Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

[Burt]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
>
> Works both ways, Flogger. When AHZs attack someone for merely expression
> an opinion,

I can't recall anyone attacking you for expressing your opinion. I can
recall a lot of people attacking you for posting complete nonsense, and
insulting people whose opinions were based on fact, not opinion.

it affects the public perception of those who oppose MHLs. Why are
> they so angry?

Why do you keep posting if it doesn't matter to you? Is it the vicarious
enjoyment of getting a response from somebody? anybody? even people you've
never met and will never meet? Sad doesn't cover it really.

Why are they so personally abusive?

I don't know. Why are you so personally abusive? Is it the thrill of being
able to insult people far more knowledgeable than yourself, just because you
can? Tell us, please.

Why do they resort to
> lies, deceptions and distortions to "win" their arguments?

You of course, use little else. Except that you have finally admitted that
all your "evidence" is simply just your opinion.
>
> Just watch. I think there's going to be a backlash if the AHZs act IRL
> like they do on here.

Whereas if we all behaved like you, there'd be an MHL here now. It was only
the rational logical arguments which have prevented one so far, not the
groundless, evidence-free opinions of an ignoramus.

>
> Luckily, I doubt they have the integrity to do so

You don't know the meaning of the word.
>
>

 

[SMS]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:31:51 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Guess what? I agree completely. The /harm/ comes in accusing reasonable,
>> pro-choice helmet wearers of being sinister, pro-MHL schemers.
>
> I don't accuse you of being sinister. I only accuse you of being
> dopey.
>
>> They tend to
>> resent it,
>
> It's remarkable that when I ask someone who professes that a helmet is
> very important in cycling, or that a helmet saved their life, with the
> simple question "How do you know that" some become extremely irritated
> and defensive.

Probably the way you said it. Of course it isn't possible to prove that
some piece of safety equipment was responsible for something not
happening, insurers run into this problem all the time with automobile
safety equipment. Someone may swear that an airbag saved their life, or
that ABS prevented them from being in an accident, etc., but of course
there is no way of actually knowing what would have happened had the
safety equipment not been used.

Fortunately, there are loads of case control studies that can be used to
figure out just how well various pieces of safety gear work. None of
these studies is perfect, it's not possible, but neither are they all
worthless as some of the AHZs try to make them out to be.

What heats up the helmet wars is when individuals start spouting ****
about the Netherlands, walking helmets, driving helmets, and when they
try to dismiss all the case control studies with no evidence as to why
they might be faulty.

 

[Espressopithecus (Java Man)]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> SMS wrote:
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not positive that that's the case -- certainly people in
> >> /previous/ threads going way back (possibly including me) have said
> >> that -- but so what if it is? Why would a person expressing an
> >> /opinion/ that people who don't wear helmets are foolish be
> >> threatening or upsetting to anyone -- especially if that person made
> >> it clear that they were NOT in favor of MHLs?
> >
> >
> > Because all of us choose to accept a certain level of risk in our lives.
> > Someone who doesn't wear a helmet is accepting a slightly greater risk
> > of serious head injury, just as someone that buys a car without
> > side-curtain air bags accepts a greater risk than someone who buys a car
> > with them. It is unfair to characterize someone who doesn't take every
> > precaution to make their life safer as being foolish.
>
> Or, from my reading of the data, they are accepting a higher risk of
> relatively minor injuries for which they may gain a slight reduction in
> their risk of a very serious injury.
>
I think that's consistent with what the data suggests.

And since very serious injuries while cycling are so rare, do you think
it's a good trade-off?

Rick

 

[SMS]

Bill Sornson wrote:

> Rest easy: http://www.john.flogittodeathlinson.youaremighty.com/

Very funny.

 

[Clive George]

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> What heats up the helmet wars is when individuals start spouting ****
> about the Netherlands, walking helmets, driving helmets, and when they try
> to dismiss all the case control studies with no evidence as to why they
> might be faulty.

You mean what heats up the wars is when people start presenting opposing
views? No ****.

BTW where's that evidence of yours? This is the third or fourth time I've
asked. Anybody might think you don't actually have any.

clive

 

[SMS]

Peter Amey wrote:

> Or, from my reading of the data, they are accepting a higher risk of
> relatively minor injuries for which they may gain a slight reduction in
> their risk of a very serious injury.

The data is clear, you can choose to try to come up with excuses as to
why you don't believe it, but you're only lying to yourself, and a very
small group of hard core anti-helmet people, and not even all of them
believe what they post.

The ER and accident report data shows much more than a "slight"
reduction, though less than a huge reduction, it would more accurately
be characterized as a "moderate" reduction.

