Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by jtaylor, May 10, 2006.

  1. jtaylor

    jtaylor Guest

    "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    > Note that the first-hand experiences, to date, have been very "pro"
    > helmet.


    Would this have anything to do with the fact that you deliberately excluded
    instances where the result would have been negative?
     
    Tags:


  2. jtaylor wrote:
    > "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    > > Note that the first-hand experiences, to date, have been very "pro"
    > > helmet.

    >
    > Would this have anything to do with the fact that you deliberately excluded
    > instances where the result would have been negative?



    Do you mean the "I wasn't wearing a helmet and I didn't hit my head,
    but if I had been wearing a helmet, I would have hit my head" claptrap?


    BTW, I friend in NYC is selling shares in a bridge. Investors are paid
    handsomely via toll revenues. Would you like to invest?
     
  3. Ozark Bicycle wrote:
    > jtaylor wrote:
    >> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in
    >> message news:[email protected]
    >>
    >>> Note that the first-hand experiences, to date, have been very "pro"
    >>> helmet.

    >>
    >> Would this have anything to do with the fact that you deliberately
    >> excluded instances where the result would have been negative?


    No, the "I hit my head and was uninjured instances"

    --
    Ambrose
     
  4. jtaylor

    jtaylor Guest

    "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > jtaylor wrote:
    > > "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in

    message
    > > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > > > Note that the first-hand experiences, to date, have been very "pro"
    > > > helmet.

    > >
    > > Would this have anything to do with the fact that you deliberately

    excluded
    > > instances where the result would have been negative?

    >
    >
    > Do you mean the "I wasn't wearing a helmet and I didn't hit my head,
    > but if I had been wearing a helmet, I would have hit my head" claptrap?
    >
    >
    >


    Why do you call instances like those "claptrap"?

    Are you denying that they occur?
     
  5. Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
    > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
    > > jtaylor wrote:
    > >> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in
    > >> message news:[email protected]
    > >>
    > >>> Note that the first-hand experiences, to date, have been very "pro"
    > >>> helmet.
    > >>
    > >> Would this have anything to do with the fact that you deliberately
    > >> excluded instances where the result would have been negative?

    >
    > No, the "I hit my head and was uninjured instances"
    >
    >


    I thought that was covered by the "first" option.

    OTOH, if you are talking about something along the lines of "I wasn't
    wearing a helmet, I hit my head and I wasn't hurt", you're right. This
    is about helmet use. If you want to gather informtion about non-use of
    helmets, what keeps you from starting a thread and doing just that?
     
  6. jtaylor wrote:
    > "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > > jtaylor wrote:
    > > > "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in

    > message
    > > > news:[email protected]
    > > >
    > > > > Note that the first-hand experiences, to date, have been very "pro"
    > > > > helmet.
    > > >
    > > > Would this have anything to do with the fact that you deliberately

    > excluded
    > > > instances where the result would have been negative?

    > >
    > >
    > > Do you mean the "I wasn't wearing a helmet and I didn't hit my head,
    > > but if I had been wearing a helmet, I would have hit my head" claptrap?
    > >
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Why do you call instances like those "claptrap"?
    >


    Take a guess.....


    > Are you denying that they occur?



    Okay, your turn: tell everyone how you would determine that while you
    didn't hit your head while not wearing a helmet, you know you would
    have hit your head, in the same incident, if you were wearing a helmet.
    And, please, be precise.
     
  7. Ozark Bicycle wrote:
    > Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
    >> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
    >>> jtaylor wrote:
    >>>> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in
    >>>> message
    >>>> news:[email protected]
    >>>>
    >>>>> Note that the first-hand experiences, to date, have been very
    >>>>> "pro" helmet.
    >>>>
    >>>> Would this have anything to do with the fact that you deliberately
    >>>> excluded instances where the result would have been negative?

    >>
    >> No, the "I hit my head and was uninjured instances"
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I thought that was covered by the "first" option.
    >
    > OTOH, if you are talking about something along the lines of "I wasn't
    > wearing a helmet, I hit my head and I wasn't hurt", you're right. This
    > is about helmet use. If you want to gather informtion about non-use of
    > helmets, what keeps you from starting a thread and doing just that?


