Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

jtaylor said:

"Sorni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(And rather than asking questions about the numbers, why not dig the
numbers out yourself? It's really not helping your cause to
repeatedly post out of ignorance!)

Because I'm asking you to elaborate on YOUR numbers, Frank. I don't
buy your contentions nor your conclusions, sorry.

Um, aren't you the guy who, when people here have presented you with
chapter-and-verse references to exactly this sort of data, have said
things like "I don't need data to make decisions" and "I'll trust my
experience over statistics"?

I reject the argument that "just walking" is more dangerous than "just
riding". I don't believe it. Have 100 healthy, able-bodied people walk
around Mission Bay -- and 100 ride bikes around it -- and I bet that there
will be more boo-boos and near-boo-boos among the riders. (Again, no cars.)

Then take actual ratios of those activities -- what, 10,000:100
walkers:riders? -- and the percentages are even more telling as to which
activity is...let's say trickier. (Again, sans traffic issues.)

That's why I wear a lid. (That and I know it upsets you so.)

B

Sorni said:

Quoted message said:

Um, aren't you the guy who, when people here have presented you with
chapter-and-verse references to exactly this sort of data, have said
things like "I don't need data to make decisions" and "I'll trust my
experience over statistics"?

I reject the argument that "just walking" is more dangerous than "just
riding". I don't believe it.

No evidence except your lack of belief..

Quoted message said:

Have 100 healthy, able-bodied people walk
around Mission Bay -- and 100 ride bikes around it -- and I bet that there
will be more boo-boos and near-boo-boos among the riders. (Again, no cars.)

But that is not 'just walking', that is 'just walking round mission bay
(wherever that may be)'.

Quoted message said:

Then take actual ratios of those activities -- what, 10,000:100
walkers:riders? -- and the percentages are even more telling as to which
activity is...let's say trickier. (Again, sans traffic issues.)

Or alternatively use hospital admissions data and observed
participation data (ie real world rather than a Sorni hypothesis) and
you get a different answer that is generally more appliccable to what
real people are doing.

Quoted message said:

That's why I wear a lid. (That and I know it upsets you so.)

Or in summary "I don't believe the data so I will construct a
hypothetical experiment, not collect any data and base my decision on
what I think the outcome should be".

Why not just say "I wear a lid cos I want to" instead of trying badly
to justify it with some pseudo scientific babble. It would save a whole
load of hot air.

...d

"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Or alternatively use hospital admissions data and observed
participation data (ie real world rather than a Sorni hypothesis) and
you get a different answer that is generally more appliccable to what
real people are doing.

Quoted message said:

That's why I wear a lid. (That and I know it upsets you so.)

Or in summary "I don't believe the data so I will construct a
hypothetical experiment, not collect any data and base my decision on
what I think the outcome should be".

You forgot the "nevermind what the already performed studies show what
should be the result" that was supposed to go inbetween "...on what..." and
"...I think the outcome should be".

David Martin said:

Sorni said:

Quoted message said:

Um, aren't you the guy who, when people here have presented you with
chapter-and-verse references to exactly this sort of data, have said
things like "I don't need data to make decisions" and "I'll trust my
experience over statistics"?

I reject the argument that "just walking" is more dangerous than
"just riding". I don't believe it.

No evidence except your lack of belief..

Quoted message said:

Have 100 healthy, able-bodied people walk
around Mission Bay -- and 100 ride bikes around it -- and I bet that
there will be more boo-boos and near-boo-boos among the riders.
(Again, no cars.)

But that is not 'just walking', that is 'just walking round mission
bay (wherever that may be)'.

Quoted message said:

Then take actual ratios of those activities -- what, 10,000:100
walkers:riders? -- and the percentages are even more telling as to
which activity is...let's say trickier. (Again, sans traffic
issues.)

Or alternatively use hospital admissions data and observed
participation data (ie real world rather than a Sorni hypothesis) and
you get a different answer that is generally more appliccable to what
real people are doing.

Quoted message said:

That's why I wear a lid. (That and I know it upsets you so.)

Or in summary "I don't believe the data so I will construct a
hypothetical experiment, not collect any data and base my decision on
what I think the outcome should be".

Why not just say "I wear a lid cos I want to" instead of trying badly
to justify it with some pseudo scientific babble. It would save a
whole load of hot air.

I /have/ said that. Drew attacks just like any other pro-lid comment.

