Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience



Quoting John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>:
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>I asked for an explanation for the actions of those people
>>who started pro-helmet.

>I've described it before but here it is again, with a little more
>detail.


Ah, thanks, but really I'm interested in how Paul Murphy explains it when
he suggests all experts just reinforce their own biases and yet we have
people who reached conclusions completely opposite their initial biases.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:eek:konomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace
 
Quoting Paul Murphy <[email protected]>:
>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>Quoting Paul Murphy <[email protected]>:
>>>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>Quoting Paul Murphy <[email protected]>:
>>>>>>Are you suggesting that every single person posting here saying that
>>>>>>they are competent to understand the papers and that they started
>>>>>>pro-helmet actually secretly had an anti-helmet agenda all along?
>>>>>>Because that's as insulting as it is ridiculous.
>>>>>No - but are you 100% certain that this doesn't occur at all?
>>>>Why would I have to be?
>>>I'f you're going to use black and white thinking aguments with me,
>>>remember it works both ways.

>>No, it doesn't. I asked for an explanation for the actions of those people
>>who started pro-helmet. Obviously an insinuation that one of them might
>>have done something does not provide such an explanation.

>It appears that you are wanting to "pigeon hole" me in with other people -
>is this correct?


No. This is a ridiculous persecution fantasy. What I'm trying to get you
to do is answer a simple question; of course, your tendency to drag this
off into la-la land doesn't help.

Let's recap;

Jay Beattie wants to dismiss "experts" because they all have an agenda:

I don't think any ordinary person understands most of the gobledy gook
about why one study is valid and another is not. You obviously have an
agenda, as do many other of the experts -- which is not a bad thing
necessarily, but it makes me and maybe others suspicious.

I query how we explain people who reached a conclusion directly opposed to
their agenda:

How then do you explain the experts - many of whom post to this thread -
who started out with the agenda of confirming their belief in helmets and
reached the opposite conclusion? Does that make you suspicious?

You produce the first piece of nonsense:

Would that be like how that law expert fellow reached his findings with
regards to the Govt and Dr David Kelly and remained completely impartial
throughout?

Now, that's a reply to my question as to how one explains the people who
started pro- and finished anti-. If it's to explain those people it has to
apply to most or all of them; and it's both ridiculous and insulting to
suggest they all had secret anti- agendas all along. Are you suggesting
that? If so, that's absurd; if not, you're no closer to explaining them.

Furthermore, it's typical of you. It doesn't answer the question, but it's
a cutesy-sounding piece of rhetoric.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:eek:konomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace
 
Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> No blame is being apportioned. I'm addressing a condition that I have
> not seen addressed in the data. Nor have I seen how improper use might
> skew the injury data. The philosophical portion of the discussion
> doesn't interest me.
>


I've already given you the reference to the data, as much as you can
believe data from TRT, and a summary of the conclusions. Feel free to
go and read it. You can also read:

Bicycle helmet assessment during well visits reveals severe shortcomings
in condition and fit, Parkinson GW, Hike KE. Pediatrics: 2003, Vol 112,
Iss 2, pp 320-3 and

Cycle helmets: fit to buy or bought to fit? McCool J. Proc. 3rd
International Conference on Injury Prevention 1996

on helmet fit. But remember the spectrum of excellent to poor fit
helmets applies just as equally to all the helmet studies so the
difference in outcome is not explained by helmet fit i.e. the studies
which predict a great benefit from helmets will have had their fair
share of poorly fitting helmets in the studied cohort and yet still
predicted a strong benefit that is not there in population studies.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'll
>>>> regard the whole thing as a circle-jerking time-waster...
>>>
>>> But still take part, I see! ;-)

>>
>> It's my time to waste. I've been commenting on the effectiveness of
>> the discussion, not it's ultimate time use absent any other
>> consideration.

>
> You've also been insulting those who take part, because they choose to
> discuss the issue.


Bzzzt. Wrong. It's about unfair tactics, demeaning language, hypocritical
stances and arguments, arrogant expressions of haughty asshattiness, etc.
The "issue" is actually quite simple: some think helmets are useful; others
think they're not and may even be harmful.

HTH.

> I'm merely pointing out that you are one of the
> folks you're insulting.


Typical. Wrong AND dishonest. IOW, "Frank".
 
"Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > >
> > > Bzzt. I'm polite until someone is impolite to me.

> >
> > That's been proven wrong repeatedly, in this and other r.b.tech
> > disussions.

>
> Actually, it hasn't.
>
> Especially in this thread.
>
> Unless you believe that namecalling is the only rude thing someone can
> do.


It's certainly the most common thing that the pro-helmet zealots seem to be
doing.
 
"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:3sz*[email protected]...
> Quoting Paul Murphy <[email protected]>:
>>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>So in fact you cannot say who is not aware of their vulnerability when
>>>cycling.
>>>It illustrates neatly that your claim that you are aware of your own
>>>vulnerability is not a respect in which you are particularly unusual.

>>No, it just indicates I dont know others as well as myself.

>
> In particular, you don't know of anyone who is not aware of their
> vulnerability. Hence there is no reason to suppose you are unusual.


And there's no proof I'm not, regarding the issue being discussed.

>>>No. You have answered another question which has no bearing on the point.

>>We disagree on that point.

>
> Disagree all you like; you're wrong. You can't name a group who are not
> aware of their vulnerability.


If I say you're wrong and you can disagree all you like it gets us
no-where - the bottom line is WE disagree.

Paul
 
"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:13z*[email protected]...
> Quoting Paul Murphy <[email protected]>:
>>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>It's not up to me to provide evidence I've won the lottery.

>>The point is I'm not challenging you about whether you've won the lottery
>>and frankly its none of my businees if you said you had anyway.

>
> However, if I said I had before the draw or before the results are known,
> you'd be quite right to mock me.


No, I'd want to check out the facts when they are known. If you got to know
me you'd know I'm not the mocking type (at all). I dont believe mocking does
any good.

> You are claiming to have won the lottery, essentially.


Your words, not mine.

Paul
 
In article <3UD*[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Quoting Espressopithecus (Java Man) <[email protected]>:
> >[email protected] says...
> >>Quoting Espressopithecus (Java Man) <[email protected]>:
> >>>[email protected] says...
> >>>To make it plainer in case that's necessary, when ordinary cyclists say
> >>>"my helmet saved me" or "my helmet hurt me" I believe they're likely to
> >>>be correct ONLY BY LUCK.
> >>>Is that clear enough for you?
> >>Not quite. Do you or do you not believe that they are correct (by luck) in
> >>any significant proportion of cases?

>
> You haven't answered this question. Please do so.
>
> >>>>If you do disagree with that assertion, I'd very much like to see a
> >>>>hypothetical case that agrees with the figures. Let's assume net
> >>>>efficiency of helmets is overall zero for simplicity. Only one in every
> >>>>few thousand cyclists can expect to die cycling; you can pick any value of
> >>>>"few thousand" you please. One in every twenty helmet users has a "saved
> >>>>my life" story; if you don't like twenty, pick another reasonable value.
> >>>>You can divide up the net zero efficiency of helmets however you please,
> >>>>even with patently ridiculous effects like helmets preventing all head
> >>>>injuries. You'll probably need a figure for the proportion of fatal
> >>>>accidents to unhelmeted cyclists involving fatal non-head injuries; make
> >>>>it reasonable.
> >>>At the other extreme, it's possible that helmets OFTEN help but MORE
> >>>OFTEN make things worse. It's possible to have these two cases generate
> >>>the same overall population statistics. "
> >>I would still like to see a model of risk distribution based on the
> >>paragraph above in which it is reasonable to say that helmets "often"
> >>help; I don't suppose you can come up with such a thing at all.

> >And I'd like to see a post in which you have actually READ and
> >comprehended what was written. AT ONE EXTREME = "reasonable"??

>
> Amusing that you write that when your comprehension is at fault.
>
> "Reasonable" refers not to the extremeness or otherwise of the risk
> distribution but to the use of the term "often"; ie, can you come up with
> a risk distribution where helmets often help, where the word "often" is
> being used in a reasonable fashion.
>
> This ought to be obvious from the other similar uses of the word
> "reasonable" above.
>
> I'd still like to see your hypothetical risk distribution - which, you'll
> notice (if you comprehend the challenge), does not have to be reasonable.
> It can be as extreme as you like.
>

I notice you've snipped an important phrase from my previous post:

"I expect that in some cases helmets have helped to MITIGATE injuries,
while in more cases they have CAUSED or EXACERBATED injuries (whether
directly due to their design, or indirectly due to risk compensation)."

