Some safety tips from Boardman
Comments
-
Sleeper Cell wrote:
Probably because a lot of cyclists wear helmets.Simon Masterson wrote:So essentially, not many people injure their heads when cycling....
The data doesn't tell us how many of those that sustained a 'head injury' were wearing a helmet and decided to go in to be checked over, though.Sleeper Cell wrote:I don't think that 3250 deaths and serious injuries in a year is a very low number. Especially when it could (and should) be lower.
Of course it should be lower, but with reference to the number of people in this country and the proportion of them that own bicycles, it can reasonably be concluded that cycling does not carry a very high risk of head injury; and if motor vehicle collisions are the primary hazard, then surely the provision of protected cycleways [and other such measures] should be the focus for improving cycling safety.0 -
Indeed. The stats prove nothing which is why they add absolutely nothing to the debate.Simon Masterson wrote:The data doesn't tell us how many of those that sustained a 'head injury' were wearing a helmet and decided to go in to be checked over, though.
I don't think that 'owning a cycle' inherently carries any risk of head injury. I think you should focus on the number of miles ridden.Simon Masterson wrote:Of course it should be lower, but with reference to the number of people in this country and the proportion of them that own bicycles, it can reasonably be concluded that cycling does not carry a very high risk of head injury......0 -
Sleeper Cell wrote:Sleeper Cell wrote:Sleeper Cell wrote:There is no debate. The final answer was that while riding with a helmet may reduce the chances of and severity of a head injury in some circumstances, it can't protect riders in all situations from all injuries caused either by themselves or other road users. While some people quote some stats, other people quote others, each not actually proving their point but the increasing vitriol in successive posts eventually leads to the thread being locked.
Riders should wear helmets if they want to, and shouldn't if they don't want to. However, riders that choose to not wear a helmet are forever banned from trying to get sympathy for injuries received while not wearing safety equipment designed to mitigate the risk. Anybody complaining about such an injury is like a whining child that fails to see the link between their actions and the consequences.0 -
Craigus89 wrote:Tiglath, it's clear that your views on this subject have been skewed by your experience, and most of your responses in this thread seem to be driven by the emotion you still feel.
Thank you for your courteous post.
Sorry, but no. The accident did not skew nothing. You forget that when I had my only serious cycling accident, I WAS wearing a helmet. It is something that I decided a long time ago, for good reasons.
After wearing motorcycle head cages, I found cycling helmets no bother at all to wear, and my passion to live a long life injury free was a major motivator. In all, I find the cost/benefit analysis of wearing a light helmet a persuasive one.
Call that the theoretic part. The thesis.
Now I have done also the experiment that confirms the thesis, most unwillingly, but also most reassuringly, because, as I said, without a helmet I would be in a very different situation today.
So while I am more persuaded than ever that helmets protect well up to a point, becaue it DID protect me, the accident did not change my mind, it just validated the policy.Craigus89 wrote:I've had a couple of head injuries in my time, playing rugby I collided with another player, both of us head first, both of us running full pelt so a collision of what, 25-30mph. Both knocked out cold and I was concussed for a couple of days. I'm not dead or brain damaged. By your logic, then, I should be arguing that anybody could do the same thing over and over and never have any serious injuries. .
??? What logic is that?Craigus89 wrote:Plenty of people will have had similar anecdotal experiences, but claiming that they somehow provide firm evidence about head injuries one way or another would be ridiculous.
I dont' get this. Why? "Plenty of people" who have had cycling accidents and know whether a helmet helped or not are precisely the kind of data that can throw a ligh upon the matter. What else, if not?
One has to take care to take a sample large enough to be statistically significant, but statistical significance comes precisely from all those anectodal experiences put together and showing a pattern or trend.0 -
It really doesn't.Tiglath wrote:statistical significance comes precisely from all those anectodal experiences put together and showing a pattern or trend.0 -
Sleeper Cell wrote:
Is English your first language?Tiglath wrote:...excessibly brings the worse surprises.
It's never long before tenants of glass houses make an entrance.
People who report typos are usually out of ideas for something better.
How long do you think I need to go back in your posts to find something to break your glass house?
Let's see...
Dang! As recent as November 4th, it seems, when you wrote this gem of a sentence:
"Never argue with someone who cannot use the 'quote' function I can use the quote function, watch...."
Look at all that broken glass now...0 -
Tiglath wrote:Sleeper Cell wrote:
Is English your first language?Tiglath wrote:...excessibly brings the worse surprises.