Again, I urge you to read all the case control studies, and not just the
population level studies.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Burt wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>> Peter Amey wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> What's TELLING is how much people seemed to be threatened by other
>>>> people's simple, motive-free opinions. They must know that
>>>> /something/ is wrong with their postion(s)...
>>>
>>> There can be a legitimate reason for feeling threatened. We all
>>> know that a lie repeated often enough can become the truth. If
>>> enough inaccurate statements about helmet effectiveness are made
>>> and go unchallenged then it will get steadily harder to fend off
>>> mandatory helmet laws. Even if things don't get that bad, the
>>> constant repetition of "cycling=danger" deters the increase in
>>> cycling I think we would all like to see. Since there is a strong
>>> positive correlation between numbers of cyclists and cyclist safey
>>> (which is one of the reasons for the Netherlands paradox) anything
>>> that deters cycling makes it more dangerous for those of us who do
>>> partake.
>>
>> I agree with that. However, someone merely saying that he or she has
>> decided to wear a helmet to prevent or lessen the seriousness of an
>> injury is hardly menacing to freedom-loving people's way of life and
>> shouldn't be treated as such.

> If that was all you stated, then nobody would bother to respond.

Bzzt. Go back and read the very first exchanges in the helmet threads.
Your pal Flailor jumped all over me and many others for saying just that.
"Helmets are DANGEROUS!" "You're supporting MHLs!" "Your wearing a lid
/endangers/ us all!"

Go look it up.

 

[Bill Sornson]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:16:01 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:53:53 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [about Sorni]
>> {ACTUALLY, ABOUT SCHARF}

>>>> In fact, we have yet to see any evidence that you have studied any
>>>> of the evidence at all!

>>> He doesn't read about cycling.

>> Guy was addressing SMS (Scharf).

> Oops.
>
> Anyway, I meant Sorni doesn't read about cycling.

Well, be sure and throw that (distortion) in the next time you reply
to...hell, ANYONE about...hell, ANYTHING! LOL

(BTW, you can't even be honest about that simple little statement. I
believe I said that I don't "study" cycling like it's some academic
exercise. Please correct me if the words aren't exact; I'm sure you kept a
record on your hard drive! LOL )

 

[Jeff Starr]

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 22:35:50 GMT, "Burt"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> Works both ways, Flogger. When AHZs attack someone for merely expression
>> an opinion,
>
>I can't recall anyone attacking you for expressing your opinion. I can
>recall a lot of people attacking you for posting complete nonsense, and
>insulting people whose opinions were based on fact, not opinion.
>
> it affects the public perception of those who oppose MHLs. Why are
>> they so angry?
>
>Why do you keep posting if it doesn't matter to you? Is it the vicarious
>enjoyment of getting a response from somebody? anybody? even people you've
>never met and will never meet? Sad doesn't cover it really.
>
> Why are they so personally abusive?
>
>I don't know. Why are you so personally abusive? Is it the thrill of being
>able to insult people far more knowledgeable than yourself, just because you
>can? Tell us, please.
>
> Why do they resort to
>> lies, deceptions and distortions to "win" their arguments?
>
>You of course, use little else. Except that you have finally admitted that
>all your "evidence" is simply just your opinion.
>>
>> Just watch. I think there's going to be a backlash if the AHZs act IRL
>> like they do on here.
>
>Whereas if we all behaved like you, there'd be an MHL here now. It was only
>the rational logical arguments which have prevented one so far, not the
>groundless, evidence-free opinions of an ignoramus.
>
>>
>> Luckily, I doubt they have the integrity to do so
>
>You don't know the meaning of the word.
>>
>>
>
Well Burp, one thing is obvious, Bill has sure gotten to you. You've
been following him all over this thread, posting your silly little
B**S**t replies. For a guy who likes to point out insults as a bad way
to win a debate, your posts are full of them.

My guess is that you and flaylor are an embarrassment to your fellow
Brits.

It really bothers you guys that some of us, make our decisions, on
this subject, based on personal experience, not on some report that
doesn't take into consideration where or how I ride. Once again, it's
about choice, do what you want and I'll do what I want. And being in
the US, I'm quite sure, I have no effect on what happens in GB.


Life is Good!
Jeff

 

[Bill Sornson]

Clive George wrote:
> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> What heats up the helmet wars is when individuals start spouting ****
>> about the Netherlands, walking helmets, driving helmets, and when
>> they try to dismiss all the case control studies with no evidence as
>> to why they might be faulty.
>
> You mean what heats up the wars is when people start presenting
> opposing views? No ****.
>
> BTW where's that evidence of yours? This is the third or fourth time
> I've asked. Anybody might think you don't actually have any.

Bottom line re. helmets: they work. Many people /know/ they work. They've
experienced it (as have I). They've seen it first hand (as have I).
They've seen clear evidence of it in the aftermath of a crash (as have I).
Therefore, they (and I) will continue to wear helmets for the majority of
our bike rides.

Not convinced they work? Fine, don't wear one.

Good night now.

 

[Bill Sornson]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:15:06 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:

>>> It's remarkable that when I ask someone who professes that a helmet
>>> is very important in cycling, or that a helmet saved their life,
>>> with the simple question "How do you know that" some become
>>> extremely irritated and defensive.

>> Probably the way you said it.

> I've done it in-person but also sometime online, simply typing "How do
> you know that?"

Nice melding of "helmet saved my life" (extremely doubtful) and "helmet's
very important" (a legitimate if somewhat contentious /opinion/) as if they
were comparable or equivalent.

They're not.