Now, you ask me to construct a hypothetical risk distribution for
helmets *saving lives*. As I'm sure you know, fatal head injuries to
cyclists are a very small subset of all head injuries to cyclists.

My question to you is why you have chosen to ignore this, even though I
have previously pointed it out to you?

If you want me to answer your questions, you can show your continued
interest by posting answers to all the unanswered questions I've asked
you.

Rick
 
"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:5KA*[email protected]...
> Quoting Paul Murphy <[email protected]>:
>>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>Quoting Paul Murphy <[email protected]>:
>>>>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>Just as self-knowledge is irrelevant in a case - like risk
>>>>>compensation -
>>>>>where just about everyone's self-knowledge leads them to an erroneous
>>>>>conclusion.
>>>>It's good you mentioned "just about".
>>>Just about everyone's self-knowledge, yes; rendering self-knowledge
>>>_completely_ irrelevant because you have no way of knowing that you
>>>aren't
>>>a member of "just about everyone".

>>Its still good that you mentioned "just about". I cant understand how you
>>can come to the second conclusion .

>
> It's obvious. If just about everyone's self-knowledge is erroneous, why
> suppose yours is special?


Are you saying that you conform to every statistical norm and that there is
nothing at all out of the ordinary about you? It's not unusual for people to
have some "statistical abnormalities". What makes you think that my level of
self knowledge is the same as those who are wrong? You can only be assuming
that is the case and assuming something in itself doesn't mean you will be
correct.

> It comes down to you thinking you're a special unique snowflake. You're
> not. Deal.


Your view, not mine. I resent you still using that language after I've told
you how I feel about it. It's clear that you're deliberately seeking to
provoke rather than convince by logic. If you try the second option I will
be receptive but not with the first. Whether you choose to trust me is your
business but I resent any sarcasm over it. I'm not treating you that way.

Paul
 
David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Ed Pirrero <[email protected]>:
>
> He's still not a chemist!
>
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >>But as Frank Krygowski has said, lots of other people read these
> >>threads and can learn, both about the topic and about the sort of
> >>posters involved.

> >Indeed. And when you accept out-of-context quotes as the substance as
> >a means to support an already-arrived-at conclusion, things sew up so
> >nicely, don't they?

>
> No doubt there is some context in which they would be the epitome of good
> manners.


Non sequitur.

> >Of course, those quotes, every single one, come from a long-ago thread.

>
> Just one thread, in fact. It hardly seemed worth mining any of the dozens
> of others.


Also non sequitur.

E.P.
 
jtaylor wrote:
> "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >


> > Unless you believe that namecalling is the only rude thing someone can
> > do.

>
> It's certainly the most common thing that the pro-helmet zealots seem to be
> doing.


Red herring.

E.P.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'll
> > > > regard the whole thing as a circle-jerking time-waster...
> > >
> > > But still take part, I see! ;-)

> >
> > It's my time to waste. I've been commenting on the effectiveness of
> > the discussion, not it's ultimate time use absent any other
> > consideration.

>
> You've also been insulting those who take part, because they choose to
> discuss the issue.


Another bit of dishonesty on your part.

If *discussing* the issue was all there was, there wouldn't be heated
language.

> I'm merely pointing out that you are one of the
> folks you're insulting.


Actually, I'm not. But imagine otherwise, if you wish to.

E.P.
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >
> > No blame is being apportioned. I'm addressing a condition that I have
> > not seen addressed in the data. Nor have I seen how improper use might
> > skew the injury data. The philosophical portion of the discussion
> > doesn't interest me.

>
> I've already given you the reference to the data, as much as you can
> believe data from TRT, and a summary of the conclusions. Feel free to
> go and read it. You can also read:


I don't believe them.

> Bicycle helmet assessment during well visits reveals severe shortcomings
> in condition and fit, Parkinson GW, Hike KE. Pediatrics: 2003, Vol 112,
> Iss 2, pp 320-3 and
>
> Cycle helmets: fit to buy or bought to fit? McCool J. Proc. 3rd
> International Conference on Injury Prevention 1996
>
> on helmet fit. But remember the spectrum of excellent to poor fit
> helmets applies just as equally to all the helmet studies


I do not believe that, either. Folks who took the time to wear a
helmet before compulsion would *most likely* try and wear it properly.

