Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience



SMS wrote on 25/07/2006 00:15 +0100:
>
> 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.

S'funny. You keep repeating that mantra, presumably in the belief that
if you keep saying it, it will become true. Yet you painstakingly
ignore any questions or challenges of it.

So when will you explain how the Netherlands with 15 times the traffic
density of the United States and only one in a thousand of their
cyclists wearing helmets manages to have a cyclist head injury rate one
sixth of the United States?

And when will you use the predictions of your much loved case controls
studies that show that helmets protect against 85% (or 186%) of cyclist
head injuries to identify the point on the graphs where a doubling of
helmet wearing reduced cyclist head injuries by the predicted fourfold?
http://www.cycling.raven-family.com/Helmet Graphs.jpg

I know, never, because what you say is demonstrably untrue and doing any
of those things would destroy the cosy illusions you comfort yourself
with. Instead you will ignore it and just keep coming back to spout
your discredited mantra.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
Bill Sornson wrote on 25/07/2006 00:51 +0100:
>
> 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.
>

And you wonder why you get attacked. Wear a helmet if you want but when
you come here and say "The Earth is flat. Many people know the Earth is
flat. They've experienced it (as have I). They've seen clear evidence
every time they look out the window (as have I). Therefore they (and I)
will continue to believe the world is flat no matter what junk science
the AFE zealots keep pushing says" don't expect to get away unchallenged.


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote on 25/07/2006 01:15 +0100:
> 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?
>

ITHM they make lots of profits for the manufacturers because there is
clearly no other way in which they work.

Hey, I wonder if BS is a Bell Stooge? ;-)


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
SMS wrote on 25/07/2006 00:37 +0100:
>
> 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.
>

I ask again, show me on the graphs where that happens. I keep asking
but you keep studiously avoiding the chance to really show what you say
has some substance.
http://www.cycling.raven-family.com/Helmet Graphs.jpg

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote on 25/07/2006 01:14 +0100:
>
> 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.
>

You know Bill can't read. That's why he can't read the research or see
the helmet promotion literature. Its also why he needed a degree of
English remediation.


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
Tony Raven swallowed the hook and choked out:
> Bill Sornson wrote on 25/07/2006 00:51 +0100:

>> 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.


> And you wonder why you get attacked. Wear a helmet if you want but
> when you come here and say "The Earth is flat.

Bzzt. You're equating saying (having the /opinion/) that helmets work
(whatever that may mean to me, you, and JFT! LOL ) to saying the earth is
flat? (Hint: there are pictures of it from space. Take a look some time.
Unless they FAKED 'em, if course...)

And YOU wonder why /your/ side is losing support and fomenting opposition at
every turn. Bingo.

> Many people know the
> Earth is flat. They've experienced it (as have I). They've seen
> clear evidence every time they look out the window (as have I). Therefore
> they (and I) will continue to believe the world is flat no
> matter what junk science the AFE zealots keep pushing says" don't
> expect to get away unchallenged.

Exquisitely absurd. TYVM.
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote on 25/07/2006 01:14 +0100:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> You know Bill can't read. That's why he can't read the research or
> see the helmet promotion literature. Its also why he needed a degree
> of English remediation.

You know they're desperate when they just start inventing stuff.

This must mean the threads are about to end! Halleluiah...

PS: You guys are like McCarthyites! Instead of Commies, you see sinister
MHL ADVOCATES hiding in every corner! Keep looking hard enough, apparently,
and you can "find" (imagine, invent) almost anything.

Conspiratorial literature! Deadly dangerous pamphlets! Scurrilous SIGNS!
It's like the Twilight Zone with the slot machine stalking the newly
addicted gambler. Funny yet a little too scary...

"FRANKLIN. FRANKLIN!" LOL
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> SMS wrote on 25/07/2006 00:37 +0100:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I ask again, show me on the graphs where that happens. I keep asking
> but you keep studiously avoiding the chance to really show what you
> say has some substance.
> http://www.cycling.raven-family.com/Helmet Graphs.jpg

Twice in 10 minutes! You're getting to be as bad as JB posting that tired
pic of him leaning 14 times a week! (But at least JB's pic had identifiable
places and faces, and not just squiggly lines with no values or scale given.
LOL )
 
Bill Sornson wrote on 25/07/2006 08:49 +0100:
>
> Bzzt. You're equating saying (having the /opinion/) that helmets work
> (whatever that may mean to me, you, and JFT! LOL ) to saying the earth is
> flat? (Hint: there are pictures of it from space. Take a look some time.
> Unless they FAKED 'em, if course...)
>

Surely you are not looking at evidence - I thought you didn't do
evidence!!!

While you are on a roll, perhaps you should look at the evidence that
helmets don't work - unless it's FAKED if (sic) course.
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/helmets.html or http://www.cyclehelmets.org
would be good places to start.