My only point about the statistics is that there are too many variables
(traffic, kids, elderly, homeless, drunk & stoned, etc etc etc etc) to
/conclude/ that "walking is more dangerous than bike riding". Neither is
"dangerous", of course; but the likelihood of injury -- however minor -- is
greater on a bike.

See ya...

in message <[email hidden]>, Sorni

(') said:

jtaylor said:

"Sorni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

> (And rather than asking questions about the numbers, why not dig the
> numbers out yourself? It's really not helping your cause to
> repeatedly post out of ignorance!)

Because I'm asking you to elaborate on YOUR numbers, Frank. I don't
buy your contentions nor your conclusions, sorry.

Um, aren't you the guy who, when people here have presented you with
chapter-and-verse references to exactly this sort of data, have said
things like "I don't need data to make decisions" and "I'll trust my
experience over statistics"?

I reject the argument that "just walking" is more dangerous than "just
riding". I don't believe it. Have 100 healthy, able-bodied people
walk around Mission Bay -- and 100 ride bikes around it -- and I bet
that there
will be more boo-boos and near-boo-boos among the riders. (Again, no
cars.)

Is this thread /still/ going on?

If you take the cars out of the equation then you're not looking at a
real-world situation, are you? A very high proportion of serious and
fatal injuries to both pedestrians and cyclists are caused by impact
with a motor vehicle.

In the real world, walking is more dangerous, kilometer for kilometer,
than cycling. Data:

ttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=7250&Pos=&ColRank=1&Rank=272

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

[ Disclaimer:  This is a work displacement exercise.  Please feel free ]
[ to reply either on or off group.  Expect lengthy replies until the ]
[ deadline has passed.  Thank-you for your cooperation. ]

Sorni said:

I reject the argument that "just walking" is more dangerous than "just
riding". I don't believe it. Have 100 healthy, able-bodied people walk
around Mission Bay -- and 100 ride bikes around it -- and I bet that there
will be more boo-boos and near-boo-boos among the riders. (Again, no cars.)

Then take actual ratios of those activities -- what, 10,000:100
walkers:riders? -- and the percentages are even more telling as to which
activity is...let's say trickier. (Again, sans traffic issues.)

Interesting logic.

When confronted with several data points indicating more risk per hour
and per mile for pedestrians than for bicyclists, you say those data
points don't count.

Why? Because, of course, those data points were collected in the real
world! Obviously, you're hoping to select a specialized environment
where you can pretend your preconceptions might be valid. It makes as
much sense to talk about statistics for a paved plaza on the moon.

Two points: First, the real world _does_ include cars, and the
situations they generate have an important effect on accident rates.
Pretending they don't exist (or wanting data that excludes them - same
thing) is foolish.

Second, don't forget we're comparing infinitesmals. I say this because
I'm not saying walking is dangerous. Despite good data showing walking
is more dangerous than cycling, neither is risky enough, when done
normally, to require helmets.

Quoted message said:

That's why I wear a lid. (That and I know it upsets you so.)

<sigh> Just one of the many points on which you're confused!

I'm not upset you wear a helmet. You may wear a helmet, and a day-glow
jersey, and purple riding shorts, for all I care. Your choice of
costume is your own.

But if you were to say purple riding shorts were necessary or desirable
for safe cycling, I'd challenge that statement. It's likewise for
plastic hats.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Sorni, who is _still_ posting instead of learning, wrote:

That's all you have to know about Frank.

Sorry, Frank. You have nothing I want.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I reject the argument that "just walking" is more dangerous than
"just riding". I don't believe it. Have 100 healthy, able-bodied
people walk around Mission Bay -- and 100 ride bikes around it --
and I bet that there will be more boo-boos and near-boo-boos among
the riders. (Again, no cars.)

Then take actual ratios of those activities -- what, 10,000:100
walkers:riders? -- and the percentages are even more telling as to
which activity is...let's say trickier. (Again, sans traffic
issues.)

Interesting logic.

When confronted with several data points indicating more risk per hour
and per mile for pedestrians than for bicyclists, you say those data
points don't count.

Why? Because, of course, those data points were collected in the real
world! Obviously, you're hoping to select a specialized environment
where you can pretend your preconceptions might be valid. It makes as
much sense to talk about statistics for a paved plaza on the moon.

Two points: First, the real world _does_ include cars, and the
situations they generate have an important effect on accident rates.
Pretending they don't exist (or wanting data that excludes them - same
thing) is foolish.