It's never long before tenants of glass houses make an entrance.Tiglath wrote:Is English your first language? Because if it is I may have an impossible mission.
Only using your own words, from a couple of posts above. You dish it out......0 -
I look forward to you explaining how you test a collection of anecdotes for statistical significance. If you manage it I'll even pay you for it so you don't have to do it gratuitously - after all, it would be a major breakthrough for science.Tiglath wrote:
0 -
Where did I write that?Tiglath wrote:Dang! As recent as November 4th, it seems, when you wrote this gem of a sentence:
"Never argue with someone who cannot use the 'quote' function I can use the quote function, watch...."
Look at all that broken glass now...0 -
Sleeper Cell wrote:Tiglath wrote:Sleeper Cell wrote:
Is English your first language?Tiglath wrote:...excessibly brings the worse surprises.
It's never long before tenants of glass houses make an entrance.Tiglath wrote:Is English your first language? Because if it is I may have an impossible mission.
Only using your own words, from a couple of posts above. You dish it out......
In other words, you have nothing substantial to say but like to play silly buggers.
Some guy corrects me using the concept of 'subset' erroneously. I try to explain it to him, and after enough time to google the question to death, he comes back not showing any signs of comprehension of what a subset is and what I said, and tries to split hairs on a bald head.
I was actually being kind to him, thinking that his proficiency may be in another language and that, and not intellectual deficits, was the reason for him not getting it.
If you aspire to 'dishing' anything to me, you've got to try harder, typos and bluster won't do.0 -
mpatts wrote:Did you know that almost 50% of people are below average intelligence?
That isn't always truewww.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
I think Sloppy wrote that, someone is struggling here.Sleeper Cell wrote:
Where did I write that?Tiglath wrote:Dang! As recent as November 4th, it seems, when you wrote this gem of a sentence:
"Never argue with someone who cannot use the 'quote' function I can use the quote function, watch...."
Look at all that broken glass now...0 -
So the accident did skew something? Looks like a double negative to me. Is English your first language?Tiglath wrote:Sorry, but no. The accident did not skew nothing.0 -
Yes there are two groups, a large group containing all those that may fall off in the future and a second smaller group that have in the past and may again in the future. You didn't previously mention that the first group had already fallen, but you're right if they have there would indeed be only one group and their would be no subset.Tiglath wrote:You must be one of these fellows who after he digs a hole for himself is most happy to dig himself some more into a dark, dank hole, despite patient correction.
Is English your first language? Because if it is I may have an impossible mission. Do you understand explicit versus implicit?
My words were these: There are only two kinds of bikers: the ones who will fall and the ones who have fallen and will fall again.
Do you see TWO kinds there?
If the the first kind were bikers who will fall and have already fallen before, it would be indistinguishable from the second kind. And that would make it only ONE kind.
You need to read, parse, and inwardly digest what people write, instead of what it is more convenient for you to think they wrote.0 -
Veronese68 wrote:
Yes there are two groups, a large group containing all those that may fall off in the future and a second smaller group that have in the past and may again in the future. You didn't previously mention that the first group had already fallen, but you're right if they have there would indeed be only one group and their would be no subset.Tiglath wrote:You must be one of these fellows who after he digs a hole for himself is most happy to dig himself some more into a dark, dank hole, despite patient correction.
Is English your first language? Because if it is I may have an impossible mission. Do you understand explicit versus implicit?
My words were these: There are only two kinds of bikers: the ones who will fall and the ones who have fallen and will fall again.
Do you see TWO kinds there?
If the the first kind were bikers who will fall and have already fallen before, it would be indistinguishable from the second kind. And that would make it only ONE kind.
You need to read, parse, and inwardly digest what people write, instead of what it is more convenient for you to think they wrote.
Well thanks.
Kudos to you.
I like people who are not too big to admit small mistakes. Great habit.0 -
Veronese68 wrote:
So the accident did skew something? Looks like a double negative to me. Is English your first language?Tiglath wrote:Sorry, but no. The accident did not skew nothing.
You even need to plagarize other people's retorts to formulate a comeback.
By the way, fellow. I would love to have you for breakfast, you come to a battle of wits unarmed and that is hard to resist, but this is a moderated forum and it's not a good idea to start any shit, altercations are short lived and have no winners, I would expect.
But... if the moderator does not stop you and you want an eye-poking contest I am most happy to oblige.0 -
thegibdog wrote:
I look forward to you explaining how you test a collection of anecdotes for statistical significance. If you manage it I'll even pay you for it so you don't have to do it gratuitously - after all, it would be a major breakthrough for science.Tiglath wrote:
Good, then stay a while.
