Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience - Page 215

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

Bill Sornson wrote:

> Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>> scharf.steven@geemail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>>
>>>> You summarised an incorrect perception (whether deliberately
>>>> falsified or accidentally I don't know, but false one way or the
>>>> other), as opposed to showing the *actual* rationale used.
>>>
>>> I believe it's an accurate perception, after reading many of the
>>> posts in this and other helmet threads. In a large number of the
>>> posts, there are claims that the lack of drastically reduced injury
>>> rates when a helmet law is introduces is direct proof that helmets
>>> are ineffective.
>>
>> Even if helmets *are* effective at preventing brain injuries
>
> BRAIN injuries? Who said that?

I did. Just now. That's what I'm interested in. For prevention of minor
injuries, equipment such as elbow pads would be *much* more effective.

>> in particular types of accidents, as I suspect they are, these studies
>> indicate to me that such types of accidents must happen infrequently
>> enough that they should be considered insignificant. From that point
>> of view, I certainly consider the above statement to be correct, i.e.
>> helmets are ineffective for preventing a significant number of brain
>> injuries.
>
> What "above statement"? (The things you quoted don't say "brain
> injuries" at all.)
> Perhaps you're confusing /head injury/ (gash, bash, rash, bump, bonk,
> concussion, etc.) with /brain/ injury?

Okay, I agree with the statement if you append "ineffective at preventing
brain injuries" (including concussions, which I consider to be brain
injuries). As I said above, if minor injuries are your concern then there
are more effective prevention strategies.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

In article <87vepevqxu.fsf@eusa.purgatory>, bclewis@alumni.sfu.ca
says...
> scharf.steven@geemail.com wrote:
>
> > Peter Clinch wrote:
> >
> >> You summarised an incorrect perception (whether deliberately falsified
> >> or accidentally I don't know, but false one way or the other), as
> >> opposed to showing the *actual* rationale used.
> >
> > I believe it's an accurate perception, after reading many of the posts in
> > this and other helmet threads. In a large number of the posts, there are
> > claims that the lack of drastically reduced injury rates when a helmet
> > law is introduces is direct proof that helmets are ineffective.
>
> Even if helmets *are* effective at preventing brain injuries in particular
> types of accidents, as I suspect they are, these studies indicate to me
> that such types of accidents must happen infrequently enough that they
> should be considered insignificant. From that point of view, I certainly
> consider the above statement to be correct, i.e. helmets are ineffective
> for preventing a significant number of brain injuries.
>
I'm not sure the research tells us that.

The population studies that have been discussed here suggest to me that
large increases in helmet use (e.g. due to promulgation of mandatory
helmet laws) have not produced consistent decreases in serious head
injury frequence among cyclists, and have more often been accompanied by
statistically significant increases in serious head injury frequency.

No one seems to be sure why this is so. The most common speculation
I've seen includes:
1) that helmet wearers take more risks because they think they're safe
wearing helmets (risk compensation)
2) that the physical properties of helmets increase the severity of some
head injuries and cause head contact with other objects that would not
otherwise have occurred
3) that helmets don't provide protection against axonal brain damage and
therefore provide little or no protection in accidents involving head
strikes that can be expected to occur at recreational cycling speeds
4) that overall reductions in cycling participation have reduced the
"safety in numbers" effect.

There are undoubtedly others.

Some of these (e.g. 2) and 3)) would, if supported by strong research
evidence, support a conclusion that wearing a helmet is less safe for
all cyclists.

1) and 4) would, if supported by strong research evidence, support a
conclusion that popular perception about the protective properties of
helmets increases risky behaviour among cyclists and drivers, especially
when helmet use increases significantly. But they would not prove that
a cyclist about to crash is less safe if wearing a helmet.

I speculate that all 4 of these factors comes into play, but still can't
conclude that I'm safer NOT wearing a helmet.

Rick

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

In article <44cb6a97$0$96172$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS wrote:
>rare head impact crashes. It's good to see that even those that don't
>try to rationalize the difference, still are not in favor of legislation
>to force helmet use.

Except of course for the ones who are (not necessarily taking part in
this thread).


> It's sad to see that some people are so desperate
>to defend their own behavior that they are blinded to reality.

Oh yes. Even those who really aren't in favour of legislation to enforce
their viewpoint, but merely want to argue that their prejudices should
be given the same weight as actual evidence.

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

In article <44cbec4b$0$96239$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS wrote:
>
> I learned a long time ago
>on Usenet, that you want to avoid getting into the trap of repeating
>your earlier posts over and over again.

Any chance you could teach that to Sorni, Ozark, etc.?

