Dad stops kid from crashing bike into parked car (+ link to video)

On that basis Rich do you also hypothesise that the band one direction and the apple iPhone have had a greater influence on the reduction in casualties than helmets?

Are you not sleeping well, is this really complex data keeping you up at night?

How do you hypothesise One Directions influence? They weren't even born (probably) in 1995, is there some kind of greater power at work? But as their record sales increased so did fatalities, it's all there in the data...

Is illuminati a form of high viz and could we be forced to only cycle in one direction's?

See what you've done with your yawning Rich?!

Do you get a prize for the double century?

@alansmurphy - I've said too much already.

Oi - I had to buy all their albums, put posters on my wall, buy tickets to gigs all in the name of research...

Ah so now you cherry pick what is needless, use if statements then claim other random data trends as evidence. Fabulous work Mr Trump...

Two changes over time can show correlation but do not show causality. Correlation without causality is pretty close to meaningless.

I have mentioned the shark and ice cream example before, but I shall mention it again as I do not think it was clear last time as you are still ignoring it. Correlation vs causation. ... There is a correlation between ice cream sales and shark attacks (they both go up as the temperature goes up in this case). But just because ice cream sales go up does not mean ice cream sales cause (causation) more shark attacks or vice versa. Deeper analysis of data would show that in one country (UK) Ice cream sales go up with no changes in shark attacks, leading to a more logical conclusion that shark attacks rise when more people occupy beaches near dangerous shark habitats and this happens during the warmer days when more ice cream is sold. So ignoring the significant smaller data set and just dealing with the high level information you are just ignoring important facts to prove your original hypotheses.

Let’s keep this in mind as we look at the latest paper you provided on head injury hospital admission rates over the period of helmet usage data being collected.

• The paper cites that changes such as improved cycling infrastructure could have caused changes in the rates as could changes in hospital admission policies.
• The Pedestrian, which were the control, also showed a significant decline in head injuries
• The subset of cyclists that showed the greatest decline in head injuries were also the subset that showed no changes in helmet usage trend over the period

If children are more likely to cycle in alternative cycling infrastructure such as shared paths and cycle lanes and this caused the decline, then it is reasonable to imagine that the same could be said for the adult cyclists. Surely this is a theory that better fits as it is cycling specific and covers the difference in decline between adult and child cyclists.

Reduction in head injuries was not what you stated originally though, you just latched on to this because you thought that this paper was bullet proof and would win you points so you adapted your argument. Your original hypotheses though, was that of cycle helmets preventing death. If this is true then it does not need to follow that they would also cause a drop in head injuries as it is logical to assume that if they prevent death by head injury that these same preventions will be moved from the killed table to the injured table. So depending on what they do to the minor head injuries, and what their numbers are, it is possible for a reduction in death by head injury to result in a status quo or even a slight increase.

Just because cycle helmets can prevent one does not mean  they have to prevent both. I would suggest you pick one of them and stick to that if you insist on continuing your crusade.

I've mentioned it before, others have mentioned it too, but I will call it out again. There are people on this thread who believe that cycle helmets make a difference (I am one of them) and they don't agree that your data proves your point. Surely that alone should tell you something? If you can't convince the already converted that your data proves the point then you really should look again at what you have. An argument based on facts that fall down is more likely to convince others that the reverse is true than that it's true but can't be proven.

Harry Hill would know how to settle this.

For any that are new to this thread and finding over 200 posts to be daunting, here is a summary:

Rich_CB: Cycle Helmets prevent Cyclist Deaths!

Other Thread posters: There is no proof of that

Rich_CB: Yes there is, here are two graphs

Other Thread posters: but pedestrian fatalities drop too and at a similar rate

Rich_CB: They start at different times so it must be different factors

Other Thread posters: It could be the same factor that affects cyclist more slowly or later

Rich_CB: No, it has to be cycling specific

Other Thread posters: No it doesn't and your graphs do nothing to prove causation

Rich_CB: I don't have to, it shows correlation and that's all I need

Other Thread posters: But they are not even the same data set

Rich_CB: The same data sets don't exist so they don't have to be the same

Other Thread posters: Yes they do

Rich_CB: No they don't, and here is a paper that proves Cycle Helmets prevent Cyclist Injuries

Other Thread posters: Wait, you said cyclist deaths initially

Rich_CB: Same thing

Other Thread posters: No it isn't, one being true does not make the other true. One could be true and make the other worse.

Rich_CB: Whatever, it's clear proof, I win

Other Thread posters: But pedestrian head injuries drop significantly too and they don't wear helmets

Rich_CB: That doesn't matter as cyclist head injuries drop more

Other Thread posters: But cyclist head injuries drop more for children who your graph shows not to have had an increase in wearing helmets...

Rich_CB: There is not the matching child pedestrian data so we have to discount that

Other Thread posters: But when you have not had matching data, that did not stop you. Anyway, here is the matching child pedestrian data and it doesn't support your hypothesis

Rich_CB: Helmets effect children differently

Other Thread posters: Really, I didn’t know that. Where is that information?

Rich_CB: I didn't say it was a fact!

Other Thread posters: Uh, OK?!?!

Rich_CB: Anyway, I have proven correlation

Other Thread posters: No you haven't, they are different data sets! But OK, have some proof of correlation with Cyclist Fatalities and One Direction/ iPhones/ Age of Miss America/

Rich_CB: Yawn! You are being silly

Other Thread posters: No more so than you.

234 comments?? wtf....let it lie!

So, anybody got any thoughts on Brexit?

Just gonna chuck this hand grenade into the middle...and walk away...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-hampshire-42345928/girl-says-cyc...

My view...if anyone still gives a shit: The evidence can be manipulated to suit all arguments, but even if the evidence was clear one way or the other, I would still wear one, and I would defend the rights of others not to wear one.

There's something rotten in Hampshire.

I wonder what would have happened if the goats had been wearing helmets?

Rich CB here's some data for you:

2005: 25% of men and 23% of women smoked

2010: 21% of men and 20% of women smoked

2005: 77.9 people per hundred thousand had an incidence of lung cancer

2010: 79.4 people per hundred thousand had an incidence of lung cancer

Hypothesis:

Quitting smoking causes cancer. 

Has anyone won yet?

42

​Can we have an end to this madness now, please? 

You failed with the gathering of data as you have used data that separately tests 2 areas of your hypothesis without linking.

Same as mine below with smoking and cancer.

Follow that around your little diagram and it's as valid, if not moreso than yours!

.

.

_

off the fucking scale

Meanwhile in a civilised society, one that Rich_cb would be having graph(ic) nightmares over https://vimeo.com/246432864

Rich_cb [488 posts] 37 min ago 0 likes
ClubSmed wrote:
It seems pointless me trying to explain why and how you're wrong, as so many others as well as myself have tried to do in the course of this thread.
If you do not possess the intelligence needed to take on board feedback and adapt with it then so be it.
The next step in the scientific method would be to publish your findings. Why don't you try those reputed journals that you admire and see how many of them are willing to publish your paper.
Questions:
How many journals would accept Rich_CB's research methods, analysis and findings?
What will Rich_CB do when the paper is rejected by all?

Hypothesis:
Rich_CB will not have his work taken seriously but that will not change his outlook.

Testable predictions:
Rich_CB's 'study' will not be accepted by any journal (respected or not)
Rich_CB will not accept this as any fault of his data or analysis.

It's now over to you Rich_CB to gather the data, good luck! I look forward to seeing the results.

Good old deflection.

Always there when you don't have an actual argument.

No argument??!!

What's with the 297 posts then? Just for a laugh?

I don't know which thread is funnier, this or the Raceview Cycles one.