Re: published helmet research - not troll - Page 5 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

06-17-2004, 01:07 PM

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:48:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].edu>:

>Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
>you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

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

06-17-2004, 01:08 PM

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 06:09:37 GMT, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Bill Z.)
wrote in message <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>:

> 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.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

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

06-17-2004, 01:08 PM

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 06:09:37 GMT, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Bill Z.)
wrote in message <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>:

> 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.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

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

06-17-2004, 01:08 PM

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 06:09:37 GMT, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Bill Z.)
wrote in message <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>:

> 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.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

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

06-17-2004, 01:08 PM

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 06:09:37 GMT, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Bill Z.)
wrote in message <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>:

> 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.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

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

06-17-2004, 01:08 PM

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 06:09:37 GMT, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Bill Z.)
wrote in message <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>:

> 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.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

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

06-17-2004, 02:26 PM

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:37:51 -0400, Mitch Haley <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>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

06-17-2004, 02:26 PM

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:37:51 -0400, Mitch Haley <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>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

06-17-2004, 02:26 PM

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:37:51 -0400, Mitch Haley <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>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

06-17-2004, 02:26 PM

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:37:51 -0400, Mitch Haley <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>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