or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Regional Cycling Forums › UK and Europe › Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience - Page 2

post #16 of 186

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

"Sorni" <soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ExL8g.133$G95.100@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Clive George wrote:
>> "Sorni" <soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:AXK8g.838$uM4.533@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>
>>>>>> In the sport culture, helmets are part of the uniform. In utility
>>>>>> cycling, they are an inconvenience.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just like getting into a car and putting on your seat belt, and
>>>>> sitting behind the colapsable steering wheel with the airbags, and
>>>>> the crumple zone.
>>>>> Is it really THAT hard?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. When I get into my car, the seatbelt is there. I can put it on
>>>> while waiting for other bits of the car to start. When I arrive at
>>>> my destination, the seatbelt stays inside the car.
>>>>
>>>> When I go somewhere by bike, putting a helmet on is extra
>>>> inconvenience, riding with it is not as nice as without, and storing
>>>> it while at my destination is a problem.
>>>>
>>>> You haven't really thought this through, have you?
>>>
>>> Shoelaces are a real pain in the ass, too. Most people have learned
>>> to adapt to and accept it. Others just wear flipflops with their
>>> tuxedos. PRETTY SOON THERE MIGHT BE MANDATORY SHOELACE LAWS! THIS MUST
>>> BE
>>> STOPPED!

>>
>> Y'know, this really isn't helping your argument one bit.

>
> Neither is whining that a helmet is inconvenient helping yours.


Not whining. It's a very important part of my argument. Inconvenience and
comfort are the primary reasons I don't wear one.

>> Would a fair
>> summary of your position be that you think helmets are a good thing,
>> and can't be bothered to look any further than that?

>
> For the type of cycling that I do, yes I think wearing a helmet is a smart
> thing to do. Sorry you find that so objectionable.


Do you want to answer the other part of my question?

clive
post #17 of 186

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

Burt wrote:
> Ozark,
>
> you haven't voted in the "new helmet poll" thread. Any particular reason
> why not?


Probably because you only posted it to urc and Ozark is reading rbt.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"There is a wicked pretense that one has been informed. But no
such thing has truly occurred! A mere slogan, an empty litany.
No arguments are heard, no evidence is weighed. It isn't news at
all, only a source of amusement for idlers." (Gibson-Sterling,
The Difference Engine)
post #18 of 186

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

On Thu, 11 May 2006 14:09:11 +0100, "Clive George"
<clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>"Friday" <nowhere@sometime.net.au> wrote in message


>> [about wearing helmet] Is it really THAT hard?

>
>Yes. When I get into my car, the seatbelt is there. I can put it on while
>waiting for other bits of the car to start. When I arrive at my destination,
>the seatbelt stays inside the car.
>
>When I go somewhere by bike, putting a helmet on is extra inconvenience,
>riding with it is not as nice as without, and storing it while at my
>destination is a problem.


Plus if you ride vigorously and sweat it needs to be cleaned. I
finally started using multiple helmets (not all at once) so I have a
clean one ready.

But it's not *very* hard to deal with -- just an inconvenience. So I
look at the helment proponents this way: if they say "I use one
whenever I can because it might help and it's not so hard for me" I
think "Cool."

But if they say "I always where one" or "I never ride without one" I
think "Theyre an idiot." Seriously. If you can't conceive of a
situation where you might ride without one (forgot helmet, it's very
dirty, etc) you've got a problem. If you wouldn't get on your bike
because you don't have a helmet with you, you've got a problem.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
post #19 of 186

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

"41" <KingGeorgeXLI@yahoo.fr> writes:

> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
>> > > Okay, your turn: tell everyone how you would determine that while you
>> > > didn't hit your head while not wearing a helmet, you know you would
>> > > have hit your head, in the same incident, if you were wearing a helmet.
>> > > And, please, be precise.

>>
>> IOW, you can not provide an example, can you? You are pulling this
>> stuff out of your ass.

>
> I told you and provided exactly this precise example, but you chose to
> ignore it.
>


There was nothing to comment on. All sorts of strange **** happens in
accidents : sounds like you were lucky because you didnt have a helment
- thank your lucky stars! In the same way that the woman who reversed
into the harbour was glad that she didnt have her seatbelt on. Doesnt
really alter the general truth though.

Thankfully laws arent made based on statistical anomalies.
post #20 of 186

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

Hadron Quark wrote:
> "41" <KingGeorgeXLI@yahoo.fr> writes:
>
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >
> >> > > Okay, your turn: tell everyone how you would determine that while you
> >> > > didn't hit your head while not wearing a helmet, you know you would
> >> > > have hit your head, in the same incident, if you were wearing a helmet.
> >> > > And, please, be precise.
> >>
> >> IOW, you can not provide an example, can you? You are pulling this
> >> stuff out of your ass.