Of course, helmets won't help in most car-person interactions, yet you and
your minions repeatedly use the "why don't you wear one (a helmet, of
course) while walking?" ruse.

I call THAT "interesting" logic.

Quoted message said:

Second, don't forget we're comparing infinitesmals. I say this
because I'm not saying walking is dangerous. Despite good data
showing walking is more dangerous than cycling, neither is risky
enough, when done normally, to require helmets.

Then stop saying people should wear lids while out walking. (Or tell your
pals to.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's why I wear a lid. (That and I know it upsets you so.)

<sigh> Just one of the many points on which you're confused!

I'm not upset you wear a helmet.

YOU'RE SO SELF CENTERED THAT YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHEN SOMEONE IS NOT
ADDRESSING YOU! (Clue: the exchange was with the stalker "jtaylor",
whoever he/she/it is.)

Quoted message said:

You may wear a helmet, and a
day-glow jersey, and purple riding shorts, for all I care. Your
choice of costume is your own.

Again, WASN'T TALKING TO YOU, FRANK.

Quoted message said:

But if you were to say purple riding shorts were necessary or
desirable for safe cycling, I'd challenge that statement. It's
likewise for plastic hats.

Necessary, no. Desirable, UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL. ("Desirability" by its
very nature is subjective. Or do you profess to know what's best for
/everyone/, Perfessor?)

Again, Frank, sorry I forgot my "place". Daring to disagree with the
haughty and mighty...uh, Frank.

Sorni said:

Quoted message said:

Sorni, who is _still_ posting instead of learning, wrote:

That's all you have to know about Frank.

Sorry, Frank. You have nothing I want.

[snip]

Dear Bill,

Er, that's Frank's point. You don't want to learn.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

Sorni said:

Quoted message said:

Sorni, who is _still_ posting instead of learning, wrote:

That's all you have to know about Frank.

Sorry, Frank. You have nothing I want.

[snip]

Dear Bill,

Er, that's Frank's point. You don't want to learn.

I don't buy what he's selling, Carl. Surely you can grasp that. (But
thanks for pointing out the obvious.)

I like and enjoy my computer; doesn't mean I'm necessarily interested in
learning about programming or how some of its components work. I'm content
to just /use/ it. I'm content that it /works/.

Others are much more tech-oriented. To each his or her own.

Is that OK with you?

Cheers yourself, BS

Sorni said:

Of course, helmets won't help in most car-person interactions,

Why not? On what do you base that statement (and given that the
discussion is regarding comparison of risk when cycling to risk when
driving, why do you consider (by inference) that they will help in most
bike-car interactions?)

Quoted message said:

yet you and
your minions repeatedly use the "why don't you wear one (a helmet, of
course) while walking?" ruse.

It is to do with having a consistent approach to risk. You appear to be
behaving inconsistently. Why is that?

Quoted message said:

I call THAT "interesting" logic.

...d

Sorni said:

I like and enjoy my computer; doesn't mean I'm necessarily interested in
learning about programming or how some of its components work. I'm content
to just /use/ it. I'm content that it /works/.

Others are much more tech-oriented. To each his or her own.

Is that OK with you?

That's fine with me as long as you stop trying to discuss programming
and how the components work, without any knowledge or interest in
gaining it, with people that do know. Just stick to using your computer
and be happy with it. Trying to claim the Pentium is a 259-bit RISC
processor made by Apple and you don't believe the Intel spec sheet that
says different does you no favours.

Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

in message <[email hidden]>, Sorni

(') said:

Quoted message said:

Two points: First, the real world does include cars, and the
situations they generate have an important effect on accident rates.
Pretending they don't exist (or wanting data that excludes them - same
thing) is foolish.

Of course, helmets won't help in most car-person interactions, yet you
and your minions repeatedly use the "why don't you wear one (a helmet,
of course) while walking?" ruse.

That's exactly the point: they don't help in car-person interactions, and
they aren't needed in person but no car situations, so when is it you
think they're potentially useful? The impacts it's worth protecting
against they don't protect against, and the impacts they protect against
weren't going to hurt you much anyway.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Ye hypocrites! are these your pranks? To murder men and give God thanks?
Desist, for shame! Proceed no further: God won't accept your thanks for
murther
-- Roburt Burns, 'Thanksgiving For a National Victory'

Tony Raven said:

Sorni said:

I like and enjoy my computer; doesn't mean I'm necessarily
interested in learning about programming or how some of its
components work. I'm content to just /use/ it. I'm content that it
/works/. Others are much more tech-oriented. To each his or her own.