HTH

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:15:06 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:31:51 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Guess what? I agree completely. The /harm/ comes in accusing reasonable,
>>> pro-choice helmet wearers of being sinister, pro-MHL schemers.
>>
>> I don't accuse you of being sinister. I only accuse you of being
>> dopey.
>>
>>> They tend to
>>> resent it,
>>
>> It's remarkable that when I ask someone who professes that a helmet is
>> very important in cycling, or that a helmet saved their life, with the
>> simple question "How do you know that" some become extremely irritated
>> and defensive.
>
>Probably the way you said it.

I've done it in-person but also sometime online, simply typing "How do
you know that?"

JT


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

 

[Bill Sornson]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:51:35 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Bottom line re. helmets: they work.
>
> What does "they work mean" to you? Can you define it a little more
> carefully?

Read your library of my posts (!) on your hard drive. I've explained it
/many/ (!) times.

 

[Bill Sornson]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:45:57 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:


>> Well, be sure and throw that (distortion) in the next time you reply
>> to...hell, ANYONE about...hell, ANYTHING! LOL
>>
>> (BTW, you can't even be honest about that simple little statement. I
>> believe I said that I don't "study" cycling like it's some academic
>> exercise. Please correct me if the words aren't exact; I'm sure you
>> kept a record on your hard drive! LOL )

> You also claimed

Bzzt. Evasion. Why did you bother to reply to /someone else/ that I "don't
read about cycling"? It's a distortion of what I said (hardly shocking) --
especially strange since I was uninvolved in the exchange before you
mentioned me.


> to have not seen writing urging people to wear
> helmets. That's almost unbelievable if you actually read cycling
> literature -- magazines, books, signs, pamphlets.

Pamphlets? LOL Well, you've got me there! I don't read many pamphlets,
I've give you that.

> So while I haven't followed you around to observe you not reading, we
> have strong evidence that you don't actually read about cycling. Not
> proof, so perhaps I've been too strong in my earlier statement. But
> strong evidence.

You're just silly. (And dishonest.)

PS: Lose the long sig. It's a PITA to delete every time.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:45:57 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Well, be sure and throw that (distortion) in the next time you reply
>to...hell, ANYONE about...hell, ANYTHING! LOL
>
>(BTW, you can't even be honest about that simple little statement. I
>believe I said that I don't "study" cycling like it's some academic
>exercise. Please correct me if the words aren't exact; I'm sure you kept a
>record on your hard drive! LOL )

You also claimed to have not seen writing urging people to wear
helmets. That's almost unbelievable if you actually read cycling
literature -- magazines, books, signs, pamphlets.

So while I haven't followed you around to observe you not reading, we
have strong evidence that you don't actually read about cycling. Not
proof, so perhaps I've been too strong in my earlier statement. But
strong evidence.

JT


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

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:51:35 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Bottom line re. helmets: they work.

What does "they work mean" to you? Can you define it a little more
carefully?

JT

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

 

[Bill Sornson]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

> If you've explained it many times, why are you saying it again in a
> vague way?

"Bottom line re. helmets: they work. Many people know they work. They've
experienced it (as have I). They've seen it first hand (as have I).
They've seen clear evidence of it in the aftermath of a crash (as have I).
Therefore, they (and I) will continue to wear helmets for the majority of
our bike rides."

I think that's rather clear, not vague.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:07:34 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:51:35 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Bottom line re. helmets: they work.
>>
>> What does "they work mean" to you? Can you define it a little more
>> carefully?
>
>Read your library of my posts (!) on your hard drive. I've explained it
>/many/ (!) times.

If you've explained it many times, why are you saying it again in a
vague way?

JT

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

 

[Bill Sornson]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:17:32 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Bottom line re. helmets: they work. Many people know they work.
>> They've experienced it (as have I). They've seen it first hand (as
>> have I). They've seen clear evidence of it in the aftermath of a
>> crash (as have I). Therefore, they (and I) will continue to wear
>> helmets for the majority of our bike rides."
>>
>> I think that's rather clear, not vague.
>
> What's unclear is what the work is. What is it? You've replied twice
> to my query -- yet you seem afraid of defining what you mean by work.

John, I'm hungry. Go back over your vast archives of my every waking post
(and some whilst sleeping no doubt) and figure it out for yourself.

I've spelled it out -- slowly and clearly and consisely -- MANY (yes that
word again) times.

> My guess is that you don't really know what you mean. But that's just
> a guess. You can easily prove me wrong by saying what you mean.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

"God, you're tiresome" -- Me (many {!} times)

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:17:32 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Bottom line re. helmets: they work. Many people know they work. They've
>experienced it (as have I). They've seen it first hand (as have I).
>They've seen clear evidence of it in the aftermath of a crash (as have I).
>Therefore, they (and I) will continue to wear helmets for the majority of
>our bike rides."
>
>I think that's rather clear, not vague.

What's unclear is what the work is. What is it? You've replied twice
to my query -- yet you seem afraid of defining what you mean by work.

My guess is that you don't really know what you mean. But that's just
a guess. You can easily prove me wrong by saying what you mean.

JT

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