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article <44cbec4b$0$96239$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS wrote:

>> I learned a long time ago
>> on Usenet, that you want to avoid getting into the trap of repeating
>> your earlier posts over and over again.

> Any chance you could teach that to Sorni, Ozark, etc.?

Ah, I see. Reply to that and be "repetitive" (?) or don't and /Baggins/*
apparently makes some sort of point (?).

*ask Carl

Thanks for that vital contribution to the discourse.

Bill S.

PS: SMS is right, of course. No matter how many times one answers things
like "why don't you advocate walking helmets, then?", it's asked again and
again and one is trapped: repeat yourself over and over (possibly slipping
up and making a mistake OR losing your temper and using invectives); OR be
accused of dodging the question.

It's one of the more obvious tactics of the AHZ Weasel Brigade.

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
>
> <snip good points>
>
> > I speculate that all 4 of these factors comes into play, but still can't
> > conclude that I'm safer NOT wearing a helmet.
>
> No clear net benefit is no clear net benefit, safety wise. That is
> indeed not the same as a clear net safety reduction. However, you do
> have clear comfort and convenience reductions and at an overall risk
> level where people aren't willing to put up with those for other
> similarly risky things. Which is not of itself a universal deal-breaker
> on helmet wearing, though it does suggest undue weight is being placed
> on the dangers of cycling.
>
> For myself, I stopped wearing one partly for comfort and convenience but
> also to demonstrate that cycling can be an everyday, reasonably safe,
> healthy activity that does not require special armour. Though it
> bothers me that some agencies /do/ see every helmet worn as a good
> reason to push for an MHL, I'm not going to make any insistence beyond
> pointing that out that people should throw away their lids.
>
>

A well thought out, well reasoned post. You've considered the situation
and your personal experience(s) and decided not to wear a helmet. Just
as others may consider
the situation along with their personal experience(s) and decide to
wear a helmet, at
least some of the time. Who can argue with freedom of choice?

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:58:04 +0100, Peter Clinch
<p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:

>In other words, if all else is equal then I think role modelling the
>fact that cycling does not need helmets is a worthwhile thing to do.
>But, of course, all else may /not/ be equal from a personal perspective.

Well said.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:22:49 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> said
> in <dG7zg.524$Ta6.76@tornado.socal.rr.com>:
>
>> Sigh. I'll put it back:
>
> Don't bother. Now you have completely abandoned even a pretence of
> rational argument your evasions about your evasions have nothing more
> than comedy value anyway.

OK, Tony, whatever you say.

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:40:05 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> said
> in <pW7zg.526$Ta6.490@tornado.socal.rr.com>:
>
>>>> While they're not honest enough to flat out say they'd like to ban
>>>> helmets, they all but admitted as much by attacking people /solely/
>>>> for choosing to wear them.
>
>>> Right. So you can't actually cite *anyone*
>
>> I cite Flailor and Blurt. My /introduction/ to them was being
>> attacked merely for stating my choice to wear a lid. (Feel free to
>> Google if you doubt it; pretty sure they'd freely admit it, however.)
>
> Please give the posting IDs for the posts in which either of these two
> posters (whose names I do not recognise from this thread,
> incidentally) have advocated a law banning helmet use.

I take it back about Blurt -- he just chimed in later and began humping away
(still to this day). "jtaylor" (AKA Flailor) is the one who jumped on me
/and others/ for merely saying we choose to wear lids. (It's really not
worth my time and trouble to go find his and others' MANY posts like that;
it matters not, anyway.) BTW, somewhere in there is when this crap first
began getting cross-posted to the UK group(s).

> And you were not being attacked for choosing to wear a polystyrene
> foam deflector beanie, at least not by me

Did you see your name mentioned? It's not all about you, Guy, despite your
most fervent wishes.

>- my problem all along has
> been with your asserting that your opinion based on prejudice has
> equal validity with one based on evidence. I have said this several
> times.

Yup. And it sounds just as silly and meaningless each time you say it.

HTH

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
news:6Itzg.2211$Ta6.1108@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:22:49 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> said
> > in <dG7zg.524$Ta6.76@tornado.socal.rr.com>:
> >
> >> Sigh. I'll put it back:
> >
> > Don't bother. Now you have completely abandoned even a pretence of
> > rational argument your evasions about your evasions have nothing more
> > than comedy value anyway.
>
> OK, Tony, whatever you say.
>

Holy ****oly! Is it ever going to end?