After compulsion, the additional folks wouldn't care. And the studies
don't discriminate between these two group, AFAIK.

Assuming that the properly-wearing proportion is the same before and
after is a questionable assumption, IMO.

It's akin to saying that all drivers have the same risk of being in a
collision by averaging the stats over the whole driving population.

E.P.
 
"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:k9i*[email protected]...
> Quoting Paul Murphy <[email protected]>:
>>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>Quoting Paul Murphy <[email protected]>:
>>>>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>Quoting Paul Murphy <[email protected]>:
>>>>>>>Are you suggesting that every single person posting here saying that
>>>>>>>they are competent to understand the papers and that they started
>>>>>>>pro-helmet actually secretly had an anti-helmet agenda all along?
>>>>>>>Because that's as insulting as it is ridiculous.
>>>>>>No - but are you 100% certain that this doesn't occur at all?
>>>>>Why would I have to be?
>>>>I'f you're going to use black and white thinking aguments with me,
>>>>remember it works both ways.
>>>No, it doesn't. I asked for an explanation for the actions of those
>>>people
>>>who started pro-helmet. Obviously an insinuation that one of them might
>>>have done something does not provide such an explanation.

>>It appears that you are wanting to "pigeon hole" me in with other people -
>>is this correct?

>
> No.


In that case you wont mind if I disassociate myself (note this doesn't mean
disagree) from other groups. Its not up to me to explain other peoples
behaviour.

> This is a ridiculous persecution fantasy. What I'm trying to get you to do
> is answer a simple question; of course, your tendency to drag this
> off into la-la land doesn't help.


I cant see why you'd believe it was a ridiculous fantasy though I'm glad
you've confirmed I have no reason to believe you wish to persecute me.

> Let's recap;
>
> Jay Beattie wants to dismiss "experts" because they all have an agenda:
>
> I don't think any ordinary person understands most of the gobledy gook
> about why one study is valid and another is not. You obviously have an
> agenda,


Your thinking and its actually wrong - no agenda here!

> as do many other of the experts -- which is not a bad thing
> necessarily, but it makes me and maybe others suspicious.
>
> I query how we explain people who reached a conclusion directly opposed to
> their agenda:
>
> How then do you explain the experts - many of whom post to this thread -
> who started out with the agenda of confirming their belief in helmets and
> reached the opposite conclusion? Does that make you suspicious?
>
> You produce the first piece of nonsense:
>
> Would that be like how that law expert fellow reached his findings with
> regards to the Govt and Dr David Kelly and remained completely impartial
> throughout?


Why is it nonsense given that I was asking a question? If you believe all
experts are right, all the time, that then we disagree.

> Now, that's a reply to my question as to how one explains the people who
> started pro- and finished anti-.


It was my original post in response to another persons post about trusting
experts.

> If it's to explain those people it has to
> apply to most or all of them; and it's both ridiculous and insulting to
> suggest they all had secret anti- agendas all along. Are you suggesting
> that?


See all my other previous post details - I questioned whether this can be
totally ruled out and so far no-one is willing to do this (including
yourself). Feel free to correct me if you believe I'm wrong though, in other
words if you believe that no "people who started pro- and finished anti" did
so deliberately in order to create the impression that the evidence for this
viewpoint was so compelling.

> Furthermore, it's typical of you. It doesn't answer the question, but it's
> a cutesy-sounding piece of rhetoric.


Saying that you believe I use cutesy sounding language says more about you
than me I believe. We've already discussed the issue of whether I answer
questions, I said I did but you weren't happy with my answers. I'm not here
to answer questions in a way that's convenient to you.

Paul
 
"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:YLc*[email protected]...
> Quoting John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>:
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>I asked for an explanation for the actions of those people
>>>who started pro-helmet.

>>I've described it before but here it is again, with a little more
>>detail.

>
> Ah, thanks, but really I'm interested in how Paul Murphy explains it when
> he suggests all experts just reinforce their own biases and yet we have
> people who reached conclusions completely opposite their initial biases.


If you are going to mention my name, please ensure my views are correctly
transcribe - the above is incorrect.

