Eggs protected from breakage by the use of 'polystyrene helmet'. - Page 4

In article <5j8n1piacc7h$.1p29hl2tiyjlb$.dlg@40tude.net>,
herzelNOSPAM@o2.co.uk says...
> Jon,
>
> Thanks for your detailed reply, which I have read and
> digested. I'm not quite sure what point you are making
> when you mention risk compensation

The argument goes:

Drivers felt that they were safe. They were made to wear
seatbelts (A safety feature). They now feel safer and take
more risks as a consequence negating the effects of the
seatbelts.

A simple real-world example is probably mountain biking. Do
you think that your style would be unchanged by the presence
of a h*lm*t? Basically, if you provide a safety feature for
someone who already believes themself to be safe, they now
believe they are safer and will take more risks as a
consequence.

> and I don't think that your question
>
> > Does it make more sense to wear a helmet, or change your
> > riding style to reduce the likelihood of being in an
> > 'accident'?
>
> is very helpful. Surely the two things aren't mutually
> exclusively? I do both.

Then congratulations. I've seen nothing to convince me
that a h*lm*t will save me in most accidents, so I choose
to prevent the accidents in the first place. When
travelling (As apposed to sitting at junctions) I tend to
average 20mph+ in town, and there are roads that I
routinely travel at 30mph+. There is little chance of a
h*lm*t being of any use at all, and some evidence that it
will exacerbate any injuries.

Jon (Sorry if this turns into another herbet thread! Given
the generally short tempers on urc at the minute, things
could get really nasty.)

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:02:33 +0100, Jon Senior wrote:

> In article <5j8n1piacc7h$.1p29hl2tiyjlb$.dlg@40tude.net>,
> herzelNOSPAM@o2.co.uk says...
>> Jon,
>>
>> Thanks for your detailed reply, which I have read and
>> digested. I'm not quite sure what point you are making
>> when you mention risk compensation
>
> The argument goes:
>
> Drivers felt that they were safe. They were made to wear
> seatbelts (A safety feature). They now feel safer and take
> more risks as a consequence negating the effects of the
> seatbelts.

I could see your point if you could provide evidence of the
direct causality implied. But there are probably lots of
other reasons contibuting to current fatality rates. (And
anyway, isn't the long term average still heading down?)
>
> A simple real-world example is probably mountain biking.
> Do you think that your style would be unchanged by the
> presence of a h*lm*t? Basically, if you provide a safety
> feature for someone who already believes themself to be
> safe, they now believe they are safer and will take more
> risks as a consequence.

I'm the sort of mountain biker who would never feel 'safe'
doing singletrack. A helmet would provide me with a degree
of confidence that would encourage me to do it (like I'll
only go climbing with a rope). Obviously, I wouldn't be
safer than not doing it.

>
>> and I don't think that your question
>>
>>> Does it make more sense to wear a helmet, or change your
>>> riding style to reduce the likelihood of being in an
>>> 'accident'?
>>
>> is very helpful. Surely the two things aren't mutually
>> exclusively? I do both.
>
> Then congratulations. I've seen nothing to convince me
> that a h*lm*t will save me in most accidents, so I choose
> to prevent the accidents in the first place. When
> travelling (As apposed to sitting at junctions) I tend to
> average 20mph+ in town, and there are roads that I
> routinely travel at 30mph+. There is little chance of a
> h*lm*t being of any use at all,

I'm not as sure of this as you. My wife had a high speed
fall last year, resulting in a broken collar bone. Her
helmet was smashed but her head undamaged. She almost
certainly avoided a lot of head discomfort as a result of
wearing the helmet. I think that's useful.

Mind you, I don't think a helmet would make a difference
between life and death in the sort of accident that would
cause fatal injury to an unhelmeted head.

> and some evidence that it will exacerbate any injuries.
>
> Jon (Sorry if this turns into another herbet thread! Given
> the generally short tempers on urc at the minute, things
> could get really nasty.)