Greg
--
"What have you got in that paper bag?
Is it a dose of Vitamin C?
Ain't got no time for Western medicine
I am Damo Suzuki" - Mark E Smith

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

G.T. wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
> news:6Itzg.2211$Ta6.1108@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:22:49 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> said
>>> in <dG7zg.524$Ta6.76@tornado.socal.rr.com>:
>>>
>>>> Sigh. I'll put it back:
>>>
>>> Don't bother. Now you have completely abandoned even a pretence of
>>> rational argument your evasions about your evasions have nothing
>>> more than comedy value anyway.
>>
>> OK, Tony, whatever you say.
>>
>
> Holy ****oly! Is it ever going to end?
>
> Greg

Guy's smugness? Nah.

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On 30 Jul 2006 12:20:25 -0700, obs@ozarkbicycleservice.com said in
> <1154287225.414853.258930@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >"Guy" is pulling the slack whilst the Great Leader Raven is away.
>
> Dr Raven is not my leader, but I would not mind if he were.
>

You can join "jtaylor" in a boot licking festival. Perhaps the Great
Leader will pat you both on the head. Enjoy!


> >Of course, as we know, slack isn't the only thing "Guy" is apt to be
> >pulling.
>
> Yup. Your leg, for example.


There *is* a difference between pulling a leg and humping a leg, "Guy".
Quit yer humping.

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

While defensive riding is a good thing it can only take you so far, unless you're the only thing moving on/along the road. There's no way any reasonable amount of defensive riding will protect me from the truly random factors that can occur, the spooked cat/rabbit etc that hides in the ditch/hedge and launches itself across the road as you approach. Or, my personal "favourite" this year, the Harley rider who left his mufflers at home and basically blasted me into the ditch by by sheer force of decibel as he coasted up at idle and then treated me to a dose of full throttle at 2 meters distance...

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 18:14:01 +1000, dabac
<dabac.2buqyn@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:

>There's no way
>any reasonable amount of defensive riding will protect me from the
>truly random factors that can occur, the spooked cat/rabbit etc that
>hides in the ditch/hedge and launches itself across the road as you
>approach.

Well defensive riding might not protect you from that occuring near
you, but it's certainly almost entirely in your control if you crash
or not due to something as small as a rabbit. For a larger animal,
such as a cat, you have a large amount of control.

I'm not saying that the "typical" cyclist (if that exists) or someone
who only rides a few times a year can be expected to handle those
situations well, but an enthusiast who rides several times a week
every week can easily learn to deal with problems like that.

So yeah, those sorts of freaky events play a role in our examination
of helmets in the cycling population as a whole, but I would hope that
everyone in this group not accept crashing due to tiny animal like a
rabbit themselves.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 18:14:01 +1000, dabac
> <dabac.2buqyn@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>
>> There's no way
>> any reasonable amount of defensive riding will protect me from the
>> truly random factors that can occur, the spooked cat/rabbit etc that
>> hides in the ditch/hedge and launches itself across the road as you
>> approach.

> Well defensive riding might not protect you from that occuring near
> you, but it's certainly almost entirely in your control if you crash
> or not due to something as small as a rabbit. For a larger animal,
> such as a cat, you have a large amount of control.
>
> I'm not saying that the "typical" cyclist (if that exists) or someone
> who only rides a few times a year can be expected to handle those
> situations well, but an enthusiast who rides several times a week
> every week can easily learn to deal with problems like that.

I disagree with that. "Casual" cyclists typically (if there is such a
thing) ride fairly slowly on fairly wide tires -- so if they don't freak out
(which is possible, admittedly) there's a good chance they won't crash.
And, if they do fall, it will be relatively slowly and hopefully not too
serious. (Not likely to be clipped in, for example, so easier to at least
/try/ to stay upright.) There's just more margin for error.

OTOH, an "enthusiast" as you call it will likely be going pretty darned fast
on some stretches, riding on skinny, rock-hard tires and attached to his or
her bike with cleats locked in pedals. A rabbit darting out -- much less a
cat -- and hitting the front wheel or causing a sudden swerve can be
disastrous for even the most experienced rider. (In fact, pros are even
more vulnerable than "enthusiasts".) There's just less margin for error.

Think "family sedan" hitting a pothole at 50 pmh versus an Indy car hitting
an uneven surface at 220. There's just less margin for error.

> So yeah, those sorts of freaky events play a role in our examination
> of helmets in the cycling population as a whole, but I would hope that
> everyone in this group not accept crashing due to tiny animal like a
> rabbit themselves.

Too bad you snipped his Harley anecdote. Funny! (In a "I could have died"
sorta way. <eg> )

Bill "one-line sig out of consideration for the reader" S.