    What's the null hypothesis in your study?

    --
    Ambrose
     
  8. 41

    41 Guest

    Ozark Bicycle wrote:
    > jtaylor wrote:


    > > > > Would this have anything to do with the fact that you deliberately

    > > excluded
    > > > > instances where the result would have been negative?
    > > >
    > > > Do you mean the "I wasn't wearing a helmet and I didn't hit my head,
    > > > but if I had been wearing a helmet, I would ha ve hit my head" claptrap?
    > > >


    > > Why do you call instances like those "claptrap"?


    > > Are you denying that they occur?

    >
    > Okay, your turn: tell everyone how you would determine that while you
    > didn't hit your head while not wearing a helmet, you know you would
    > have hit your head, in the same incident, if you were wearing a helmet.
    > And, please, be precise.


    I already did just that in earlier threads. I described a high speed,
    hard fall where I did not hit my head at all, but where the mark on the
    top of my shoulder (which I still have, almost two years later) proves
    that I hit the pavement almost exactly adjacent to my skull. Had I been
    wearing a helmet, which projects out what- you tell me how much,
    anything would have been enough- from the surface of my skull, I would
    have suffered an impact, and at a bad angle which would have swung my
    head around like a tether ball. No thanks.

    g
     
  9. jtaylor

    jtaylor Guest

    "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    > > > > > Note that the first-hand experiences, to date, have been very

    "pro"
    > > > > > helmet.
    > > > >
    > > > > Would this have anything to do with the fact that you deliberately

    > > excluded
    > > > > instances where the result would have been negative?
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Do you mean the "I wasn't wearing a helmet and I didn't hit my head,
    > > > but if I had been wearing a helmet, I would have hit my head"

    claptrap?
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > > Why do you call instances like those "claptrap"?
    > >

    >
    > Take a guess.....
    >


    Bias.


    > > Are you denying that they occur?

    >
    >
    > Okay, your turn: tell everyone how you would determine that while you
    > didn't hit your head while not wearing a helmet, you know you would
    > have hit your head, in the same incident, if you were wearing a helmet.
    > And, please, be precise.
    >


    Again: are you denying that they occur?
     
  10. 41

    41 Guest

    Ozark Bicycle wrote:
    > jtaylor wrote:


    > > > > Would this have anything to do with the fact that you deliberately

    > > excluded
    > > > > instances where the result would have been negative?
    > > >
    > > > Do you mean the "I wasn't wearing a helmet and I didn't hit my head,
    > > > but if I had been wearing a helmet, I would ha ve hit my head" claptrap?
    > > >


    > > Why do you call instances like those "claptrap"?


    > > Are you denying that they occur?

    >
    > Okay, your turn: tell everyone how you would determine that while you
    > didn't hit your head while not wearing a helmet, you know you would
    > have hit your head, in the same incident, if you were wearing a helmet.
    > And, please, be precise.


    I already did just that in earlier threads. I described a high speed,
    hard fall where I did not hit my head at all, but where the mark on the
    top of my shoulder (which I still have, almost two years later) proves
    that I hit the pavement almost exactly adjacent to my skull. Had I been
    wearing a helmet, which projects out what- you tell me how much,
    anything would have been enough- from the surface of my skull, I would
    have suffered an impact, and at a bad angle which would have swung my
    head around like a tether ball. No thanks.

    g
     
  11. catzz66

    catzz66 Guest

    jtaylor wrote:
    > "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >
    >>Note that the first-hand experiences, to date, have been very "pro"
    >>helmet.

    >
    >
    > Would this have anything to do with the fact that you deliberately excluded
    > instances where the result would have been negative?
    >
    >


    You could start such a thread, of course.
     
  12. Simon Brooke

    Simon Brooke Guest

    in message <[email protected]>, Ozark
    Bicycle ('[email protected]') wrote:

    > Okay, your turn: tell everyone how you would determine that while you
    > didn't hit your head while not wearing a helmet, you know you would
    > have hit your head, in the same incident, if you were wearing a helmet.
    > And, please, be precise.


