Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> > On 4 Aug 2006 12:21:52 -0700, [email protected] said in
> > <[email protected]>:
> >
> >>> It is indeed very complex,
> >
> >> You could hardly think otherwise. To do so would be to admit that you
> >> have wasted your time and energy amassing a "library" of "data" on a
> >> *very* trivial issue.
> >
> > The fundamental weakness in your position is that I originally thought
> > it *was* simple until I actually studied it, prompted by others on the
> > cycling newsgroup.
>
> IOW, peer pressure caused you to question your own common sense and sound
> judgment.
>

Welcome to rec.bicycles.limey-sheep

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 14:55:29 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 5 Aug 2006 21:15:36 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "If the rates go up even slightly" upon imposition of a mandatory
>>> helmet law, even if you don't blame helmets, you MUST admit the
>>> helmet law has not achieved its stated objective!
>>
>> No one has to admit anything. Some other guys like Sorni and Ozark
>> told us they can say whatever they want to as their statements are
>> only opinions. They can say whatever they want to...and often they
>> do.
>
>You're a moron and a weasel. FACTS! LOL
>
>(And yes, you can go to your archives and find my decimal error;

It's not the decimal error that makes it so funny, it's that you
repeated it and argued about it that makes it funny. That's the
really moronic part.

So here you go:

"When I divide 180,000 by 300,000,000 I get 0.006. Every time."

> shall I
>start keeping a list of the words you misspell consistently? {Hint: not
>just typos; ignorant-os.})

Hey, I don't argue when I misspell words. Everyone's ignorant of some
things. Smarter people are aware of their ignorance.

JT


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

 

[Chris Malcolm]

In uk.rec.cycling Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> On 4 Aug 2006 12:21:52 -0700, [email protected] said in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>> It is indeed very complex,
>>
>>> You could hardly think otherwise. To do so would be to admit that you
>>> have wasted your time and energy amassing a "library" of "data" on a
>>> *very* trivial issue.
>>
>> The fundamental weakness in your position is that I originally thought
>> it *was* simple until I actually studied it, prompted by others on the
>> cycling newsgroup.

> IOW, peer pressure caused you to question your own common sense and sound
> judgment.

Exactly. That's how science works, and the reason it is so much more
successful than common sense: it's a team effort.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[[email protected]]

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> In uk.rec.cycling Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> >> On 4 Aug 2006 12:21:52 -0700, [email protected] said in
> >> <[email protected]>:
> >>
> >>>> It is indeed very complex,
> >>
> >>> You could hardly think otherwise. To do so would be to admit that you
> >>> have wasted your time and energy amassing a "library" of "data" on a
> >>> *very* trivial issue.
> >>
> >> The fundamental weakness in your position is that I originally thought
> >> it *was* simple until I actually studied it, prompted by others on the
> >> cycling newsgroup.
>
> > IOW, peer pressure caused you to question your own common sense and sound
> > judgment.
>
> Exactly. That's how science works, and the reason it is so much more
> successful than common sense: it's a team effort.
>

No, not "exactly". The simple decision to wear or not wear a helmet is
not "science". It's really quite simple: "Assess, decide and ride". Why
do you seek to make a very simple decision complex?

 

[SMS]

Chris Malcolm wrote:

>> IOW, peer pressure caused you to question your own common sense and sound
>> judgment.
>
> Exactly. That's how science works, and the reason it is so much more
> successful than common sense: it's a team effort.

LOL, in order to be successful it has to be based on real science, not
junk science. There are lots of team efforts that involve using junk
science (or junk history for that matter) to prove something.

I do share the frustration of the AHZs regarding the incessant harping
on the subject of helmets from the media, health care providers, and
government. I was at my son's pediatrician's office yesterday, and she
was going over recommendations by the HMO regarding healthy lifestyles
for kids. On her computer screen it stressed not eating junk food,
avoiding high fructose corn syrup and fruit juice, limiting video games,
exercising, and of course, "always wear a helmet when riding a bicycle."

 

[Espressopithecus (Java Man)]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> I do share the frustration of the AHZs regarding the incessant harping
> on the subject of helmets from the media, health care providers, and
> government.

It may actually make helmet laws and helmet wearing in general less
safe/more dangerous because it undoubtedly contributes to risk
compensation behaviour.

