Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

[SMS]

Bill Sornson wrote:

>> 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.

And it's a cop out, because what he really means is that only his junk
science evidence has any validity, and that anyone that chooses to
question it is basing their opinion on prejudice.

 

[G.T.]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:22:49 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> said
> > in <[email protected]>:
> >
> >> 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 shitoly! 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

 

[Bill Sornson]

G.T. wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:22:49 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> said
>>> in <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>> 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 shitoly! Is it ever going to end?
>
> Greg

Guy's smugness? Nah.

 

[[email protected]]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On 30 Jul 2006 12:20:25 -0700, [email protected] said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >"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.

 

[Burt]

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> And it's a cop out, because what he really means is that only his junk
> science evidence has any validity, and that anyone that chooses to
> question it is basing their opinion on prejudice.

OK, one last time Straw Man Scharf. You claim all the data which other
people have posted is "junk science" despite the fact that it has been
peer-reviewed and found to be reliable. You make claims about research
which you say shows that helmets are effective, but you continually refuse
to post any references (apart from one, which said exactly the opposite to
what you said it did).

Put up or shut up. Either post links to research which is peer-reviewed and
shows what you claim or stop posting.

If you can't you're just a time-wasting troll, deluded to the extreme.

 

[Peter Clinch]

SMS wrote:

> And it's a cop out, because what he really means is that only his junk
> science evidence has any validity, and that anyone that chooses to
> question it is basing their opinion on prejudice.

Having read a fair bit of it (not as much as Guy and Tony) I have found
the holes in the population studies to be orders of magnitude smaller
than the holes in the case-control work. So I distrust the latter
considerably more. It's not about prejudice, it's about the population
being reproducible and the case-control having methodological bloopers
on a frightening scale and results that are quantitavely all over the
place, a clear and direct piece of evidence that they aren't any good.
In short, it calls attention to itself as junk science. That the
population studies are junk is based on, errrr, you saying so.

As for opinions based on prejudice, let's have a look at
http://www.velovision.co.uk/cgi-bin/show_comments.pl?storynum=777

The chap at the front (and that's his son at the back, btw) on this
cover picture of an internationally distributed cycling culture magazine
is, according to Scharf, an anti-helmet zealot! It's transparently
obvious from that that Scharf has either a chip on his shoulder or is
just incapable of being the just-the-facts honest broker he likes to
portray himself as.

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

 

[dabac]

It isn't hard to size up the conditions and ride defensively. You can
see intersections, driveways, parked cars, road obstructions, etc, and
greatly reduce the potential for collision with inattentive drivers by
giving yourself room to stop if one of them barges into your path
unexpectedly.

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...

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 18:14:01 +1000, dabac
<[email protected]> 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
****************************

 

[Bill Sornson]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 18:14:01 +1000, dabac
> <[email protected]> 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.

 

[Jeff Starr]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 05:52:26 GMT, "Burt"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> And it's a cop out, because what he really means is that only his junk
>> science evidence has any validity, and that anyone that chooses to
>> question it is basing their opinion on prejudice.
>
>OK, one last time Straw Man Scharf. You claim all the data which other
>people have posted is "junk science" despite the fact that it has been
>peer-reviewed and found to be reliable. You make claims about research
>which you say shows that helmets are effective, but you continually refuse
>to post any references (apart from one, which said exactly the opposite to
>what you said it did).
>
>Put up or shut up. Either post links to research which is peer-reviewed and
>shows what you claim or stop posting.
>
>If you can't you're just a time-wasting troll, deluded to the extreme.
>
So says burp the hypocrite.
I've asked you questions and never got any answers. So that makes you
a pathetic weasel and a total hypocrite.


Life is Good!
Jeff

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:21:11 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

You might be right about that.

>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.
I'm not disagreeing with this, but I'm saying that if someone is
approaching the sport properly enough to characterize himself/herself
as an enthusiast, then they should learn to deal with little things
like a rabbit. A rabbit can be a non-issue if someone knows what they
are doing and approach the sport from the standpoint of
learning/skill-building.

Even with skinny, rock-hard tires and cleat.

>(In fact, pros are even
>more vulnerable than "enthusiasts".)
> There's just less margin for error.


Well pros have crashes because they are pushing things to the edge
much more *often* than an enthusiast and they have more riders around
them. But given the same "obstacle" and situation, a pro cyclist will
typcially ride right through/around/over something a typical
enthusiast would crash on.

Even at moderate levels of the sport (like regional pro-1-2 races)
riders will pull off all kinds of survival moves that (typical -- not
all) enthusiastic rider would crash on. Hop curbs to avoid something,
ride over another rider's arm or leg, push off a rider falling on them
to keep both upright, etc etc. This I have observed in races.

