Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience



Aeek wrote:
> 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?


Can't have it both ways. If they grant you that (and they will), then they
have to likewise approve comments like "my helmet took the brunt of the hit
and saved me a bad gash if not a concussion" (and they won't).

HTH
 
Peter Clinch 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?


If they "hurt", then the injury rate would go up with increased use.

HTH
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> 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.
>

Do you have any reason to believe that people's behaviour while wearing
bicycle helmets will be different from that observed with other personal
protective equipment?

Rick
 
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>typed


> Peter Clinch 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?


> If they "hurt", then the injury rate would go up with increased use.


> HTH



It does, it appears...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.
 
Espressopithecus (Java Man) <[email protected]>typed


> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > 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.
> >

> Do you have any reason to believe that people's behaviour while wearing
> bicycle helmets will be different from that observed with other personal
> protective equipment?


> Rick


Kids have been observed to use their helmets as 'shields' rather than
keeping the head out of the impact zone as would usually be instinctive.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.
 
Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>typed
>
>
> > Peter Clinch 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?

>
> > If they "hurt", then the injury rate would go up with increased use.

>
> > HTH

>
>
> It does, it appears...
>
>


Danger, danger! Helmets increase injuries!

Say it isn't so, Petey Clinch.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

"Every Limey AHZ discredited is a vocal vote for reality."
 
Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
> Espressopithecus (Java Man) <[email protected]>typed
>
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> > > 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.
> > >

> > Do you have any reason to believe that people's behaviour while wearing
> > bicycle helmets will be different from that observed with other personal
> > protective equipment?

>
> > Rick

>
> Kids have been observed to use their helmets as 'shields' rather than
> keeping the head out of the impact zone as would usually be instinctive.
>
>


That's an instructional/educational issue, isn't it? Akin to
instruction in the proper use of seatbelts, etc. *Not* an inherent
issue re: helmets.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Every Limey AHZ discredited is a vocal vote for reality."
 
Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>typed


>> Peter Clinch 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?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>> If they "hurt", then the injury rate would go up with increased use.


> It does, it appears...


Well, Peter wrote that it's "unchanged", which is what prompted my reply.
(Thanks at least for not /deleting/ his quote above like so many of your
zealous cohorts would undoubtedly do.)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Espressopithecus (Java Man) <[email protected]>typed
>
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> > > 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.
> > >

> > Do you have any reason to believe that people's behaviour while wearing
> > bicycle helmets will be different from that observed with other personal
> > protective equipment?

>
> > Rick

>
> Kids have been observed to use their helmets as 'shields' rather than
> keeping the head out of the impact zone as would usually be instinctive.
>

I think that's an example of how kids' behaviour while wearing bicycle
helmets is the same as people using other protective equipment, not
different.

Rick
 
Ozark, any news on whether or not you will be in NYC later this
summer?

You may recall suggesting I wouldn't be willing to criticize you to
your face, and then when I said would you said you expected to be in
NYC. Well?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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."


Straw Man Scharf - queen of the scientific illiterate.
 
"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.


There's plenty of evidence, it's just that it doesn't agree with Straw Man
Scharf's preconceptions, therefore it must be "junk science"
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> Ozark, any news on whether or not you will be in NYC later this
> summer?
>


Do you still want my picture, or have you found another object for your
homoerotic urges?


> You may recall suggesting I wouldn't be willing to criticize you to
> your face, and then when I said would you said you expected to be in
> NYC. Well?
>


In English, please!!!


> JT
>
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************
 
burt wrote:
> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 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."

>
> Straw Man Scharf - queen of the scientific illiterate.

]

"Burt" - queen. Yo, Tony! Stop hiding behind Burt's skirts! Come out
and post like a man, even if it's an _English_ man.
 
On 9 Aug 2006 15:00:25 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> Ozark, any news on whether or not you will be in NYC later this
>> summer?
>>

>
>Do you still want my picture, or have you found another object for your
>homoerotic urges?


I would like to see a picture of you and I would like to know if you
would be in NYC later this year so we can meet.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 9 Aug 2006 15:00:25 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >> Ozark, any news on whether or not you will be in NYC later this
> >> summer?
> >>

> >
> >Do you still want my picture, or have you found another object for your
> >homoerotic urges?

>
> I would like to see a picture of you and I would like to know if you
> would be in NYC later this year so we can meet.
>


I have to tell you right upfront, I don't shave my legs and I go for
women, not men. Perhaps you should find another object for your
desires.

And, does your wife know about your nocturnal cravings?
 
On 9 Aug 2006 17:52:50 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 9 Aug 2006 15:00:25 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> >> Ozark, any news on whether or not you will be in NYC later this
>> >> summer?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Do you still want my picture, or have you found another object for your
>> >homoerotic urges?

>>
>> I would like to see a picture of you and I would like to know if you
>> would be in NYC later this year so we can meet.
>>

>
>I have to tell you right upfront, I don't shave my legs and I go for
>women, not men. Perhaps you should find another object for your
>desires.


Are you going to be in New York City anytime in the next three months?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 9 Aug 2006 17:52:50 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >> On 9 Aug 2006 15:00:25 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >> >> Ozark, any news on whether or not you will be in NYC later this
> >> >> summer?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Do you still want my picture, or have you found another object for your
> >> >homoerotic urges?
> >>
> >> I would like to see a picture of you and I would like to know if you
> >> would be in NYC later this year so we can meet.
> >>

> >
> >I have to tell you right upfront, I don't shave my legs and I go for
> >women, not men. Perhaps you should find another object for your
> >desires.

>
> Are you going to be in New York City anytime in the next three months?
>
>


*Does* your wife know about your nocturnal cravings? If so, perhaps she
can arrange something for you. Perhaps a Bi Boy-Toy, someone you both
will enjoy. A real family clusterf**k! You can find anything in the
Big Apple! But do remember to wear a "helmet"!
 
On 9 Aug 2006 18:41:52 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 9 Aug 2006 17:52:50 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> >> On 9 Aug 2006 15:00:25 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> >> >> Ozark, any news on whether or not you will be in NYC later this
>> >> >> summer?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Do you still want my picture, or have you found another object for your
>> >> >homoerotic urges?
>> >>
>> >> I would like to see a picture of you and I would like to know if you
>> >> would be in NYC later this year so we can meet.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I have to tell you right upfront, I don't shave my legs and I go for
>> >women, not men. Perhaps you should find another object for your
>> >desires.

>>
>> Are you going to be in New York City anytime in the next three months?
>>
>>

>
>*Does* your wife know about your nocturnal cravings? If so, perhaps she
>can arrange something for you. Perhaps a Bi Boy-Toy, someone you both
>will enjoy. A real family clusterf**k! You can find anything in the
>Big Apple! But do remember to wear a "helmet"!


Ozark,several weeks ago you challenged said Carl Fogel and other
critics of yours would not be willing to criticize you to your face. I
said I would and you rapidly responded that you would be in New York
City sometime this summer. I said fine -- let's meet.

It seems you are backing off of that challenge you placed and are
unwilling to meet me face to face, as you suggested Carl and others
would be with you.

So are you coming to New York City or not?

JT


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