Let us say that a scientits wants to know about head injuries in rugby. Who is he going to ask?
Rugby players would be a good start. Each interview with a player involves the telling of an anecdotal experience.
Anecdotal experiences are deemed statistically insignificant for two main reasons. First the size of the data sample is usually too small. Secondly, some accounts, of the type, "I know someone who" are not very reliable.
Now in law, people have realized that witness accounts are more unreliable thatn people thought before. But that is not the case when the event is far from routine and makes an strong impression on the witness.
So back to rugby. If the scientist asks enough rugby players, over time, the problem of sample size is overcome.
Secondly, a head injury is not something likely to be forgotten or cause much confusion, after full recovery that is.
.
So now you have how anecdotal evidence about head injuries from rugby players can be statistically significant.
And that is what I said before about cycling injuries, that many anecdotal accounts put together can and do have statistical significant.
And if you still do not agree please tell me what better data our hypothetical scientist could find other than rugby player accounts.0 -
You don't seem to understand what statistical significance is - it isn't just two words next to each other, it is a statistical term. Anecdotal evidence can never be statistically significant by definition because of the way it is collected. In your rugby example, if you interviewed players as part of a properly constructed study then you could gather evidence that might prove to be statistically significant, but this could never be the case if you simply collected together a lot of anecdotes.Tiglath wrote:
Good, then stay a while.thegibdog wrote:
I look forward to you explaining how you test a collection of anecdotes for statistical significance. If you manage it I'll even pay you for it so you don't have to do it gratuitously - after all, it would be a major breakthrough for science.Tiglath wrote:
Let us say that a scientits wants to know about head injuries in rugby. Who is he going to ask?
Rugby players would be a good start. Each interview with a player involves the telling of an anecdotal experience.
Anecdotal experiences are deemed statistically insignificant for two main reasons. First the size of the data sample is usually too small. Secondly, some accounts, of the type, "I know someone who" are not very reliable.
Now in law, people have realized that witness accounts are more unreliable thatn people thought before. But that is not the case when the event is far from routine and makes an strong impression on the witness.
So back to rugby. If the scientist asks enough rugby players, over time, the problem of sample size is overcome.
Secondly, a head injury is not something likely to be forgotten or cause much confusion, after full recovery that is.
So now you have how anecdotal evidence about head injuries from rugby players can be statistically significant.
And that is what I said before about cycling injuries, that many anecdotal accounts put together can and do have statistical significant.
And if you still do not agree please tell me what better data our hypothetical scientist could find other than rugby player accounts.
If you wish to pursue your theory further why not write to Significance magazine, I'm sure they'd love to hear from you. You could explain why scientists and statisticians are wasting their time conducting studies and analysing data when they could just gather a load of anecdotes and be done with it.0 -
Tiglath wrote:Veronese68 wrote:
So the accident did skew something? Looks like a double negative to me. Is English your first language?Tiglath wrote:Sorry, but no. The accident did not skew nothing.
You even need to plagarize other people's retorts to formulate a comeback.
By the way, fellow. I would love to have you for breakfast, you come to a battle of wits unarmed and that is hard to resist, but this is a moderated forum and it's not a good idea to start any shoot, altercations are short lived and have no winners, I would expect.
But... if the moderator does not stop you and you want an eye-poking contest I am most happy to oblige.
I think someone could turn up at this particular battle of wits with a blunt spoon and win.0 -
-
I still think I didn't write what you said I did when you were trying to belittle me. Where is it please?Sleeper Cell wrote:
Where did I write that?Tiglath wrote:Dang! As recent as November 4th, it seems, when you wrote this gem of a sentence:
"Never argue with someone who cannot use the 'quote' function I can use the quote function, watch...."
Look at all that broken glass now...Tiglath wrote:I like people who are not too big to admit small mistakes. Great habit.0 -
And the reason to get so flustered is?left the forum March 20230
-
I have said it here many times, there is no 'debate' about helmets, just a series of skirmishes which never ends in anything other than insults.Tiglath wrote:In other words, you have nothing substantial to say but like to play silly buggers.
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what you have to say that could be described as 'substantial' or original. Not an insult, just a statement of your limited impact in the 'debate' other than holding yourself up in front of others for comic effect. Every helmet debate as a fall guy, if you pardon the pun.0 -
Tiglath wrote:I dont' get this. Why? "Plenty of people" who have had cycling accidents and know whether a helmet helped or not are precisely the kind of data that can throw a ligh upon the matter. What else, if not?