We don't have any pro men based in my city at the moment, but a few
years ago we had a few really good ones. Two of them won US-pro
criterium titles and I've been on a few small rides with those two
(separately) and one thing common was both would ride right through
road conditions that made the rest of us very tense and erratic. I
think there are a number based in San Diego where you live --- go for
ride with them and see.

To take this back to the helmet thing -- yeah, an racer in an intense
bike race is way likely to crash than 3 guys out for a hard and sporty
Sunday ride. And that's probably why it's most appropriate for racers
to wear helmets. But if more riders had pro-type skills or even part
of them, silly crashes on little things like rabbits wouldn't happen
on normal rides.

Those skills are trainable. Enthusiasts should practice them. Just
like the effective cycling skills of dealing with traffic
appropriately, these sorts of skills in dealing with obstacles can
help prevent accidents in the first place.

JT


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

 

[SMS]

Jeff Starr wrote:

> So says burp the hypocrite.
> I've asked you questions and never got any answers. So that makes you
> a pathetic weasel and a total hypocrite.

LOL. Since when is anyone required to answer every troll in a thread.
Burt's been kill-filed for a long time, I don't even see his **** except
in follow-ups. He's free to go back to the old helmet threads where I
have provided extensive cites and references. I'm certainly not going to
do his work for him!

 

[SMS]

Peter Clinch wrote:

> The chap at the front (and that's his son at the back, btw) on this
> cover picture of an internationally distributed cycling culture magazine
> is, according to Scharf, an anti-helmet zealot!

That's what so amusing! Someone posts so much junk science, claiming
helmets provide absolutely no benefit, but the same person is out riding
with a helmet, even though there's no law compelling him to do so. Is he
doing it to set a good example for his children? If so, I must be a
terrible father, because I often go out helmet-less, while my kids are
required by law to wear a helmet. What a bad example I am setting!

Or maybe the magazine required him to wear a helmet for the photograph.

 

[[email protected]]

SMS wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>
> > The chap at the front (and that's his son at the back, btw) on this
> > cover picture of an internationally distributed cycling culture magazine
> > is, according to Scharf, an anti-helmet zealot!
>
> That's what so amusing! Someone posts so much junk science, claiming
> helmets provide absolutely no benefit, but the same person is out riding
> with a helmet, even though there's no law compelling him to do so.


Here we have a shrill, strident, very vocal, self-described "helmet
sceptic", someone who is convinced that helmets are of no benefit, who
lives in dread of a MHL and who believes that "every helmet worn is a
silent vote for compulsion", and what does he do? He allows himself to
be photographed wearing a helmet and to have that photograph ON THE
COVER of an "internationally distributed cycling culture magazine"!

Makes sense to me!!!




> Is he
> doing it to set a good example for his children? If so, I must be a
> terrible father, because I often go out helmet-less, while my kids are
> required by law to wear a helmet. What a bad example I am setting!
>
> Or maybe the magazine required him to wear a helmet for the photograph.


And, perhaps, vanity got the better of his "helmet scepticism"!

 

[Espressopithecus (Java Man)]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>
> > The chap at the front (and that's his son at the back, btw) on this
> > cover picture of an internationally distributed cycling culture magazine
> > is, according to Scharf, an anti-helmet zealot!
>
> That's what so amusing! Someone posts so much junk science, claiming
> helmets provide absolutely no benefit, but the same person is out riding
> with a helmet, even though there's no law compelling him to do so.

I don't think the population studies are junk science. I think people
simply infer conclusions beyond what the studies actually tell us.

Rick

 

[Peter Clinch]

SMS wrote:

> That's what so amusing! Someone posts so much junk science, claiming
> helmets provide absolutely no benefit, but the same person is out riding
> with a helmet, even though there's no law compelling him to do so.

Not a law, but a race rule in that case, IIRC.
But a "zealot" wouldn't even own one, let alone use one for a small
number of events. So it's not "amusing", it's a simple
demonstration that you're posting with a chip on your shoulder
rather than conveying straightforward facts.

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

 

[Bill Sornson]

Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:

> I don't think the population studies are junk science. I think people
> simply infer conclusions beyond what the studies actually tell us.

Exactly right. They're USED junkily. :-D

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
>
> > I don't think the population studies are junk science. I think people
> > simply infer conclusions beyond what the studies actually tell us.
>
> Exactly right. They're USED junkily. :-D


Yep, it's when those skewed inferences are presented as "fact" that the
problems begin.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:

> I don't think the population studies are junk science. I think people
> simply infer conclusions beyond what the studies actually tell us.

That's a fair comment. Though it's worth noting that not everyone
is doing that.

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

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]>typed


> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:

> > I don't think the population studies are junk science. I think people
> > simply infer conclusions beyond what the studies actually tell us.

> That's a fair comment. Though it's worth noting that not everyone
> is doing that.

Indeed.

"All lies and jest,
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest..."

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.