Rick

 

[Jeff Starr]

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 03:13:30 GMT, Espressopithecus (Java Man)
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> I do share the frustration of the AHZs regarding the incessant harping
>> on the subject of helmets from the media, health care providers, and
>> government.
>
>It may actually make helmet laws and helmet wearing in general less
>safe/more dangerous because it undoubtedly contributes to risk
>compensation behaviour.
>
>Rick

Gee, we haven't heard that one, for a few thousand posts.


Life is Good!
Jeff

 

[Peter Clinch]

SMS wrote:

> LOL, in order to be successful it has to be based on real science, not
> junk science.

In this case it is based on real science as far as I can tell (as a
science professional). As opposed to Sharf science where figures are
plucked out of the air with no citable source to try and bolster his
junk-science conclusions (like that total mileage unaffected stat,
*still* haven't seen the source, where is it please?).

> There are lots of team efforts that involve using junk
> science (or junk history for that matter) to prove something.

Case in point being the studies Scharf likes, which have clearly
signposted holes in them a mile wide.

> I do share the frustration of the AHZs

Again, exactly who are these people who are zealously trying to prevent
people from wearing helmets?

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/

 

[Peter Clinch]

[email protected] wrote:

> No, not "exactly". The simple decision to wear or not wear a helmet is
> not "science". It's really quite simple: "Assess, decide and ride". Why
> do you seek to make a very simple decision complex?

The decision to wear one isn't, but the "assess" bit really /ought/ to
be if you want the answer with the best chance of being right.

Though you've laughed at the idea of having a library of literature on
the subject, if the same sort of resources aren't available for, say,
choosing padded shorts or not, then that's a good indication that there
are actually quite a lot of people in medicine and accident prevention
work who would disagree with your stance on the simplicity of the issue.

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/

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, SMS wrote:
>
>LOL, in order to be successful it has to be based on real science, not
>junk science. There are lots of team efforts that involve using junk
>science (or junk history for that matter) to prove something.

I think you're on your own in this case though - Sorni and Ozark are
resolutely sticking to the "Facts? We don't need no stinking facts"
anti-science line.

I'm not sure whether "I have posted cites in the past. Somewhere.
I can't give a precise reference, but I have really." counts as
junk history, or just junk.

 

[[email protected]]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > No, not "exactly". The simple decision to wear or not wear a helmet is
> > not "science". It's really quite simple: "Assess, decide and ride". Why
> > do you seek to make a very simple decision complex?
>
> The decision to wear one isn't, but the "assess" bit really /ought/ to
> be if you want the answer with the best chance of being right.
>

What's the big deal? As one poster noted regarding helmets: "Can't hurt
and might help". I think that sums it up rather well.


> Though you've laughed at the idea of having a library of literature on
> the subject, if the same sort of resources aren't available for, say,
> choosing padded shorts or not, then that's a good indication that there
> are actually quite a lot of people in medicine and accident prevention
> work who would disagree with your stance on the simplicity of the issue.
>

Sure, we have one large, vocal group screeching "Danger, danger,
*always* wear a helmet!" and one smaller, but equally strident group
screeching "Danger, danger! Helmets increase injuries! Helmets make
cycling more dangerous! Each helmat worn is a silent vote for
compulsion!"

Pro-helmet wackos and anti-helmet wackos. A pox on both houses.

 

[dkahn400]

[email protected] wrote:

> What's the big deal? As one poster noted regarding helmets: "Can't hurt
> and might help". I think that sums it up rather well.

"Can help but might hurt" sums it up rather better.

--
Dave...

 

[Peter Clinch]

[email protected] wrote:

> What's the big deal? As one poster noted regarding helmets: "Can't hurt
> and might help". I think that sums it up rather well.

But you haven't read any of the science so you can't tell the above is
inaccurate. It /is/ inaccurate, so it doesn't sum it up very well.

They /might/ help, but they really *can* hurt too. If not, how come the
serious injury rate is unchanged by increasing use of helmets?

> Sure, we have one large, vocal group screeching "Danger, danger,
> *always* wear a helmet!" and one smaller, but equally strident group
> screeching "Danger, danger! Helmets increase injuries! Helmets make
> cycling more dangerous! Each helmat worn is a silent vote for
> compulsion!"

The "Danger, danger! Helmets increase injuries! Helmets make
cycling more dangerous!" is a gross misconception on your part.

> Pro-helmet wackos and anti-helmet wackos. A pox on both houses.

The "anti-helmet wackos" is also a gross misconception on your part.

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/

 

[jtaylor]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > What's the big deal? As one poster noted regarding helmets: "Can't hurt
> > and might help". I think that sums it up rather well.
>
> But you haven't read any of the science so you can't tell the above is
> inaccurate. It /is/ inaccurate, so it doesn't sum it up very well.
>
> They /might/ help, but they really *can* hurt too. If not, how come the
> serious injury rate is unchanged by increasing use of helmets?
>
> > Sure, we have one large, vocal group screeching "Danger, danger,
> > *always* wear a helmet!" and one smaller, but equally strident group
> > screeching "Danger, danger! Helmets increase injuries! Helmets make
> > cycling more dangerous! Each helmat worn is a silent vote for
> > compulsion!"
>
> The "Danger, danger! Helmets increase injuries! Helmets make
> cycling more dangerous!" is a gross misconception on your part.
>
> > Pro-helmet wackos and anti-helmet wackos. A pox on both houses.
>
> The "anti-helmet wackos" is also a gross misconception on your part.
>

Pedaling misconceptions is as much stock in trade of pro-helmet-zealots as
ignoring the science that proves them wrong.

 

[Aeek]

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 13:39:12 +0100, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote:

>They /might/ help, but they really *can* hurt too. If not, how come the
>serious injury rate is unchanged by increasing use of helmets?

I'm glad I wasn't wearing a helmet when I went over the bars with a
half twist. Landed very flat on the road, a few stitches from sliding
on the back of my head.
When I think of landing on the protruding tail of the helmet I now
have to wear (aussie MHL) it scares me. I would have been landing on
my head/helmet before the rest of me landed rather than all at once.
Surely that would have been bad for my neck?

Andre

 

[jtaylor]

"Aeek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 13:39:12 +0100, Peter Clinch
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >They /might/ help, but they really *can* hurt too. If not, how come the
> >serious injury rate is unchanged by increasing use of helmets?
>
> I'm glad I wasn't wearing a helmet when I went over the bars with a
> half twist. Landed very flat on the road, a few stitches from sliding
> on the back of my head.
> When I think of landing on the protruding tail of the helmet I now
> have to wear (aussie MHL) it scares me. I would have been landing on
> my head/helmet before the rest of me landed rather than all at once.
> Surely that would have been bad for my neck?
>
>

Yes.

But of course, this is a single instance.

It is no more valid for predicting the likelyhood of injury than any of the
"my helmet saved my life" stories.

The best way to tell if helmets actually do anything to make cycling safer
is to see if the injury rates fall when the helmet-wearing rate rises.

They don't.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Aeek wrote:

> When I think of landing on the protruding tail of the helmet I now
> have to wear (aussie MHL) it scares me. I would have been landing on
> my head/helmet before the rest of me landed rather than all at once.
> Surely that would have been bad for my neck?

You can't be *sure* without a repeat control with everything else
exactly the same except for the hat... You can't have that, of course,
and even if you could I wouldn't suggest you signed up!

But it quite possibly might have been a negative in that particular
instance, is a fair summary IMHO. Though you can come up with other
scenarios where they might well help.

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/

 

[Aeek]

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 14:27:40 +0100, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote:

>But it quite possibly might have been a negative in that particular
>instance, is a fair summary IMHO. Though you can come up with other
>scenarios where they might well help.

Absolutely. Later on I did a full body and face plant into the grass
from running off the path and the helmet protected my forehead.
I broke my Rudys on my nose rather than my nose so maybe thats a case
for mandatory cycling glasses?
I could conclude that bitumen is softer than grass, that fits my
personal sample!

 

[H M Leary]

In article <[email protected]>,
Aeek <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 14:27:40 +0100, Peter Clinch
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >But it quite possibly might have been a negative in that particular
> >instance, is a fair summary IMHO. Though you can come up with other
> >scenarios where they might well help.
>
> Absolutely. Later on I did a full body and face plant into the grass
> from running off the path and the helmet protected my forehead.
> I broke my Rudys on my nose rather than my nose so maybe thats a case
> for mandatory cycling glasses?
> I could conclude that bitumen is softer than grass, that fits my
> personal sample!

Ah Crockey, Mate.

Maybe you should take some riding lessons and learn how to stay upright!

HAND
keep the rubber on the road.

 

[SMS]

Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> I do share the frustration of the AHZs regarding the incessant harping
>> on the subject of helmets from the media, health care providers, and
>> government.
>
> It may actually make helmet laws and helmet wearing in general less
> safe/more dangerous because it undoubtedly contributes to risk
> compensation behaviour.

There is no evidence of this alleged risk compensation behavior as it
relates to bicycle helmets.