> >
> > I told you and provided exactly this precise example, but you chose to
> > ignore it.
> >

>
> There was nothing to comment on.


He challenged anyone to provide an example. I provided one, as did at
least one other poster. He ignored us both and instead tossed out
sexual slurs against a third poster. As someone in these newsgroups
says: "No, you're wrong, because, hey, look over there!"
post #21 of 186

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

in message <878xp7a786.fsf@gmail.com>, Hadron Quark
('hadronquark@gmail.com') wrote:

> There was nothing to comment on. All sorts of strange **** happens in
> accidents : sounds like you were lucky because you didnt have a helment
> - thank your lucky stars! In the same way that the woman who reversed
> into the harbour was glad that she didnt have her seatbelt on. Doesnt
> really alter the general truth though.
>
> Thankfully laws arent made based on statistical anomalies.


It's not a statistical anomaly that worldwide, in every territory where a
MHL has been enforced, casualties per billion cyclist kilometers have
not fallen (mostly they've risen). It's not a statistical anomaly that,
across the world, there is a strong negative correlation between helmet
wearing rates and deaths per billion cyclist kilometers.

Statistically, you cannot defend helmet wearing; on the basis of
statistics, it's very easy to prove helmets just don't work. This isn't
very useful, however because it doesn't have fine enough granularity for
us to be able to distinguish between the circumstances in which a helmet
might be useful, and the (clearly more common) circumstances in which
helmet wearing is obviously harmful.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
/-\ You have discovered a security flaw in a Microsoft product. You
|-| can report this issue to our security team. Would you like to
| | * Be completely ignored (default)?
| | * Receive a form email full of platitudes about how much we care?
\_/ * Spend hours helping us fix this problem for free?
post #22 of 186

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

In article <i939g.1271$G95.1231@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
"Sorni" <soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com>
wrote:

> Peter Clinch wrote:
> > Hadron Quark wrote:
> >
> >> There was nothing to comment on. All sorts of strange **** happens in
> >> accidents : sounds like you were lucky because you didnt have a
> >> helment - thank your lucky stars! In the same way that the woman who
> >> reversed into the harbour was glad that she didnt have her seatbelt
> >> on. Doesnt really alter the general truth though.

> >
> > While it is generally accepted that in A Given Crash in a car you're
> > on balance much better off in a seatbelt, there's no such degree of
> > consensus concerning cycle helmets.

>
> Doesn't mean it's not true, however.


Bicycle helmet laws have been passed in absence of
evidence that bicycle helmets are beneficial. What is that
all about?

--
Michael Press
post #23 of 186

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

Sorni wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>> Hadron Quark wrote:
>>
>>> There was nothing to comment on. All sorts of strange **** happens in
>>> accidents : sounds like you were lucky because you didnt have a
>>> helment - thank your lucky stars! In the same way that the woman who
>>> reversed into the harbour was glad that she didnt have her seatbelt
>>> on. Doesnt really alter the general truth though.

>> While it is generally accepted that in A Given Crash in a car you're
>> on balance much better off in a seatbelt, there's no such degree of
>> consensus concerning cycle helmets.

>
> Doesn't mean it's not true, however.
>


Yes, it is possible that there is somewhere on the moon a part that is
made of cheese.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
post #24 of 186

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

Response to Tony Raven:
> Yes, it is possible that there is somewhere on the moon a part that is
> made of cheese.


That reminds me of Russell's Teapot. Time for a new sig for the file!


--
Mark, UK
"I do not know, dear reader, what your beliefs may be, but whatever they
may be, you must concede that nine-tenths of the beliefs of nine-tenths
of mankind are totally irrational. The beliefs in question are, of
course, those which you do not hold."
post #25 of 186

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

Mark McNeill wrote:
> Response to Tony Raven:
>> Yes, it is possible that there is somewhere on the moon a part that is
>> made of cheese.

>
> That reminds me of Russell's Teapot. Time for a new sig for the file!
>
>


Don't forget the Invisible Pink Unicorn:

"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know
this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same
time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is
based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we
logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."
- Steve Eley

--
Tony

"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."
Albert Einstein
post #26 of 186

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

in message <jack-E51E44.15570612052006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
Michael Press ('jack@abc.net') wrote:

> In article <i939g.1271$G95.1231@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
> "Sorni" <soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>> >
>> > While it is generally accepted that in A Given Crash in a car you're
>> > on balance much better off in a seatbelt, there's no such degree of
>> > consensus concerning cycle helmets.

>>
>> Doesn't mean it's not true, however.

>
> Bicycle helmet laws have been passed in absence of
> evidence that bicycle helmets are beneficial. What is that
> all about?