    "My head came within an inch of the ground, a rock, a tree or other
    obstruction, but did not actually hit it".

    And yes, I personally can give you probably hundreds of instances of
    that. You have millions of years of development of the software designed
    to control your body in a fall and prevent critical bits of it getting
    damaged. Your reflexes are extremely good. But they depend on an
    inherent model of the size of your body, including your head; and if you
    surround your head with an inch and a half of polystyrene foam, the
    model does not match the reality and you end up with bruises - or worse
    injuries - where otherwise you would have had none.

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

    ;; L'etat c'est moi -- Louis XVI
    ;; I... we... the Government -- Tony Blair
     
  13. jtaylor wrote:
    > "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    > > > > > > Note that the first-hand experiences, to date, have been very

    > "pro"
    > > > > > > helmet.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Would this have anything to do with the fact that you deliberately
    > > > excluded
    > > > > > instances where the result would have been negative?
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > Do you mean the "I wasn't wearing a helmet and I didn't hit my head,
    > > > > but if I had been wearing a helmet, I would have hit my head"

    > claptrap?
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > Why do you call instances like those "claptrap"?
    > > >

    > >
    > > Take a guess.....
    > >

    >
    > Bias.
    >


    Want to see "bias"? Try a mirror. I have no vested interest in a helmet
    debate. You. OTOH, do have a vested interest: you are desperately
    seeking to avoid a UK MHL, and you will use any tactics to do so.


    >
    > > > Are you denying that they occur?

    > >
    > >
    > > Okay, your turn: tell everyone how you would determine that while you
    > > didn't hit your head while not wearing a helmet, you know you would
    > > have hit your head, in the same incident, if you were wearing a helmet.
    > > And, please, be precise.
    > >

    >
    > Again: are you denying that they occur?



    IOW, you can not provide an example, can you? You are pulling this
    stuff out of your ass.
     
  14. Richard

    Richard Guest

    Ozark Bicycle wrote:
    > I have no vested interest in a helmet
    > debate.


    Yet you claim to run a bike repair business. Promotion of helmets leads
    to reduced numbers cycling, which leads to reduced business for you.
    So, unless you are completely disinterested in the viability or
    otherwise of your business, I suggest you do in fact have a vested
    interest. I just find it peculiar as to why you should wish to run
    your own business into the ground by promoting helmets.

    R.
     
  15. David Martin

    David Martin Guest

    Ozark Bicycle wrote:
    > Want to see "bias"? Try a mirror. I have no vested interest in a helmet
    > debate. You. OTOH, do have a vested interest: you are desperately
    > seeking to avoid a UK MHL,

    True, though I'd avoid the 'desperate' bit. Are you not seeking to
    avoid having an MHL as well? Or do you not fancy your liberty? Maybe
    you just don't ride a bike, so it doesn't matter to you anyay.

    > and you will use any tactics to do so.


    Not true. To make such a statement when you know little of those
    involved is sheer arrogance. To suggest that we would deliberately
    mislead, misrepresent or otherwise present false evidence is slanderous
    and an accusation for which you have no evidence.

    So far you have completely failed to engage in any kind of debate on
    scientific grounds, instead resorting to populist pseudo science and
    name calling.

    I used to think wearing a helmet was prudent, sensible and an obvious
    thing to do. Then I read the research, not only the epidemeology on
    helmets but also on mechanisms of head injury. I perfomed my own
    calculations and assessments. I looked at pretty much all aspects of
    the issue. I also have kids in the 'just learning to ride' phase of
    life. I'll be posting kitchen photos soon on behalf of my oldest son. I
    am keen that they are as safe as they can be when riding, and that they
    enjoy using the bike as a practical method of transport.

    That means taking a realistic view of what benefit helmets bring and
    whether they are necessary. I do not force the kids to wear helmets,
    nor do I try to dissuade them. I do try to ensure they make a reasoned
    decision about what they wear when and why.