Is that OK with you?

Quoted message said:

That's fine with me as long as you stop trying to discuss programming
and how the components work, without any knowledge or interest in
gaining it, with people that do know.

But you and Frank and Carl (whom I was addessing) and the rest say I'm not
"qualified" to talk about computers at all. Just like I can't talk about
wearing helmets.

It's freaking Usenet; get the hell over yourselves.

Quoted message said:

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not
using his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

So stop relying on it (authority) so much! LOL
--
To repeat what others have said,
requires education,
to challenge it,
requires brains.
-- Mary Pettibone Poole

"Dare to challenge arrogant prigs"
-- Me

David Martin said:

Sorni said:

Of course, helmets won't help in most car-person interactions,

Why not? On what do you base that statement (and given that the
discussion is regarding comparison of risk when cycling to risk when
driving, why do you consider (by inference) that they will help in
most bike-car interactions?)

I'm using the AHZ's argument to make a point. (And I didn't infer what you
inferred I inferred, either.)

They try to claim on one hand that helmets won't do any good in truly
traumatic head impacts and on the other use dead pedestrians to try to make
points about helmets and cycling. Inconsistent at the very least.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

yet you and
your minions repeatedly use the "why don't you wear one (a helmet, of
course) while walking?" ruse.

Quoted message said:

It is to do with having a consistent approach to risk. You appear to
be behaving inconsistently. Why is that?

Not at all. A whole bunch of whole population pedestrian stats has no
bearing on my choice of headwear whilst riding my bike.

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Sorni
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course, helmets won't help in most car-person interactions, yet
you and your minions repeatedly use the "why don't you wear one (a
helmet, of course) while walking?" ruse.

That's exactly the point: they don't help in car-person interactions,
and they aren't needed in person but no car situations, so when is it
you think they're potentially useful? The impacts it's worth
protecting against they don't protect against, and the impacts they
protect against weren't going to hurt you much anyway.

But that's exactly where we disagree. If my front wheel slides out at 35
mph on a curvy descent, I want a helmet on my head to protect me from /some/
damage that very well might occur. (If a car runs over me or hits me head
on, then I agree it likely won't help a lick; won't make things any worse,
though.)

BTW, my comment above was merely parroting the AHZ (used for convenience not
malice) line. I happen to think that helmets CAN help in many
person/vehicle incidents. (Classic example -- right hook sending one flying
over the hood. I'd rather avoid it, of course, but if it happens I want a
lid on my noggin. Sue me.)

Sorni said:

But that's exactly where we disagree. If my front wheel slides out at 35
mph on a curvy descent, I want a helmet on my head to protect me from /some/
damage that very well might occur. (If a car runs over me or hits me head
on, then I agree it likely won't help a lick; won't make things any worse,
though.)

BTW, my comment above was merely parroting the AHZ (used for convenience not
malice) line. I happen to think that helmets CAN help in many
person/vehicle incidents. (Classic example -- right hook sending one flying
over the hood. I'd rather avoid it, of course, but if it happens I want a
lid on my noggin. Sue me.)

And in those last two paragraphs you highlight for me the issue with
MHLs. Common sense and some science tells us there are limitations to
how a helmet may protect us and in the case of a car accident maybe
nothing at all. And our option to sue or claim any sort of compensation
from a drunk driver who leaves us brain damaged may disappear under a
MHL if at the time of an accident we weren't wearing one. The law
doesn't follow common sense, it follows the law and if a law states you
'must' wear a helmet and for some reason you don't, you'll loose all
your compensation rights.

Wear one, don't wear one, I could care less what you choose, but I
think wearing a helmet should remain a personal choice and not become
law.

Me? I always wear one offroad and most of the time on the road. In 25
years of cycling I've taken about a dozen knocks to the head, some
helmeted and some not and I can say I've suffer similiar injurys in all
of them.

Laters,

Marz

Marz said:

Sorni said:

But that's exactly where we disagree. If my front wheel slides out at 35
mph on a curvy descent, I want a helmet on my head to protect me from /some/
damage that very well might occur. (If a car runs over me or hits me head
on, then I agree it likely won't help a lick; won't make things any worse,
though.)

BTW, my comment above was merely parroting the AHZ (used for convenience not
malice) line. I happen to think that helmets CAN help in many
person/vehicle incidents. (Classic example -- right hook sending one flying
over the hood. I'd rather avoid it, of course, but if it happens I want a
lid on my noggin. Sue me.)

