Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 18:30:48 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>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.

That would be the 85% figure again,. of course.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 08:50:42 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>There's your proof, "kids have been observed."

Indeed. Mok et. al. wrote the paper. Children wearing helmets take
more risks.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 6 Aug 2006 17:13:53 -0700, [email protected] said in
<[email protected]>:

>Hee hee! Do you really believe that the fact that you changed your
>position re: helmets has any relevance to me? You, sir, are a rather
>simple minded, obsessive compulsive personality type in search of a
>"cause".

You say. Actually the term obsessive-compulsive would appear to apply
rather more aptly to those whose obsession leads them to make helmets
compulsory.

Interestingly, I can't recall anyone ever changing from sceptic to
pro-helmet as a result of reading the evidence, but I do know a
significant number who have changed from pro-helmet to sceptical. Make
of that what you will.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Chris Malcolm]

In uk.rec.cycling [email protected] wrote:

> 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?

As a scientist I've been trained to avoid taking decisions which are
simple and wrong.

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

 

[ambal]

Originally Posted by Chris Malcolm .

As a scientist I've been trained to avoid taking decisions which are simple and wrong.

Helmet hair is enough to make my wife avoid riding her bike to work.