Originally Posted by
wphamilton
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
Where is the other report?
The footnote says, "24 Thompson DC, Nunn ME, Thompson RS, Rivara FP. Effectiveness of bicycle-safety helmets in preventing serious facial injury. JAMA 1996; 276: 1974-5."
I saw that. My question was mostly rhetorical. Skye is
cherry-picking a report that supports his position but ignores a report (ironically from the same authors) that doesn't.
Originally Posted by
wphamilton
The footnote says, "24 Thompson DC, Nunn ME, Thompson RS, Rivara FP. Effectiveness of bicycle-safety helmets in preventing serious facial injury. JAMA 1996; 276: 1974-5."
Same title, same authors, different year? I didn't catch that - but abstract is also exactly the same, which I did check. Is it really a different study? Or perhaps the same study, re-published.
It's the same study. And it's old.
"There were 3854 injured cyclists in the three year period."
It's kind of confusing.
Originally Posted by
wphamilton
Yes, that's what I was trying to get across when I wrote "but they're saying that the number of examples is too small for 10% improvement to be a hard and fast conclusion."
I expect that you understood it.
Skye is "misrepresenting" the report (and his conclusions don't match the author's conclusions).
I was pointing out how he was misrepresenting it.