And in those last two paragraphs you highlight for me the issue with
MHLs. Common sense and some science tells us there are limitations to
how a helmet may protect us and in the case of a car accident maybe
nothing at all. And our option to sue or claim any sort of compensation
from a drunk driver who leaves us brain damaged may disappear under a
MHL if at the time of an accident we weren't wearing one. The law
doesn't follow common sense, it follows the law and if a law states you
'must' wear a helmet and for some reason you don't, you'll loose all
your compensation rights.

The Oregon MHL specifically states that evidence of non-use of helmet
cannot be offered to prove comparative fault in any case, even though
the statute only applies to children under 16. This means that the MHL
actual gives adult non-helmet wearers a benefit that they did not have
before the MHL. Regardless of what the experts here (or anywhere)
claim concerning the ineffectiveness of helmets or the health cost of
helmets, jurors go nuts when bicyclists-plaintiffs don't wear helmets.
Bicyclists are viewed as risk-taking idiots by most jurors (often
old-fart drivers), and failing to wear a helmet reinforces that view.
Keeping evidence of non-use of a helmet away from the jury has quite a
bit of value in the usual bicyclist's injury case.

Quoted message said:

From a defense standpoint (I only defend products cases and not MVA

cases), helmets bite me in the butt. Plaintiffs love to show off their
cracked helmets as evidence of a big head strike -- which is impressive
to jurors and judges. I always want to pull out my three broken
helmets and do an LBJ top-this kind of thing. But I can't remember
where I put them. Too bad helmets don't prevent diffuse MBI. -- Jay
Beattie.

Marz said:

Sorni said:

But that's exactly where we disagree. If my front wheel slides out
at 35 mph on a curvy descent, I want a helmet on my head to protect
me from /some/ damage that very well might occur. (If a car runs
over me or hits me head on, then I agree it likely won't help a
lick; won't make things any worse, though.)

BTW, my comment above was merely parroting the AHZ (used for
convenience not malice) line. I happen to think that helmets CAN
help in many person/vehicle incidents. (Classic example -- right
hook sending one flying over the hood. I'd rather avoid it, of
course, but if it happens I want a lid on my noggin. Sue me.)

And in those last two paragraphs you highlight for me the issue with
MHLs. Common sense and some science tells us there are limitations to
how a helmet may protect us and in the case of a car accident maybe
nothing at all. And our option to sue or claim any sort of
compensation from a drunk driver who leaves us brain damaged may
disappear under a MHL if at the time of an accident we weren't
wearing one. The law doesn't follow common sense, it follows the law
and if a law states you 'must' wear a helmet and for some reason you
don't, you'll loose all your compensation rights.

Wear one, don't wear one, I could care less what you choose, but I
think wearing a helmet should remain a personal choice and not become
law.

Agree 1000%.

Sorni said:

Quoted message said:

Two points: First, the real world _does_ include cars, and the
situations they generate have an important effect on accident rates.
Pretending they don't exist (or wanting data that excludes them - same
thing) is foolish.

Of course, helmets won't help in most car-person interactions, yet you and
your minions repeatedly use the "why don't you wear one (a helmet, of
course) while walking?" ruse.

I call THAT "interesting" logic.

If you were really interested in the logic, you'd slow down and try to
follow it. As it is, I think you're skimming past the words. The
logic is, yet again, not sinking in.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Second, don't forget we're comparing infinitesmals. I say this
because I'm not saying walking is dangerous. Despite good data
showing walking is more dangerous than cycling, neither is risky
enough, when done normally, to require helmets.

Then stop saying people should wear lids while out walking. (Or tell your
pals to.)

Sorni, I'll try to explain what's being said. Read slowly, and take
notes:

Available data makes it clear that cycle helmets make no more sense
than walking helmets.

We helmet skeptics are NOT actually promoting walking helmets.
Instead, we are saying that NEITHER type of helmet is necessary.

Now stop. Read the previous two short paragraphs over and over. Or
have someone else (your wife?) read them to you. Slowly.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not upset you wear a helmet.

YOU'RE SO SELF CENTERED THAT YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHEN SOMEONE IS NOT
ADDRESSING YOU!

Rats! It happened again! Somehow, your private e-mail to jtaylor
ended up in a public forum, where it was open to discussion!

Is it a problem with your mail settings? Can you call tech support?
;-)

- Frank Krygowski