    So I am far from being the kind of irrational ranting libertarian you
    seem to insist I am, who will twist and misrepresent. I am a
    professional scientist with a reputation to maintain for being able to
    acccurately and fairly interpret the quality of scientific research.

    I'm not holding my breath for an apology. At least the name calling has
    moved up a degree in sophistication from the trite 'Those who dont wear
    a helmet have nothing to protect' countered by 'Oh, so you leave your
    brain at home when you walk then?' exchanges..

    ...d
     
  16. Richard wrote:
    > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
    > > I have no vested interest in a helmet
    > > debate.

    >
    > Yet you claim to run a bike repair business. Promotion of helmets leads
    > to reduced numbers cycling, which leads to reduced business for you.
    > So, unless you are completely disinterested in the viability or
    > otherwise of your business, I suggest you do in fact have a vested
    > interest. I just find it peculiar as to why you should wish to run
    > your own business into the ground by promoting helmets.
    >
    >


    What kinda weed you been smoking, Gunga Din? IMO, helmets are
    inexpensive (unless one is a sucker), unobtrusive and offer a positive,
    if small, degree of added protection. The number of cyclists has risen
    dramatically in this area over the past 3-4 years, and almost everyone
    uses a helmet. Go figure!
     
  17. 41

    41 Guest

    Ozark Bicycle wrote:

    > > > Okay, your turn: tell everyone how you would determine that while you
    > > > didn't hit your head while not wearing a helmet, you know you would
    > > > have hit your head, in the same incident, if you were wearing a helmet.
    > > > And, please, be precise.

    >
    > IOW, you can not provide an example, can you? You are pulling this
    > stuff out of your ass.


    I told you and provided exactly this precise example, but you chose to
    ignore it.

    8
     
  18. David Martin

    David Martin Guest

    Ozark Bicycle wrote:
    > Richard wrote:
    > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
    > > > I have no vested interest in a helmet
    > > > debate.

    > >
    > > Yet you claim to run a bike repair business. Promotion of helmets leads
    > > to reduced numbers cycling, which leads to reduced business for you.
    > > So, unless you are completely disinterested in the viability or
    > > otherwise of your business, I suggest you do in fact have a vested
    > > interest. I just find it peculiar as to why you should wish to run
    > > your own business into the ground by promoting helmets.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > What kinda weed you been smoking, Gunga Din? IMO, helmets are
    > inexpensive (unless one is a sucker),

    but non free
    > unobtrusive

    Hardly - helmet hair, sweat, heatstroke, somewhere to put the
    *&*&^&^$%£$%^*ing thing when you get to your destination.

    > and offer a positive,
    > if small, degree of added protection.

    Not according to whole population studies they don't.

    > The number of cyclists has risen
    > dramatically in this area over the past 3-4 years, and almost everyone
    > uses a helmet. Go figure!


    And how many are utility cyclists or are they just follwoing the latest
    sporting trends for recreation?
    How many kids cycle to school or the shops?
    The utility cyclists are the ones hit hardest by helmet overpromotion.
    It makes little odds if you are already getting changed to go cycling,
    a helmet is part of the dressing up routine. Bit different if you are
    just wanting to nip down to the shops, or go out for the evening, where
    'special clothing' is not really the done thing, just get on and go.

    In the sport culture, helmets are part of the uniform. In utility
    cycling, they are an inconvenience.

    ...d
     
  19. On 10 May 2006 15:39:54 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >The number of cyclists has risen
    >dramatically in this area over the past 3-4 years,
    > and almost everyone
    >uses a helmet. Go figure!


    It's marketing. They're Lance Armstrong wannabes.

    JT

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

    Sorni Guest

    "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:eek:[email protected]
    > On 10 May 2006 15:39:54 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>The number of cyclists has risen
    >>dramatically in this area over the past 3-4 years,
    >> and almost everyone
    >>uses a helmet. Go figure!


    > It's marketing. They're Lance Armstrong wannabes.


    So getting lots of new people* into cycling is a bad thing?

    *no matter what they wear
     
Loading...
Loading...