I'll give you a little leeway, but given the content of your post which addresses none of the design, statistics or conclusions of the study you cited, this follow-up is primarily targetted for the remainder of the reading audience.jammerh writes:It isn't stated in the information provided in the link. It is an assertion I am making in the same way I made an assertion that drivers tend to pass closer to cyclists in previous posts - which does seem to be be verified by the information I've linked.From the overview of the main results (http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf):Riding position and helmet wearing accounted for 8% of the variance in overtaking proximities.Again, without seeing his full statistical analysis segment this translates to me as an R-squared of 0.08. If you read it in plain english it means that there are other factors accounting for 92% of the variance in overtaking proximity. What does this verify? It verifies that there are numerous other factors not accounted for by this study that determine the distance at which a vehicle passes a bicycle.If you're going to cite studies be prepared to defend your position. That's how science works. That's what research is used for. That means you will have to engage in intelligent debate about your position by utilizing a systematic study of a question with the ability to generalize the results.jammerh writes:Instead of agreeing there might be some basis for my arguments you continue to focus on anything you can in a rather desperate attempt to discredit. This is a pretty good indication you're not sincerely addressing the issue, but rather trying to state what you believe will be popular in order to garner recs.If you don't understand or can't analyze study design you better learn really quickly before you attempt to use a study in anything but a lowest level "well I read this study once" discussion. You will get called out on trying to use bad data. Most of the time the results/discussion of the paper will guide your understanding of the statistics and if necessary you can always seek expert advice in the matter.If you like the study you cited, feel free to defend the design and conclusions. But you have not addressed any of my initial comments.jammerh writes:Sorry if this journal just isn't good enough for you.Here's a suggestion. If you don't like my comment about impact score you can always locate other ergonomics journals and list their relative impact scores since per the press release this is supposed to be the "top" ergonomics journal. You could cite national/international professional organizations and whether this is one of their professional journals.In other words, do some work.jammerh writes:It's a serious issue, and I believe it deserves better than this kind of grandstanding.Yes it does, but apparently you've had quite a history on this board dredging this topic up over and over.9/19/05: Are Helmets All They're Cracked Up To Be?http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=230496349/19/05: Hey - A Helmet Saved My Life...http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=230502379/21/05: Thanks For The Feedbackhttp://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=2306005910/26/05: 725 Cyclists Killed Last Yearhttp://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=23212888Note that you actually posted the following in this thread:You've made a convert out of me. I'll continue wearing my helmet. Thanks to all who cared enough to try to drum some sense into this stubborn old Fool's head.4/17/06: Helmet Mythologyhttp://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=239838384/19/06: No Helmets - No Apologieshttp://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=239926134/27/06: Helmet Use Should Be Optonalhttp://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=240271145/17/06: The Need To Think Criticallyhttp://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=24113307I suggest you go back to the links you posted in this post and review how to think critically as you admonished others to do.5/19/06: Difference Between Perception And Realityhttp://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=241231999/12/06: The present thread!Here's a suggestion for you (and for the general reading audience) go back to your post (http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=23049634) where you cite the following link: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1052 and read their synopsis of helmet use. That site does a much better job than I ever could of summarizing some of the debate about the effectiveness of cycle helmets.You should always go back to the primary literature and review it for yourself. You chose to bring this particular study up vs. the numerous others on that site. I think this study isn't that great. Clearly BMJ is interested in the topic. Why isn't this study in BJM vs. some lower-tiered ergonomics journal?jammerh writes:Your condescending tone, and abosolute refusal to acknowledge that there might be some validity to Dr Walker's work is no big surprise.If it's valid defend it. If you can't learn how to. You've had over a year since you started down this road to gain a basic understanding of how to interpret and dissect literature.If you can't handle critical analysis of literature, don't try to cite it.Since you keep droning on about this same topic I suggest you become an expert. And that means understanding the literature to date by having a basic understanding of epidemiology, statistics and study design.Otherwise you're the most dangerous thing on earth: an ignorant advocate with Google access.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar<