or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Cycling Equipment › I crash into religion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I crash into religion - Page 34

post #496 of 580

Re: I crash into religion

Mark Thompson wrote:
>> BTW, if "polystyrene foam does indeed resist crushing remarkably
>> well", as you state, then why the heck doesn't everyone want some on
>> their dome?

>
> I'm more likely to need it when walking to the shops that riding.
>
> <www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D7250.xls>


once again a misuse of the statistics.

The overall population stats are useful for policy level decision but give
zero guidance at the level of the individual..

pk
post #497 of 580

Re: I crash into religion

p.k. wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
> > Since you seem to think it /is/ worth the hassle on a bike, how
> > come you don't protect yourself that bit extra doing any of the
> > other stuff mentioned above? Not very consistent logic if you don't.

>
>
> Do you have a smoke alarm in your house?
>
> Why not in your car?


Do you sleep while driving?
post #498 of 580

Re: I crash into religion

> once again a misuse of the statistics.
>
> The overall population stats are useful for policy level decision but
> give zero guidance at the level of the individual..


I'd argue that it gives ball-park figures that can be useful for the
individual. Misuse? Certainly. Zero guidance for the individual? No.
post #499 of 580

Re: I crash into religion

well, you measure from the center outward and the longer side goes on
the CR!
post #500 of 580

Re: I crash into religion

Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de
> news:1147529471.050352.321840@d71g2000cwd.googlegroups.com,
> 41 <KingGeorgeXLI@yahoo.fr> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> > Sandy wrote:
> >> Dans le message de
> >> news:1147500715.442103.154820@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
> >> 41 <KingGeorgeXLI@yahoo.fr> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> >>
> >>> even without any
> >>> helmet, you will sustain a mortal injury to your brain before your
> >>> skull fractures.
> >>
> >> You may want to think about that, again.

> >
> > Or you. The original head injury standards for helmets were based on
> > prevention of skull fractures and those were 500 G. With the move to
> > the prevention of brain injury instead that went down to the 300 G
> > that we still see in today's Snell standards.
> >
> > <http://www.smf.org/articles/helmet_development.html>

>
> OR
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
>
> http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/bynam...l-hematoma.htm
>
> http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/pr...meteffect.html
>
> Take a look again at what you wrote. It's not a sin to see it may be far
> from the truth.


No, you first. The references you supplied show you (a) did not read
what I wrote and (b) do not understand the problem, AT ALL. The first
two are entirely irrelevant and the third, containing capsule summaries
of other studies, might only possibly be relevant (in fact, those
studies do not have the detail necessary to know). You seem to think I
(a) said it was impossible to have a skull fracture without first
dying, and (b) that it is impossible to have a skull fracture from a
deceleration injury without dying. Indeed you might get that impression
from just the part you snipped out. The first mis-reading shows a
complete misunderstanding of the entire problem, the second shows an
only somewhat more refined misunderstanding of the entire problem.
Hint: read e.g. the Snell standards, FULLY. And why not, what I wrote
as well, noting what parts of those Snell standards I do and do not
refer to:

#> If had landed square on
#> the top right side of my head without my helmet, I probably would
have
#> fractured my skull. I believe that because I separated my shoulder,

#> and it hit second.

#It's hard to see how that would have happened without your brain
being
#scrambled first. At the 300g deceleration against a flat surace, you
#are not supposed to be at the limit of skull fracture, but you are
#supposed to be at the limit of brain scrambling. In other words, by
the
#time a bicycle helmet (as opposed to a hard hat) is protecting you
#against skull fracture, you are already dead, i.e., even without any
#helmet, you will sustain a mortal injury to your brain before your
#skull fractures. That is not the case if it is you who is at rest and

#the object that is flying against you, because in that case, your
#deceleration is 0g no matter what, comfortably below the 300g limit.
#But that is not what bicycle helmets are designed for.
post #501 of 580

Re: I crash into religion

Sorni wrote:
>
>
> Of course, the implication of your post is that helmets, indeed, DO have
> "useful protective capacity" in the first place. (Sort of like when Frank
> lets it slip that they're useful for accident-prone people.)


There was no "let it slip" involved. It was a deliberate statement,
and a perfectly honest one.

As I described, I saw that terribly accident-prone young woman fall
just walking or standing on several occasions. I'll freely admit that
a bike helmet can be beneficial for such falls. The certification test
for helmets matches those falls with at least _some_ accuracy - the
main discrepancy being that the young woman's head remained attached to
her body, while the certification test has the head completely loose.
(Those who doubt this are welcome to check, of course.)

But the great bulk of helmet promotion does not claim bike helmets are
useful only for stationary topples. They tend to talk about fatalities
(which are extremely rare, and over 90% of which involve being hit by a
car). The implication is that helmets are useful against truly severe
impacts.

>
> BTW, if "polystyrene foam does indeed resist crushing remarkably well", as
> you state, then why the heck doesn't everyone want some on their dome?


Beats me! I was out driving around this morning with an ER doctor I
know. Both of us noted that _none_ of the motorists we saw were
wearing one. So it's clear, you certainly haven't convinced them yet!

>
> Here's an idea: everyone make up their own mind; go ride.


Ah, but you seem to hate it when people present large population data.
You want them to be exposed only to the helmet seller's propaganda
before making up their own mind.

Free exchange of ideas seems to be a terrible thing in your mind!

- Frank Krygowski
post #502 of 580

Re: I crash into religion

Sorni wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
> >
> >
> > Since you seem to think it /is/ worth the hassle on a bike, how
> > come you don't protect yourself that bit extra doing any of the
> > other stuff mentioned above? Not very consistent logic if you don't.

>
> By God you're right. I'm going to start wearing a lid all the time!


See? Someone had claimed these threads never teach anybody anything.

Obviously that's wrong. Even Sorni can learn! From now on, he'll at
_least_ be consistent.

;-)

- Frank Krygowski
post #503 of 580

Re: I crash into religion

Richard wrote:
> p.k. wrote:
>
>> The overall population stats are useful for policy level decision
>> but give zero guidance at the level of the individual..

>
> I don't think you really mean 'zero' guidance, do you?



pretty much, yes.

pk
post #504 of 580
Thread Starter 

Re: I crash into religion

Sorni wrote:

>
> Pete, you've SEEN football, right? (And by football, I mean the REAL game,
> not one of those poor excuses for a drunken tussle "over there".) (THAT
> should engender some good will.)
>
> It would be a /completely/ different game without protective gear.
>
> {snip boxing argument -- interesting but completely different}
>


Without doubt, American football would look much different if the
players had no armor.

It's really a perfect example of risk compensation. I'm surprised no one
has pointed that out in this thread spur.

-paul
post #505 of 580

Re: I crash into religion

Sorni wrote:
>
> By God you're right. I'm going to start wearing a lid all the time!
>
> Sigh...
>


That would at least be a consistent position.


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
post #506 of 580

Re: I crash into religion

p.k. wrote:
>
> The overall population stats are useful for policy level decision but give
> zero guidance at the level of the individual..
>


I presume that before you use any pharmaceutical you check yourself into
a medical school to have a carefully monitored clinical trial run on
yourself. After all the population trials give you zero guidance at the
level of the individual.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
post #507 of 580

Re: I crash into religion

On Sat, 13 May 2006 21:58:27 GMT, "Sorni"
<soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com> wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 May 2006 13:06:12 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>> <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 May 2006 15:52:23 GMT, "Sorni"
>>> <soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What if the "DATA" didn't show any benefit or advantage
>>>> to seat belts (especially in evidently biased "studies" that were
>>>> anti-SB to begin with)?
>>>
>>> Then I expect and hope I wouldn't use them. I think I said that.
>>>

>> So Sorni, what about the ride without the helmet? Can you answer the
>> question?

>
>Not without putting a bunch of qualifiers on it like you did with mine.


I am almost ashamed to admit I get a bit of pleasure in asking someone
a question where most answers will point out either their stupidity or
inconsistency and they refuse to answer.

No one is forcing you not to make a nuanced answer, but instead you
can be cowardly about it and talk about my response to your question,
which was set-up with factual contradictions.

So not answering at all -- cowardly that is.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
post #508 of 580

Re: I crash into religion

On Sat, 13 May 2006 21:57:33 GMT, "Sorni"
<soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com> wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 May 2006 15:52:23 GMT, "Sorni"
>> <soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com> wrote:

>
>{NOTE: CONTEXT REMOVED. SHOCKING.}
>
>>> What if the "DATA" didn't show any benefit or advantage
>>> to seat belts (especially in evidently biased "studies" that were
>>> anti-SB to begin with)?

>
>> Then I expect and hope I wouldn't use them. I think I said that.

>
>So you'd bang your head on a windshield, then be offered something that
>would keep that from happening again, but choose to not use it because
>"studies" or "stats" don't PROVE it?


You set up a sort of paradoxical scenario, where a product we know
does something that is easily demonstrated doesn't seem to do it (in
your scenario).

So I've played along with your game and as I said, I hope I'd make
that decision and if I didn't I hope I'd be honest enough to admit it
was an emotional decision.

JT



****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
post #509 of 580

Re: I crash into religion

On 13 May 2006 16:17:55 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:


>"To troll is life
> everything else
> is just waiting" - John Furtivesnips Trollinsum


You are cowardly too -- not giving substantive answers in response to
on-topic questions I ask you. I'm still waiting for an answer about
your hearing or not hearing someone bragging about helmet prices.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
post #510 of 580

Re: I crash into religion

Richard wrote:
> p.k. wrote:
>
>>>> The overall population stats are useful for policy level decision
>>>> but give zero guidance at the level of the individual..
>>>
>>> I don't think you really mean 'zero' guidance, do you?

>>
>> pretty much, yes.

>
> So, the population-level statistics of, say, people who fall out of
> planes without parachutes show pretty much a 100% fatality rate
> (barring the chap in WW2 and the stewardess in the 70s). Do you
> really think they give you *zero* guidance as to your individual
> survival chances?



Different data different circumstances different conclusions.

The point at issue is DECISION MAKING at the level of the individual based
on population level data.

But you know that and are avoiding the point by attempting petty point
scoring

pk
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Cycling Equipment
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Cycling Equipment › I crash into religion