One has to take care to take a sample large enough to be statistically significant, but statistical significance comes precisely from all those anectodal experiences put together and showing a pattern or trend.
I think this is the wrong question. It's not WHO, but WHAT. What are you going to ask the rugby players (or, more pertinently, cyclists) to gather your data? In my accident there were many factors that affected my injuries that would all need to be taken into account beyond 'were you wearing a helmet and did you die?' So, for your statistically significant helmet work, what are you going to ask, how are you going to verify the information in the anecdotes and remove the emotion that may otherwise affect your data (sorry, personal accounts of what may or may not have happened some time ago)? How many people will you ask and how will you select them? Are you factoring for age, sex, road surface, speed, type of helmet, whether it fitted the rider correctly and was correctly adjusted, what type of riding the cyclist was doing, whether there was alcohol or drugs involved, whether the cyclist was able to mitigate some injuries by physically protecting themselves etc?Tiglath wrote:Let us say that a scientits wants to know about head injuries in rugby. Who is he going to ask?
Rugby players would be a good start. Each interview with a player involves the telling of an anecdotal experience.0 -
I wonder how many times it is ok to post questions to someone without a response?www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0
-
Maybe Tiglath is looking for his spoon for the eye-poking contest0
-
thegibdog wrote:
You don't seem to understand what statistical significance is - it isn't just two words next to each other, it is a statistical term. Anecdotal evidence can never be statistically significant by definition because of the way it is collected. In your rugby example, if you interviewed players as part of a properly constructed study then you could gather evidence that might prove to be statistically significant, but this could never be the case if you simply collected together a lot of anecdotes.Tiglath wrote:
Good, then stay a while.thegibdog wrote:
I look forward to you explaining how you test a collection of anecdotes for statistical significance. If you manage it I'll even pay you for it so you don't have to do it gratuitously - after all, it would be a major breakthrough for science.Tiglath wrote:
Let us say that a scientits wants to know about head injuries in rugby. Who is he going to ask?
Rugby players would be a good start. Each interview with a player involves the telling of an anecdotal experience.
Anecdotal experiences are deemed statistically insignificant for two main reasons. First the size of the data sample is usually too small. Secondly, some accounts, of the type, "I know someone who" are not very reliable.
Now in law, people have realized that witness accounts are more unreliable thatn people thought before. But that is not the case when the event is far from routine and makes an strong impression on the witness.
So back to rugby. If the scientist asks enough rugby players, over time, the problem of sample size is overcome.
Secondly, a head injury is not something likely to be forgotten or cause much confusion, after full recovery that is.
So now you have how anecdotal evidence about head injuries from rugby players can be statistically significant.
And that is what I said before about cycling injuries, that many anecdotal accounts put together can and do have statistical significant.
And if you still do not agree please tell me what better data our hypothetical scientist could find other than rugby player accounts.
If you wish to pursue your theory further why not write to Significance magazine, I'm sure they'd love to hear from you. You could explain why scientists and statisticians are wasting their time conducting studies and analysing data when they could just gather a load of anecdotes and be done with it.
If we are going to have a debate at all useful a few things need to happen.
This paragraph of your:
"Anecdotal evidence can never be statistically significant by definition because of the way it is collected. In your rugby example, if you interviewed players as part of a properly constructed study then you could gather evidence that might prove to be statistically significant, but this could never be the case if you simply collected together a lot of anecdotes."
shows that you have not even read my post with any kind of attention.
I told you first the problems associated with anecdotal evidence, and I also told you that if those two problems are circumvented, the null hypothesis can be disproved and thus produce statistical significance.
You must at least try to answer my questions, as I answer yours. There is a question at the end of my previous post.
You must also realize that re-stating your position is no rebuttal and only a repeat of your naked and gratuitous assertion. That is no progress.0 -
Tiglath wrote:Veronese68 wrote:
So the accident did skew something? Looks like a double negative to me. Is English your first language?Tiglath wrote:Sorry, but no. The accident did not skew nothing.
You even need to plagarize other people's retorts to formulate a comeback.
By the way, fellow. I would love to have you for breakfast, you come to a battle of wits unarmed and that is hard to resist, but this is a moderated forum and it's not a good idea to start any shoot, altercations are short lived and have no winners, I would expect.
But... if the moderator does not stop you and you want an eye-poking contest I am most happy to oblige.
@V68
Rohypnol followed by a full English? Not my idea of fun.0 -
