A Helmet saved my life

[Paul]

Well, that's my opinion, and I was there. I have to admit
that I rememeber very little after the thought 'I think I'm
going a little fast for this corner' then the next thought
was 'ouch' followed by 'I'm cold' and 'who are all these
people, and why are they standing around me' and finally,
one of the clearest memories 'That#s cold' as the scooped me
of the floor with a metal 'scoop strecher'

Then there was an ambulance ride with lights and things, an
examination, some xrays and then a taxi home!

I bought a new helmet straigh away (no choice really, my old
one was now to big) I was uncoscious for a while (5 mins?
they'd called an ambulanc and the police had arrived!) the
bike was a mess and my beauty wasn't improved.

I don't agree with compulsory helmet wearing, you and yours
will be the only ones to suffer, and it's therefore your
perogitave. I will think you a fool if you don't wear one,
that's my perogative.

speed cameras are a differet matter. If people could be
educated and trusted to travel at appropriate speeds to the
conditions, then I beleive that speed limits wouldn't be
necessary. However, it just isn't possible to educate or
trust people sufficiently, so speed cameras will remain a
fact of motoring life.

Statistics are another one of my soapboxes. There is
absolutly no point in citing statistics in support of a
political stance. Statistics are a rare and beautiful brance
of mathematics, but without context, you end up with a group
of meaninless numbers. Statistics is a complicated subject,
which is why people spend years studying them. It just isn't
possible for a non mathematican to appreciate the subtlety
concepts presented in statistical form. Statistics presented
as fact arew being presented either by the dishonest or the
ignorant, unless bothe the presenter and the audiance have a
common understanding of the basis of the figures.

These are my opinions. If you don't like them, I have
others.

I appologise for the poor spelling, I'm dyslexic [but i can
spell it{i think}]
--
.paul

If at first you don't succeed... Skydiving is probably not
the sport for you.

 

[Andyp]

"paul" <[email protected]> wrote

> Statistics are another one of my soapboxes. There is
> absolutly no point in citing statistics in support of a
> political stance. Statistics are a rare and beautiful
> brance of mathematics, but without context, you end up
> with a group of meaninless numbers.

100% of people I've just polled agree.

> Statistics presented as fact arew being presented either
> by the dishonest or the ignorant

Excuse snipping the end of that sentence but I liked that.

 

[RogerDodger]

posted by Paul

<...
Statistics are another one of my soapboxes. There is
absolutly no point in citing statistics in support of a
political stance. Statistics are a rare and beautiful brance
of mathematics, but without context, you end up with a group
of meaninless numbers. Statistics is a complicated subject,
which is why people spend years studying them. It just isn't
possible for a non mathematican to appreciate the subtlety
concepts presented in statistical form. Statistics presented
as fact arew being presented either by the dishonest or the
ignorant, unless bothe the presenter and the audiance have a
common understanding of the basis of the figures.

These are my opinions. If you don't like them, I have
others.
...>


.paul

Statistics is not a branch of mathematics! (let alone, a "rare" one)
Statistics is not mathematics - do a google search using that phrase and see for yourself - statistics does use mathematics but that does not mean that it is mathematics.

<"There is absolutly no point in citing statistics in support of a
political stance." ==> absolute, unmitigated rubbish!

<"Statistics is a complicated subject"
==> no it's not - if you think it's complicated then that's more of a statement about yourself than the subject.

<"It just isn't possible for a non mathematican to appreciate the subtlety concepts presented in statistical form."--> more rubbish.

<"These are my opinions. If you don't like them, I have others."-->
If I don't like them, you have others??? no, no please not more. I think you're confusing "opinions" with "drivel".

Roger

 

[Tony Raven]

paul wrote:
> I have to admit that I rememeber very little after the
> thought 'I think I'm going a little fast for this corner'
> then........

>
>....... speed cameras are a differet matter. If people
>could be educated and trusted to travel at appropriate
>speeds to the conditions, then I beleive that speed limits
>wouldn't be necessary.

So it sounds like we should have speed limits for bikes, or
do you consider yourself educated and to be trusted now?

Glad you are OK whatever it was that saved you.

Tony

 

[Pk]

RogerDodger wrote:
>
> Statistics is not a branch of mathematics! (let alone, a
> "rare" one) Statistics is not mathematics - do a google
> search using that phrase and see for yourself - statistics
> does use mathematics but that does not mean that it is
> mathematics.
>

Errm Easily done, Google : statistics definition : top
definition :

statistics -- a branch of applied mathematics concerned with
the collection and interpretation of quantitative data and
the use of probability theory to estimate population
parameters

Should we treat the rest of your post as equally valid as
your first statement?

pk

 

[Peter Clinch]

PK wrote:

> Errm Easily done, Google : statistics definition : top
> definition :
>
> statistics -- a branch of applied mathematics concerned
> with the collection and interpretation of quantitative
> data and the use of probability theory to estimate
> population parameters

I think the fact I studied it first in detail in a "Further
Maths" AS level course, going into the serious maths behind
how and why it works, is pretty much a decider. No need for
Googling on this one for me.

The real problem is people who feed data into a stats
package and push buttons until something says
"Significant", and then think that that proves the
"conclusion" they'd decided on before they started. We all
know the worst offender, and his name starts with Paul and
ends with Smith... *That* isn't maths, but properly used
the systems *are*.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

paul wrote:
> Well, that's my opinion, and I was there. I have to admit
> that I rememeber very little after the thought 'I think
> I'm going a little fast for this corner' then the next
> thought was 'ouch' followed by 'I'm cold' and 'who are all
> these people, and why are they standing around me' and
> finally, one of the clearest memories 'That#s cold' as the
> scooped me of the floor with a metal 'scoop strecher'

My personal anecdote was traumatic enough that I don't
remember *anything* of the actual details, though they've
been reported to my by my friends who were just behind on
their tandem. I think there is a fair chance it saved me a
fractured skull, and almost certainly saved me a damn sight
more discomfort than I experienced, all good reasons for
being glad I was wearing it. But I will not say "my helmet
saved my life", period. There isn't really very good
evidence that it would have done, and if all it took to kill
someone was exiting the bike having lost it on a corner then
the figures would have shown complete carnage for many, many
years. They don't.

> Then there was an ambulance ride with lights and things,
> an examination, some xrays and then a taxi home!

I got all of those but a bed for the night as well! And
I still can't and won't say, hand on heart "my helmet
saved my life".

> I don't agree with compulsory helmet wearing, you and
> yours will be the only ones to suffer, and it's therefore
> your perogitave. I will think you a fool if you don't wear
> one, that's my perogative.

It is, but it's still the case that though you may very well
experience less danger in the event of an accident, you are
actually quite unlikely to have the accident to start with.
Your reasoning *should* apply equally to coming down stairs:
people suffer nasty head injuries doing that all the time,
simple falls in a domestic environment account for a fair
few A&E head injury entries. So if you think someone's a
fool for not wearing something that will possibly mean a
reduced injury in the event of an unlikely accident then you
should wear a helmet for a lot more than cycling. People are
killed getting in and out of the bath! It probably sounds
like I'm being facetious, but in the wake of my prang I
thought *exactly* the way you do now but subsequent mulling
over it shows my logic was *not* consistent.

> Statistics are another one of my soapboxes. There is
> absolutly no point in citing statistics in support of a
> political stance. Statistics are a rare and beautiful
> brance of mathematics, but without context, you end up
> with a group of meaninless numbers. Statistics is a
> complicated subject, which is why people spend years
> studying them. It just isn't possible for a non
> mathematican to appreciate the subtlety concepts presented
> in statistical form. Statistics presented as fact arew
> being presented either by the dishonest or the ignorant,
> unless bothe the presenter and the audiance have a common
> understanding of the basis of the figures.

Though I agree with much of the above, saying people
shouldn't present statistical evidence assumes that none of
the people involved know what they're talking about. It's
just possible that some of them do... And the simple
statistic that numbers of folk dying from cycling related
head injuries is, and has been, a pretty low number doesn't
require much insight into higher maths to appreciate.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Burt]

"paul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Well, that's my opinion, and I was there. I have to admit
> that I rememeber very little after the thought 'I think
> I'm going a little fast for this corner' then the next
> thought was 'ouch' followed by 'I'm cold' and 'who are all
> these people, and why are they standing around me' and
> finally, one of the clearest memories 'That#s cold' as the
> scooped me of the floor with a metal 'scoop strecher'
>
> Then there was an ambulance ride with lights and things,
> an examination, some xrays and then a taxi home!
>
> I bought a new helmet straigh away (no choice really, my
> old one was now to big) I was uncoscious for a while (5
> mins? they'd called an ambulanc and the police had
> arrived!) the bike was a mess and my beauty wasn't
> improved.
>
> I don't agree with compulsory helmet wearing, you and
> yours will be the only ones to suffer, and it's therefore
> your perogitave. I will think you a fool if you don't wear
> one, that's my perogative.
>
> speed cameras are a differet matter. If people could be
> educated and trusted to travel at appropriate speeds to
> the conditions, then I beleive that speed limits wouldn't
> be necessary. However, it just isn't possible to educate
> or trust people sufficiently, so speed cameras will remain
> a fact of motoring life.
>
> Statistics are another one of my soapboxes. There is
> absolutly no point in citing statistics in support of a
> political stance. Statistics are a rare and beautiful
> brance of mathematics, but without context, you end up
> with a group of meaninless numbers. Statistics is a
> complicated subject, which is why people spend years
> studying them. It just isn't possible for a non
> mathematican to appreciate the subtlety concepts presented
> in statistical form. Statistics presented as fact arew
> being presented either by the dishonest or the ignorant,
> unless bothe the presenter and the audiance have a common
> understanding of the basis of the figures.
>
> These are my opinions. If you don't like them, I
> have others.

No, thanks. I don't like these and I don't want to hear your
others. What made you think anyone did in the first place?

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

In news:[email protected],
paul <[email protected]> typed:
> Statistics are another one of my soapboxes. There is
> absolutly no point in citing statistics in support of a
> political stance.

Except of course if you say clearly what you're measuring,
your null hypothesis, the fact that correlation is not
causation, etc, etc,

(Disclaimer: Any use of stats I've made has not involved
people or their behaviour, and I am not an expert.)

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

In news:[email protected],
paul <[email protected]> typed:
> Statistics are another one of my soapboxes. There is
> absolutly no point in citing statistics in support of a
> political stance.

Except of course if you say clearly what you're measuring,
your null hypothesis, the fact that correlation is not
causation, etc, etc,

(Disclaimer: Any use of stats I've made has not involved
people or their behaviour, and I am not an expert.)

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

In news:[email protected],
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> typed:
> People are killed getting in and out of the bath! It
> probably sounds like I'm being facetious, but in the wake
> of my prang I thought *exactly* the way you do now but
> subsequent mulling over it shows my logic was *not*
> consistent.

What's more, helmets would help the head float and stay
above water in such cases, reducing the risk of drowning.

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

In news:[email protected],
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> typed:
> People are killed getting in and out of the bath! It
> probably sounds like I'm being facetious, but in the wake
> of my prang I thought *exactly* the way you do now but
> subsequent mulling over it shows my logic was *not*
> consistent.

What's more, helmets would help the head float and stay
above water in such cases, reducing the risk of drowning.

 

[Paul]

In article <[email protected]>, usenet-
[email protected] says...
> [snip]
>
> Statistics is not a branch of mathematics! (let alone, a
> "rare" one) Statistics is not mathematics - do a google
> search using that phrase and see for yourself - statistics
> does use mathematics but that does not mean that it is
> mathematics.
>
Is there any point in telling you your wrong? no,
thought not
> <"There is absolutly no point in citing statistics in
> support of a political stance." ==> absolute, unmitigated
> rubbish!
>
> <"Statistics is a complicated subject"
> ==> no it's not - if you think it's complicated then
> ==> that's more of a statement about yourself than
> ==> the subject.
>
I suppose if all you've done is GCSE data handling, thenno
it's not complicated. But even the stats that my wife did
for her psychology devree were complicated. I've seen
simpler physics equations
> <"It just isn't possible for a non mathematican to
> appreciate the subtlety concepts presented in statistical
> form."--> more rubbish.
>
Are you a mathematician? given the above I doubt it, as you
are not aware of the subtleties
> <"These are my opinions. If you don't like them, I have
> others."--> If I don't like them, you have others??? no,
> no please not more. I think you're confusing "opinions"
> with "drivel".
>
No, whether or not it's drivel, it's still a valid opinion,
and its mine.
> Roger
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>

--
.paul

If at first you don't succeed... Skydiving is probably not
the sport for you.

 

[Paul]

In article <[email protected]>,
junk@raven- family.com says...
> paul wrote:
> > I have to admit that I rememeber very little after the
> > thought 'I think I'm going a little fast for this
> > corner' then........
>
> >
> >....... speed cameras are a differet matter. If people
> >could be educated and trusted to travel at appropriate
> >speeds to the conditions, then I beleive that speed
> >limits wouldn't be necessary.
>
> So it sounds like we should have speed limits for
> bikes, or do you consider yourself educated and to be
> trusted now?
>
Well, I consider myself educated enough to realise that
speed of itself when used in appropriate locations and
conditions won't cause an accident. However, if you do have
an accident, the outcome IS going to be worse as the speed
is increased. Whether I consider myself trusted is not the
point, I think like most people, if there are time
pressures on me, I am more likely to travel faster than the
posted speed.

> Glad you are OK whatever it was that saved you.
>
Thankyou.
> Tony
>
>
>
>
>

--
.paul

If at first you don't succeed... Skydiving is probably not
the sport for you.

 

[Paul]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> paul wrote:

> > Then there was an ambulance ride with lights and things,
> > an examination, some xrays and then a taxi home!
>
> I got all of those but a bed for the night as well! And I
> still can't and won't say, hand on heart "my helmet saved
> my life".
>

Ok. so I admit to a bit of melodrama there. I think the
helmet PROBABLY reduced the level of my injuries

> > I don't agree with compulsory helmet wearing, you and
> > yours will be the only ones to suffer, and it's
> > therefore your perogitave. I will think you a fool if
> > you don't wear one, that's my perogative.
>
> It is, but it's still the case that though you may very
> well experience less danger in the event of an accident,
> you are actually quite unlikely to have the accident to
> start with. Your reasoning *should* apply equally to
> coming down stairs: people suffer nasty head injuries
> doing that all the time, simple falls in a domestic
> environment account for a fair few A&E head injury
> entries. So if you think someone's a fool for not wearing
> something that will possibly mean a reduced injury in the
> event of an unlikely accident then you should wear a
> helmet for a lot more than cycling. People are killed
> getting in and out of the bath! It probably sounds like
> I'm being facetious, but in the wake of my prang I thought
> *exactly* the way you do now but subsequent mulling over
> it shows my logic was *not* consistent.
>
It all comes down to personal risk analysis. It would
require some quite sufisticated stats ananlysis to say
that there is more or less risk involved in any given
activity, but MY perceived wisdom is that cycling is more
hazardous than many of the daily activities I indulge in.
If you add risk compensation into the equation, then I
conceed that it possibly balances out. Besides, I've got
three children, and I want them to wear helmets, so it's a
lead by example thing

> > Statistics are another one of my soapboxes. There is
> > absolutly no point in citing statistics in support of a
> > political stance. Statistics are a rare and beautiful
> > brance of mathematics, but without context, you end up
> > with a group of meaninless numbers. Statistics is a
> > complicated subject, which is why people spend years
> > studying them. It just isn't possible for a non
> > mathematican to appreciate the subtlety concepts
> > presented in statistical form. Statistics presented as
> > fact arew being presented either by the dishonest or the
> > ignorant, unless bothe the presenter and the audiance
> > have a common understanding of the basis of the figures.
>
> Though I agree with much of the above, saying people
> shouldn't present statistical evidence assumes that none
> of the people involved know what they're talking about.
> It's just possible that some of them do... And the simple
> statistic that numbers of folk dying from cycling related
> head injuries is, and has been, a pretty low number
> doesn't require much insight into higher maths to
> appreciate.
>
Ok, maybe I'm being a little pedantic, but I did ad the
dishoesty clause to cover those that know what they are
doing. My main grip, I suppose, is tabloid journolists using
stats to sensationalise issues without explaining the
background.
> Pete.
>

--
.paul

If at first you don't succeed... Skydiving is probably not
the sport for you.

 

[Paul]

In article <uYm4c.4430$2s5.1671@news-
binary.blueyonder.co.uk>, [email protected]
says...
> No, thanks. I don't like these and I don't want to hear
> your others. What made you think anyone did in the
> first place?
>
>
Ego? or possibly beer.
--
.paul

If at first you don't succeed... Skydiving is probably not
the sport for you.

 

[Paul]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In news:[email protected],
> paul <[email protected]> typed:
> > Statistics are another one of my soapboxes. There is
> > absolutly no point in citing statistics in support of a
> > political stance.
>
> Except of course if you say clearly what you're measuring,
> your null hypothesis, the fact that correlation is not
> causation, etc, etc,
>
I thought I'd covered that by implication, but yes I agree.

> (Disclaimer: Any use of stats I've made has not involved
> people or their behaviour, and I am not an expert.)
>
Nor am I, but I quite anjoy stats analysis. I must get
out more
>
>

--
.paul

If at first you don't succeed... Skydiving is probably not
the sport for you.

 

[Paul]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In news:[email protected], Peter Clinch
> <[email protected]> typed:
> > People are killed getting in and out of the bath! It
> > probably sounds like I'm being facetious, but in the
> > wake of my prang I thought *exactly* the way you do now
> > but subsequent mulling over it shows my logic was *not*
> > consistent.
>
> What's more, helmets would help the head float and stay
> above water in such cases, reducing the risk of
> drowning.
>
>
>
Nah, the bouancy is at the back, so it would turn you round
and put you face down. I mean 72.6% of all people who drown
in the bath do so on a week day
--
.paul

If at first you don't succeed... Skydiving is probably not
the sport for you.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> > People are killed getting in and out of the bath! It
> > probably sounds like I'm being facetious, but in the
> > wake of my prang I thought *exactly* the way you do now
> > but subsequent mulling over it shows my logic was *not*
> > consistent.
>
> What's more, helmets would help the head float and stay
> above water in such cases, reducing the risk of
> drowning.

And should you end up in hospital anyway, you can use the
upturned helmet as a fruit bowl.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-
virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.619 /
Virus Database: 398 - Release Date: 10/03/2004

 

[Peter Owens]

"paul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Statistics are another one of my soapboxes. There is
> absolutly no point in citing statistics in support of a
> political stance.

This is the universal argument of people attempting to argue
a position that is not supported be evidence.