Paul
 
Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> I've already given you the reference to the data, as much as you can
>> believe data from TRT, and a summary of the conclusions. Feel free to
>> go and read it. You can also read:

>
> I don't believe them.


Most people outside the PHZ lobby don't believe TRT either but a
reputable scientist would only say they didn't believe it after reading
the paper which you clearly haven't.
>
>> Bicycle helmet assessment during well visits reveals severe shortcomings
>> in condition and fit, Parkinson GW, Hike KE. Pediatrics: 2003, Vol 112,
>> Iss 2, pp 320-3 and
>>
>> Cycle helmets: fit to buy or bought to fit? McCool J. Proc. 3rd
>> International Conference on Injury Prevention 1996
>>
>> on helmet fit. But remember the spectrum of excellent to poor fit
>> helmets applies just as equally to all the helmet studies

>
> I do not believe that, either. Folks who took the time to wear a
> helmet before compulsion would *most likely* try and wear it properly.


You haven't read the two papers I suggested above have you. You are
making it up as you go along aren't you but doing it in a vacuum of
knowledge you make silly mistakes. Why would you do that if you were
only here "commenting on the effectiveness of the discussion" rather
than trying to defend a helmet position that proving increasingly untenable?

>
> After compulsion, the additional folks wouldn't care. And the studies
> don't discriminate between these two group, AFAIK.
>
> Assuming that the properly-wearing proportion is the same before and
> after is a questionable assumption, IMO.
>


Pure speculation. Do you have any evidence? Have you read any of the
relevant research papers?

--
Tony

"I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box
when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it."
- Terry Pratchett
 
In uk.rec.cycling Ozark Bicycle <[email protected]> wrote:

> jtaylor wrote:
>> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > Clive George wrote:
>> >
>> > <snipped>
>> > >
>> > > Erm - it does and it did. Yes, Guy's been talking about helmets on the
>> > > internet for a long time. You do know that he used to talk about how

>> great
>> > > they were, and his opinion has moved the other way now, don't you?
>> >
>> >
>> > Just like a "sinner" who "found Christ" and turned into a bible
>> > thumper. Not surprising; some are inclined to holding extreme
>> > beliefs/opinions. The actual belief/opinion is less important than is
>> > it's extreme nature.
>> >

>>
>> Actually the opposite - as you have stated, it is not facts but faith that
>> guide you in your view of cycle helmets


> I have stated no such thing, taylor. Your distortions won't make it so.


> As to facts, you quite obviously subscribe only to "facts" that support
> your agenda, which is to avoid a UK MHL.


> It's your UK socialist, nanny government that will enact a MHL.


That's only because it's the govt we've got at the moment.

> Why not
> eliminate the problem at the root (radical) level? Or do you only
> oppose socialism when it gets directly in your way?


I can see you know more about UK politics than you do about helmets.

(It wouldn't make any difference. It's not a party political
issue. Some right wing politicians have been in favour of MHLs and
anything else that would make life more awkward for cyclists just to
discourage the bastards from cycling on the roads and thereby impeding
the rightfully rapid progress of Important People in Motor Cars.)

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
In uk.rec.cycling Ozark Bicycle <[email protected]> wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:


>> Sadly, if you live in the US, I think you're going to be surprised by
>> that. Helmet laws and dopey rules in places like parks requiring
>> helmets seem to be spreading. I hope I'm wrong, but it doesn't look
>> that way.


> So, if Big Brother tells you to wear a helmet, are you going to feel
> compelled to obey? With a 'tude like that, we'd still be in 'Nam.


> Thank Gawd, many here can think for themselves and toss the asses outta
> office.


Yup. We were all very impressed when you guys voted for GWB instead of
the donkey.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
> Yup. We were all very impressed when you guys voted for GWB instead
> of the donkey.
>


Don't be too hard, half of them apologised
http://www.sorryeverybody.com/

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:


> Bzzzt. Wrong. It's about unfair tactics, demeaning language,
> hypocritical stances and arguments, arrogant expressions of haughty
> asshattiness, etc.


All of which comes from the PHZs. Do you spot the connection? One group
uses facts and logic, the other group, which includes yourself, Sorni and
Ozark, uses platitudes insinuation and insults. Please crawl back under
whichever rock you slithered out from.