I've just come back from holiday and thought things were
very calm around here. Colin calling Dr Curious a f*ckwit
was rather funny, I thought!
--
Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "His mother should have
thrown him away and kept the stork." - Mae West
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk www.macclancy.co.uk

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:02:33 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove> wrote (more or less):

>In article <5j8n1piacc7h$.1p29hl2tiyjlb$.dlg@40tude.net>,
>herzelNOSPAM@o2.co.uk says...
>> Jon,
>>
>> Thanks for your detailed reply, which I have read and
>> digested. I'm not quite sure what point you are making
>> when you mention risk compensation
>
>The argument goes:
>
>Drivers felt that they were safe. They were made to wear
>seatbelts (A safety feature). They now feel safer and take
>more risks as a consequence negating the effects of the
>seatbelts.
>
>A simple real-world example is probably mountain biking. Do
>you think that your style would be unchanged by the
>presence of a h*lm*t? Basically, if you provide a safety
>feature for someone who already believes themself to be
>safe, they now believe they are safer and will take more
>risks as a consequence.
...

Or as Bell (the helmet manufacturer, phrase it a helmet is
'courage for your head'.

They think this is a sales slogan....
--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:31:15 +0100, Michael MacClancy
<herzelNOSPAM@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
<k15qz526vbti$.pdb8txab66jr.dlg@40tude.net>:

>> Drivers felt that they were safe. They were made to wear
>> seatbelts (A safety feature). They now feel safer and
>> take more risks as a consequence negating the effects of
>> the seatbelts.

>I could see your point if you could provide evidence of the
>direct causality implied.

I suggest you read Risk by John Adams. Also D Mok, G Gore,
B Hagel, E Mok, H Magdalinos, B Pless. Risk compensation in
children’s activities: A pilot study. Paediatr Child Health
2004;9(5):327-330. Pless also thought that risk
compensation was not significant in the case of helmets
until he looked into it.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

Michael MacClancy herzelNOSPAM@o2.co.uk opined the
following...
> > Jon (Sorry if this turns into another herbet thread!
> > Given the generally short tempers on urc at the minute,
> > things could get really nasty.)
>
> I've just come back from holiday and thought things were
> very calm around here. Colin calling Dr Curious a f*ckwit
> was rather funny, I thought!

Did you read the eBay scam thread? Simon Brooke summed it up
nicely: "It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion,
isn't it? You know you shouldn't enjoy it, but there's a
macabre fascination in seeing how many bizarre
misconceptions someone who is clearly able to access the
Internet can have about how it works...".

It rapidly developed into a flame war and it seems to have
left many people scarred and angry.

All in it was quite amusing. This whole flared temper thing
seems to happen every now and again. I don't know whether
it's related to the weather, or whether <he he> there's some
strange cyclic hormonal thing going on!

Jon

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>
>>>Remember, a broken helmet /has not worked as designed/.
>>>They are /not/ supposed to break.
>
>
>>But is it not possible that it'll break once it has
>>absorbed as much as it can? It may have performed
>>perfectly up to its specification before breaking, and
>>absorbed useful energy.
>
>
> Unlikely. Consider a polystyrene tile. Drop a heavy weight
> on it - even when crushed to paper thinness, it does not
> break. Now raise the edges and repeat: it snaps instantly.

I broke a helmet by dropping it from about 3 feet onto a
flat hard surface. A chunk snapped off. There was no
question of this absorbing much energy as there was
virtually no energy to absorb in the first place!

Another time, I went head-first in a crash and crushed the
front part (I think it may also have broken off). I'm sure
that this "did its job", although the extent to which it
reduced my injuries is not entirely clear.

The difference between the two behaviours is very obvious
once you've seen them.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is by treading on the
toes of giants. http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

Simon Brooke simon@jasmine.org.uk opined the following...
> Ye hypocrites! are these your pranks? To murder men and
> give God thanks? Desist, for shame! Proceed no further:
> God won't accept your thanks for murther -- Roburt Burns,
> 'Thanksgiving For a National Victory'

Sig generator still on form then?

Jon

In news:aggas1-e21.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk,
Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk> typed:
> I can recall several people going over the bars and
> landing on their heads when I was a kid; all of them were
> fine the day after. And no-one wore helmets then.
>
Indeed, I can recall it fine. It bloody hurt. But no
long term effects. Unlike the head injury I sustained
while sleeping.

A