Common sense appears to show that helmets are efficient, and most people
believe common sense before science.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

There are no messages. The above is just a random stream of
bytes. Any opinion or meaning you find in it is your own creation.
post #27 of 186

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

In article <hDb9g.1823$G95.544@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
"Sorni" <soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com>
wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <i939g.1271$G95.1231@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
> > "Sorni" <soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Peter Clinch wrote:
> >>> Hadron Quark wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> There was nothing to comment on. All sorts of strange **** happens
> >>>> in accidents : sounds like you were lucky because you didnt have a
> >>>> helment - thank your lucky stars! In the same way that the woman
> >>>> who reversed into the harbour was glad that she didnt have her
> >>>> seatbelt on. Doesnt really alter the general truth though.
> >>>
> >>> While it is generally accepted that in A Given Crash in a car you're
> >>> on balance much better off in a seatbelt, there's no such degree of
> >>> consensus concerning cycle helmets.
> >>
> >> Doesn't mean it's not true, however.

> >
> > Bicycle helmet laws have been passed in absence of
> > evidence that bicycle helmets are beneficial. What is that
> > all about?

>
> It's all about you changing the subject. Again.


On topic. You say that it _may_ be the case that people
are better off wearing a bicycle helmet; that is as strong
a case as you can make. Bicycle helmet laws are passed
under these circumstances.

--
Michael Press
post #28 of 186

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

In article <b2f9g.1010$9W5.339@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
"Sorni" <soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com>
wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <hDb9g.1823$G95.544@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
> > "Sorni" <soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Michael Press wrote:
> >>> In article <i939g.1271$G95.1231@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
> >>> "Sorni" <soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Peter Clinch wrote:
> >>>>> Hadron Quark wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> There was nothing to comment on. All sorts of strange ****
> >>>>>> happens in accidents : sounds like you were lucky because you
> >>>>>> didnt have a helment - thank your lucky stars! In the same way
> >>>>>> that the woman who reversed into the harbour was glad that she
> >>>>>> didnt have her seatbelt on. Doesnt really alter the general
> >>>>>> truth though.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> While it is generally accepted that in A Given Crash in a car
> >>>>> you're on balance much better off in a seatbelt, there's no such
> >>>>> degree of consensus concerning cycle helmets.
> >>>>
> >>>> Doesn't mean it's not true, however.

>
> {APB: MISSING SMILEY THINGY}
>
> >>> Bicycle helmet laws have been passed in absence of
> >>> evidence that bicycle helmets are beneficial. What is that
> >>> all about?
> >>
> >> It's all about you changing the subject. Again.

> >
> > On topic. You say that it _may_ be the case that people
> > are better off wearing a bicycle helmet; that is as strong
> > a case as you can make. Bicycle helmet laws are passed
> > under these circumstances.

>
> But we weren't TALKING about bicycle helmet laws. (You also snipped my
> smiley thing, making my reply to Peter seem "serious" when in fact it was
> tongue-in-cheek.)


I do not get the joke. Sorry.

Many people, and I myself, would not be discussing this if
bicycle helmet laws were not in force and threatened
elsewhere. Unsupported assertions that `helmets are
beneficial to all' require a reply. I know this is your
thread, and I am sorry I have to butt in.

--
Michael Press
post #29 of 186

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

In article <5smej3-rc5.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk>,
simon@jasmine.org.uk says...
> Statistically, you cannot defend helmet wearing; on the basis of
> statistics, it's very easy to prove helmets just don't work.
>

No it isn't. It's easy to prove that the promulgation of mandatory
helmet laws was sometimes correlated with increased incidence of head
injuries among cyclists. That isn't proof that "helmets just don't
work".

Rick
post #30 of 186

Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> In article <5smej3-rc5.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk>,
> simon@jasmine.org.uk says...
> > Statistically, you cannot defend helmet wearing; on the basis of
> > statistics, it's very easy to prove helmets just don't work.
> >

> No it isn't. It's easy to prove that the promulgation of mandatory
> helmet laws was sometimes correlated with increased incidence of head
> injuries among cyclists. That isn't proof that "helmets just don't
> work".


I'm interested in seeing what hairs you plan to split, to justify that
sentence. It seems clear the helmets didn't work as promoted.

For example, serious head injuries and/or fatalities were not reduced
by 85%, as promised.

Although perhaps not yet quoted in the current threads, economic
studies showed that the helmets did not save society lots of money.
IOW, health care costs did not drop even as much as much as the helmets
cost.

Helmet fans can speculate, I suppose, that _some_ of the helmets
prevented _some_ head injuries. But if true, those cases seem to have
vanished in the statistical noise - kind of like all the Zippo lighters
that stopped World War 2 bullets from entering the heart.

- Frank Krygowski
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: UK and Europe
Cycling Forums › Forums › Regional Cycling Forums › UK and Europe › Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience