A Helmet saved my life



marc wrote:

> A harder game is "Name 5 Dutch manufacturers of
> international reknown" ( not including Phillips)

M5, Challenge, Optima, Gazelle, Vredestein

And I didn't even have to ask my friendly Dutch friend, or
look in plant bulb or cheese supplier catalogues...

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/
 
in message <[email protected]>, Keith Willoughby
('[email protected]') wrote:

> <Graeme> wrote:
>> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]>
>> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Magritte is one of my favourite artists, probably
>>> because he scores five points in Famous Belgians ;-)
>>
>> Apparently there's 259 of them, but I think they're
>> stretching the definition of fame a little far.
>
> They're also stretching the definition of 'Belgian' a
> little far. Peter Paul Rubens predates Belgium, and
> Hercule Poirot didn't exist.

And more to the point, was the creation of a non-Belgian.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke)
http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'graveyards are full of indispensable people'
 
In article <[email protected]>,
usenet- [email protected] says...
> But to get back to the original topic of this thread, and
> what rattled my cage. Paul's asserts his opinion - his
> belief that his bonnet saved you-know-what, and didn't
> bother to offer any reasons to support that assertion.
>
Well, I was going to resist, but to be honest whats on the
telly is ****. I think I moderated my assertation in a later
post to say that I was probably being melodramatic and
although I can't prove it, I beleive that it saved me a lot
of added discomfort. The helmet didn't break (it was a hard
shelled Etto) but as I had landed on my head after falling
of the bike at approx 30mph and was rended unconsious, I
desided to bin it.

> Fine, that's his opinion, and it's his prerogative to
> express his opinion - no problem - but personally, my
> preference is to participate in a discussion group rather
> than an opinion poll.
>
All discussions will explore peoples opinions. If all have
the same opinion, the little discusion will take place. In
this case, some people agree with some of what I said, some
don't. That I would have expected, as I'm sure would you.
> Paul writes "I will think you a fool if you don't wear
> one" - well , I don't wear one and if he condones
> calling bonnetless bicyclists "fools" then I say - more
> fool you, Paul.
>
> Calling other cyclists fools, idiots or whatever, is
> childish and arrogant and hardly dignifying - should we
> just give up debating the issue like intelligent adults
> and succumb to puerile primitiveness - calling others,
> whom we disagree with, fools? A exchange of insults is
> hardly edifying is it?
>
Ok, is it the word fool you object to here. I could have
said unwise, or misguided, or that I feel that you are
taking unnessesary risks. But I feel it is foolish not to
wear a helmet on a bicycle, ergo... I noticed that you also
sniped the sentence to give it more impact, but hey, this is
a public forum...

> I took issue with Paul's spouting off about stats because
> it had the appearance of a pre-emptive strike at what is
> one of the main rebuttals to his personal subjective
> opinion/belief - objective facts in the form of
> descriptive statistics (nothing complicated or overly
> esoteric here).
>
> For sure, stats get used, misused and abused - but that's
> no reason to support a blanket dismissal for their use -
> rather it's a good reason to become more statistically
> literate - and you don't need to be a rocket scientist (it
> is a school subject, after all) to have a reasonable
> handle on their use (and abuse).
>
My belife in the misuse of stats is is totally unconected
with my views on helmet wearing, other than to say that
stats can be presented in support in either side of the
argument, offten drawn from the same data. Yes, basic data
handling is taught in schools, but the stats I seen presnted
daily in support of this that or the other, rarely get
presented in an unambguous manner. With almost all public
presented stats it is possible to ask 'but what about...'
And I would suggest that you doing yourself down if you
believe that your level of understanding of stats is the
average. I would suggest that most peoples understanding of
stats is ona par with my grasp of spelling!

> In summary, Pauls' soapbox spiel on statistics is, IMHO,
> an intellectually insipid attempt to curtail or prevent
> criticism (by the use of stats) of his pernicious
> prejudice.
>

Not at all, come forth and discuss. I have my opinions,
you have yours. Mine are not set in stone, and if you can
be bothered, if you prove me wrong, I'll change my
opinions. (I'll have to look up pernicious, but I think I
get the gist)

> Was his post nothing more than a dog whistle - calling the
> faithful believers to the ready?
>
Some would have said it was a troll. But it prompted
discussion on a descussion board. That can't be a bad
thing, can it?
> Roger
>
>

--
.paul

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

> Some would have said it was a troll. But it prompted
> discussion on a descussion board. That can't be a bad
> thing, can it?

Yes and no... thing is that we've been there, done that to
the extent we're looking into getting the T-shirts printed.
We'll discuss it again, and again, and again, but it got a
bit tedious for everyone looking at the threads long ago.
I'd love to just ignore the helmet threads but with people
trying to pass laws based on misinformed cluelessness I
think it's too important to have people walking around
spouting fiction about them.

Standard response time again, surf on over to
www.cyclehelmets.org and get reading.

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/
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> paul wrote:
>
> > Some would have said it was a troll. But it prompted
> > discussion on a descussion board. That can't be a bad
> > thing, can it?
>
> Yes and no... thing is that we've been there, done that to
> the extent we're looking into getting the T-shirts
> printed. We'll discuss it again, and again, and again, but
> it got a bit tedious for everyone looking at the threads
> long ago. I'd love to just ignore the helmet threads but
> with people trying to pass laws based on misinformed
> cluelessness I think it's too important to have people
> walking around spouting fiction about them.
>
> Standard response time again, surf on over to
> www.cyclehelmets.org and get reading.
>
> Pete.
>
Reposted as it didn't appear the first time!

I feel the need to defend myself again (oh dear!) I've been
using news groups for a number of years, but have only
recently joined in here. As you say some subjects do tend to
do the rounds, and I forgot I was the newbie here. I get
just as annoyed with newbies on my usually groups, when they
show little respect for the incumbents. I should have though
before I posted. However I am pro choice when it comes to
helmet wearing (except in the case of my children!) but I am
also a firm advocate of wearing one when on a cycle. The
latter is from my own personal experiences whcih have led me
to conlude that wearing a helmet is a good thing. I'll lurk
a bit more before I post contensus <sp> clpa trap again :)

--
.paul

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

> However I am pro choice when it comes to helmet wearing
> (except in the case of my children!) but I am also a firm
> advocate of wearing one when on a cycle.

The only reason you need to have to wear a helmet is because
you personally want to. "I think it could save me a nasty
graze and a bloody awful headache" is another good reason,
as is "it keeps the rain off".

The trick is not to wear them for *bad* reasons. Bad reasons
include "a helmet saved my life", "a helmet significantly
reduces the chance of serious injury in the event of a
crash" and "it is ridiculous not to do something that makes
you safer or reduces your chance of injury". These are bad
reasons because, in the first case you're speculating
wildly, in the second case real world population data shows
otherwise and in the third it's the case that there are many
things you could do to reduce risk of personal injury that
people never bother with (such as going downstairs on your
bum rather than walking) that it's clear everyone must be
ridiculous by exactly the same logic.

> The latter is from my own personal experiences whcih have
> led me to conlude that wearing a helmet is a good thing.

Fine. Though probably not so good as going round corners in
a bit more control, thinking back to your accident
description. Rather than "a helmet saved my life", why not
think of it as "excessive speed into a corner endangered my
life"? The harder you're pushing the envelope the closer you
are to going fast taking priority over other aspects such as
safe negotiation of corners. Had you been going that corner
well under your control your experiences would have told you
it doesn't make any difference whether you wear a helmet or
not. Anecdotal levels of evidence aren't necessarily that
useful as not only are they a single data point in a much
larger population but the context of the anecdote and the
way it is presented skew the interpretation.

I always wear a lid offroad as I expect to be falling off,
plus it'll be at the sort of speeds a bike helmet is
designed to help me at. Comfort is a non-issue on the MTB
at the level of difference a helmet makes, so it's a non-
issue there for me. On the roads if I'm going any distance,
especially on a hot day, wearing a sweaty box with a
chinstrap reduces my pleasure to the point where the low
chance of an accident is less significant to me than the
100% likelihood of being less comfortable if I do wear one,
so I'm less likely to bother. Not black and white I won't
wear it though, it isn't a clear cut thing. The main
problem we're facing with helmets at present is that people
who think it *is* a clear cut thing are trying to force
them on us despite good evidence it would reduce cycling
numbers, which in turn looks likely to make cycling more
dangerous... That is Not Good, so anything that overstates
helmet efficacy is actually dangerous to cyclists in this
country at the moment, and not just from their overly
optimistic expectations of safety as they plummet headfirst
towards the tarmac.

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/
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> paul wrote:
>
> > However I am pro choice when it comes to helmet wearing
> > (except in the case of my children!) but I am also a
> > firm advocate of wearing one when on a cycle.
>
> The only reason you need to have to wear a helmet is
> because you personally want to. "I think it could save me
> a nasty graze and a bloody awful headache" is another good
> reason, as is "it keeps the rain off".
>
Well, it didn't save me either of those, but it was
drizzeling at the time :)

> The trick is not to wear them for *bad* reasons. Bad
> reasons include "a helmet saved my life", "a helmet
> significantly reduces the chance of serious injury in the
> event of a crash" and "it is ridiculous not to do
> something that makes you safer or reduces your chance of
> injury". These are bad reasons because, in the first case
> you're speculating wildly, in the second case real world
> population data shows otherwise and in the third it's the
> case that there are many things you could do to reduce
> risk of personal injury that people never bother with
> (such as going downstairs on your bum rather than walking)
> that it's clear everyone must be ridiculous by exactly the
> same logic.
>
I think we're on a course of agreeing to differ on this one.
I beleive that cycling is more hazardous than walkinf down
the stairs, but see my comment below. even so, I beleive
that it should be choice. Sarah rides a dutch city bike, and
she probably is more at risk on the stairs:)

> > The latter is from my own personal experiences whcih
> > have led me to conlude that wearing a helmet is a good
> > thing.
>
> Fine. Though probably not so good as going round corners
> in a bit more control, thinking back to your accident
> description.
I think we agree on this point, but as I know my temprement
when on a bike, I'll continue to wear a helemt :)

> Rather than "a helmet saved my life", why not think of it
> as "excessive speed into a corner endangered my life"? The
> harder you're pushing the envelope the closer you are to
> going fast taking priority over other aspects such as safe
> negotiation of corners.
I was pushing the envolope as is my want, however as I was
on my way to collect the fish an chips for tea I was not
concentrating on what I was doing and didn't take into
acount the drizzel that was falling. Couple this with a down
hill advers camber bend and a mind alread savoring the
product of the chippie, add on a reckless disregard for
personal safety. You've said the rest.

> Not black and white I won't wear it though, it isn't a
> clear cut thing. The main problem we're facing with
> helmets at present is that people who think it *is* a
> clear cut thing are trying to force them on us despite
> good evidence it would reduce cycling numbers, which in
> turn looks likely to make cycling more dangerous... That
> is Not Good, so anything that overstates helmet efficacy
> is actually dangerous to cyclists in this country at the
> moment, and not just from their overly optimistic
> expectations of safety as they plummet headfirst towards
> the tarmac.
>
> Pete.
>
Ok, so my title was contraversal, and I will read up some
before I champion helmeet wearing again. Indeed, if the
grasshopper comes to live with me, I'll be consdiering the
need for a helmet.

My children still wear helmets on bikes and
skateboards though :)

--
.paul

If at first you don't succeed... Skydiving is probably not
the sport for you.
 
paul <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> However I am pro choice when it comes to helmet wearing...

... as are nearly all the regulars here...

> ...(except in the case of my children!)

But that of course is your choice to make, not theirs.

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

> I beleive that cycling is more hazardous than walkinf down
> the stairs

You will be surprised to learn, then, that a quarter of all
child head injury admissions are due to falling on steps and
stairs, a quarter due to trips and falls, and less than 4%
due to falling off (as opposed to being knocked off) a bike.

More children are hospitalised annually for head injuries
due to assault than due to cycling.

--
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
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

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

>> I beleive that cycling is more hazardous than walkinf
>> down the stairs

>You will be surprised to learn, then, that a quarter of
>all child head injury admissions are due to falling on
>steps and stairs, a quarter due to trips and falls, and
>less than 4% due to falling off (as opposed to being
>knocked off) a bike.

>More children are hospitalised annually for head injuries
>due to assault than due to cycling.

