts tons of research on the topic. <br><br>Ride a bike, you live longer. Even considering cases like Andrews.<br><br>With "advocates" like you, who needs enemies?Bradnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4786784182488135171.post-83175081241260782742009-04-05T22:11:00.000+04:002009-04-05T22:11:00.000+04:00Ron, after reading Robinson's research, your c...Ron, after reading Robinson's research, your commentary and Robinson's response, it's my personal opinion that you're the one who is on the short side of the "numbers game" with Robinson.<br><br>Not that my opinion matters anymore than yours, but I really can't say yours is more valid than mine either.<br><br>As for Andrew, there's no argument about helmet use lain, just showing your use of Andrews case to elicit sympathy and emotion to futher your point. This is a poor use of argument because for as many Andrews as there are in the world, there are those who meet the same fate wearing a helmet. If we focuse n a red herring, the solution will not appear.<br><br>I wonder where you stand on the opinions of the other experts I've mentioned but I'm not sure it matters because you've shown your view point is not to be swayed from it's current position no matter what the evidence.bradnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4786784182488135171.post-65025780659329567602009-04-05T17:05:00.000+04:002009-04-05T17:05:00.000+04:00Ron, I really like your blog, more specifically, t...Ron, I really like your blog, more specifically, the technical posts.<br><br>This blogpost, however, with its analysis and its conclusions does not really come as a surprise; considering your inclination to proudly declare cycling to rate among 'the most dangerous sports in the world' (actually, seven times, doing a google search for "most dangerous" on your blog).<br><br>No offence, but I cannot call you a good advocate for cycling.<br><br>BTW, just a thought; what if you began your post with an emotionally loaded article about a helmeted rider who suffered a fatal accident? Answer: the focus would have had to be on the cause of the accident, possible traffic insfrastructural analyses and or more stringent regulations for motor traffic. Now, wouldn't that kind of efforts be better both for cyclist safety and the number of cyclists? ...But then, safety in numbers also ranks as "statisulation" for you, your favourite statisticians and for Bell.<br><br>Have to mention though, that for the sake of cycling safety, your technical analyses of broken bicycles are just great.<br><br>(Don't make the mistake of replying by wishing me death and destruction by head injuries. Remember that your main focus was to tackle such things. Please.)Just a cyclistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4786784182488135171.post-91077689955519727342009-03-29T23:52:00.000+04:002009-03-29T23:52:00.000+04:00Well written and it brings food for thought. Real ...Well written and it brings food for thought. Real science is not inventing a theory, putting some numbers together that will support it and then shove it down people's throats.<br><br>Real science is looking if your theory works, trying to invalidate it through alternative explanations and scenarios that will make it unshakable.<br><br>I quote Richard Feyman who said something elegant in this regard :<br><br>It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of<br>utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if<br>you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you<br>think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about<br>it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and<br>things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other<br>experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.<br><br>Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be<br>given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know<br>anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you<br>make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then<br>you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.<br><br>In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to<br>help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the<br>information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or<br>another."A Passionate Bikernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4786784182488135171.post-34480890837521150742009-03-29T17:54:00.000+04:002009-03-29T17:54:00.000+04:00Just reading the leadin to the blog, I have to ass...Just reading the leadin to the blog, I have to assume Ron must know something about the tragic incident that Andrew died from.<br><br>From Google, I found a story about this and understand Andrew was turning into his driveway and was hit from behind by the truck.<br><br>How could this have happened? Did Andrew turn left and ride across the roadway or was Andrew riding on the left side of the road and turn right across the roadway into his driveway?<br><br>I want to know because I don't want something like this to happen again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4786784182488135171.post-51926547321553636672009-03-29T08:47:00.000+04:002009-03-29T08:47:00.000+04:00The bullshit contained in research studies can onl...The bullshit contained in research studies can only be extracted by someone who wants to take the trouble to. I'm sick and tired of research studies coming in the way of my life. All fucking research studies aim to do one thing - to cause depression and make you do stupid things. Research studies say I can't drink too much coffee, that I can't drink too much water, that I can't bike without hurting my sperm count (remember that one) that I can't swim without causing hair LOSS and baldness, that I can't eat fish because it will cause memory loss and stroke in old age.<br><br>The latest "research" scare comes with some Iranian fellow having found that drinking hot tea causes cancer! http://uk.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUKTRE52Q01620090327?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0 Me and me extended family members have been drinking tea for several years, yet we have no damn cancer sticking out of our mouths.<br><br>I am done with reading research studies!! They cause depression and sink the value and variety of life. The people behind research are nothing but fat assed lab rats. Get out of the lab and enjoy the world, people.Richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4786784182488135171.post-89814874275760563922009-03-29T04:59:00.000+04:002009-03-29T04:59:00.000+04:00apparently, you don't need common senseapparently, you don't need common senseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4786784182488135171.post-83256658151255344802009-03-29T04:08:00.000+04:002009-03-29T04:08:00.000+04:00Bafflegag = Confusing or generally unintelligible ...<b> Bafflegag = Confusing or generally unintelligible language or jargon </b><br><br>@ Anon 7:57pm : I take it that you can understand plain simple English. If yes, please bring something of value to this discussion. If not, feel free NOT to comment.Philnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4786784182488135171.post-16988743794414538992009-03-29T03:57:00.000+04:002009-03-29T03:57:00.000+04:00Boy. I've read some bafflegab in my day, but I...Boy. I've read some bafflegab in my day, but I think this takes the cake.<br><br>It seems to all boil down to the author believing that a helmet will save a life in a collision with a truck.<br><br>Well, if he believes that, I think someone's been had by the helmet lobby.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4786784182488135171.post-46808967958454513742009-03-29T00:28:00.000+04:002009-03-29T00:28:00.000+04:00yes. think outside the box! don't believe the ...yes. think outside the box! don't believe the interpretations people set on a bunch of numbers.Ravi Chopranoreply@blogger.com