I simply can't understand, in view of how very much more
serious the problem of head injuries on staircases is than
the piddling-in-comparison problem of cycling injuries, for
adults as well as children, why nobody is banging on about
about staircase helmets. Anyone who wants to make a quick
buck by getting some silly MPs to vote through compuslory
staircase helmet legislation would find it very much easier
to make the scientific case, since helmets like cycle
helmets *will* actually protect well at the sorts of impacts
characteristic of staircase falls, and the amount of money
lost to British Industry (sic) through staircase falls must
be enough to make Gordon Brown's eyes water.
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:16:47 -0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>You will be surprised to learn, then, that a quarter of
>all child head injury admissions are due to falling on
>steps and stairs, a quarter due to trips and falls, and
>less than 4% due to falling off (as opposed to being
>knocked off) a bike.
>
>More children are hospitalised annually for head injuries
>due to assault than due to cycling.

Hi Guy

I not certain whether I've mentioned this before
(probably have):

Two years ago (or was is three) I had a few tumbles that
required hospital visits. At that time my local A&E was
conducting a survey into the causes of accidents.

All my injuries were to either my shoulders or, on one
occasion, to my back/neck. Each time the questioner told me
off for not wearing a helmet. Had I suffered (another) head
injury I could have understood the surveyer's point, but I
became a little peeved on being given the same telling off
again and again.

Pro choice James
 
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:18:11 +0000, James Hodson
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>All my injuries were to either my shoulders or, on one
>occasion, to my back/neck. Each time the questioner told me
>off for not wearing a helmet. Had I suffered (another) head
>injury I could have understood the surveyer's point, but I
>became a little peeved on being given the same telling off
>again and again.

Ah, well, you see, according to the original Thompson,
Rivara and Thompson study helmets also prevent these other
kinds of injuries. They also prevent being poor, riding on
the road (as opposed to psychlepaths) and having an ethnic
minority background. Marvellous things, helmets.

--
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
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> "paul" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > I beleive that cycling is more hazardous than walkinf
> > down the stairs
>
> You will be surprised to learn, then, that a quarter of
> all child head injury admissions are due to falling on
> steps and stairs, a quarter due to trips and falls, and
> less than 4% due to falling off (as opposed to being
> knocked off) a bike.
>
> More children are hospitalised annually for head injuries
> due to assault than due to cycling.
>
>
Ah, the joy of statistics :)

So, how should we normalise such figures, one flight of
staicases = 1km travelled on a bike? so how many
accidents per staircase kms against against accidents
against child cycle kms

I could go on, but I think you get my drift.

The last statistic is just to plain depressing to discuss
further ;?(
--
.paul

If at first you don't succeed... Skydiving is probably not
the sport for you.
 
> Ah, the joy of statistics :)
>
> So, how should we normalise such figures, one flight of
> staicases = 1km travelled on a bike? so how many accidents
> per staircase kms against against accidents against child
> cycle kms
>
> I could go on, but I think you get my drift.
>
> The last statistic is just to plain depressing to discuss
> further ;?(

Ah the joy of missing the point :)

No need to normalise the figures. Helmets for stairs will
save more people from injury so that is all that matters.
We're talking about compulsion not individual choice so the
risk faced by the individual is almost irrelevent.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-
virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.631 /
Virus Database: 404 - Release Date: 17/03/2004
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:18:11 +0000, James Hodson
>>All my injuries were to either my shoulders or, on one
>>occasion, to my back/neck. Each time the questioner told
>>me off for not wearing a helmet. Had I suffered (another)
>>head injury I could have understood the surveyer's point,
>>but I became a little peeved on being given the same
>>telling off again and again.
>
> Ah, well, you see, according to the original Thompson,
> Rivara and Thompson study helmets also prevent these other
> kinds of injuries.

When I went to A&E to check that none of my leg injuries
were serious (they weren't), the doctor asked if I had been
wearing a helmet. He didn't have the cheek to suggest I did
- that was left to a poster in the waiting room.

Colin McKenzie
 
> > >Eddy M ??
> >
> > Plastic Bertrand, shirley.
>
> Tin Tin (Herche SP?)

I was actually thinking of Audrey Hepburn - of course!

d.
 
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 00:41:02 +0000 (UTC), "david kenning"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>I was actually thinking of Audrey Hepburn - of course!

ITYM Edda van Heemstra Hepburn-Ruston ;-)

--
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