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
Bill Sornson wrote on 25/07/2006 09:03 +0100:
>
> Twice in 10 minutes! You're getting to be as bad as JB posting that tired
> pic of him leaning 14 times a week! (But at least JB's pic had identifiable
> places and faces, and not just squiggly lines with no values or scale given.
> LOL )
>

But Bill, according to the Sorni Rules of Usenet, you shouldn't be
replying to my post because it was answering Scharf the Larf.

I didn't aim it at you because we already know that you cannot identify
nor read a graph which probably explains your aversion to reading any of
the research evidence on helmets.

--
Tony

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

I remember a cross-posted thread a few months ago [it may have been
"Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark"], in which I read with increasing
amusement SMS's repeated firm statements, the repeated requests from
others for supporting evidence, and the repeated absence of any reply.


His attitude reminded, and reminds, me of some faded aristocrat who owns
a painting which has been traditionally attributed in his family to,
say, Rubens: he'll gladly let friends admire it, but shows a curious
reluctance to have it properly valued. :-D


--
Mark, UK
"Never believe anything until it has been officially denied"
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote on 25/07/2006 09:03 +0100:
>>
>> Twice in 10 minutes! You're getting to be as bad as JB posting that
>> tired pic of him leaning 14 times a week! (But at least JB's pic
>> had identifiable places and faces, and not just squiggly lines with
>> no values or scale given. LOL )

> But Bill, according to the Sorni Rules of Usenet, you shouldn't be
> replying to my post because it was answering Scharf the Larf.

Wrong, Tony. What would be a /mistake/ would be if I'd called you "Guy".
(I trust you can grasp this? Or do I need to re-post the silly exchange yet
AGAIN?)

> I didn't aim it at you because we already know that you cannot
> identify nor read a graph which probably explains your aversion to
> reading any of the research evidence on helmets.

It looks made up. You use "Paint" or "Draw"? LOL

(Just give some values and/or a scale to the thing. Would it be that hard
to add some more made up stuff to it?)

I actually /like/ your little graphs. I thought possibly a third-grader
made 'em with crayons and stuck 'em on your 'fridge. (Or maybe a
head-injured non-helmet-wearing cycli---- nah, ain't goin' THERE. <eg> )
 
Bill Sornson wrote on 25/07/2006 09:31 +0100:
>
> But I've had them work for me. At least twice (plus some minor things).
> I've seen them work for others, including a few /spectacular/ times. I've
> seen cracked and crushed helmets immediately after crashes and accidents,
> and the "victims" got up and rode out (except when their bikes were too
> trashed, that is).
>

ITYM you think you've seen them work. In just the same way as all of
these guys know their rituals work for them:
http://www.psychologyofsports.com/guest/superstitions2.htm

However the overwhelming evidence is that just as many unhelmeted people
have similar crashes and didn't get killed or carted off to hospital
either. But keep talking to and sleeping with your helmet and I'm sure
it will reward you.


>
> But you're not going to convince people who KNOW something
> based on personal experience AND first-hand observation to "un-learn" what
> they've seen, heard, felt and done.
>

We're back to Flat-Earthers again.


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 07:49:49 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> You're equating saying (having the /opinion/) that helmets work
>(whatever that may mean to me, you, and JFT! LOL ) to saying the earth is
>flat?

The earth is flat in certain places. Helmets work in certain ways.

What do you mean by helmets work?

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:31:32 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>But I've had them work for me. At least twice (plus some minor things).
>I've seen them work for others, including a few /spectacular/ times. I've
>seen cracked and crushed helmets immediately after crashes and accidents,
>and the "victims" got up and rode out (except when their bikes were too
>trashed, that is).

I saw a guy crash once who was wearing a blue jersey. He got up
walked away from the crash with no broken bones. That's what *I've*
seen. That AFAIK the jersey protected him. That's my */OPINION/*.
You anti-jersey zealots are so threatened by that.

I crashed in a race a few years ago in a blue jersey and nothing
happned to me either. Bottom line. They work.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote on 25/07/2006 10:32 +0100:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 07:49:49 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You're equating saying (having the /opinion/) that helmets work
>> (whatever that may mean to me, you, and JFT! LOL ) to saying the earth is
>> flat?
>
> The earth is flat in certain places. Helmets work in certain ways.
>
> What do you mean by helmets work?
>

Certain people believe (and many more used to believe) that the Earth
was flat all over and that if you went too far you would fall off the
edge. It was common sense after all, you only had to look out at the
horizon to see it was so. Then some damn scientists came along saying
it was not flat but a sphere and that the sun didn't orbit the earth but
the other way round. There was an almightly dust up about it but now
the scientists are pretty much universally accepted as having been right
and the flat earthers wrong. There are still some die-hards though that
believe their personal observations over the science which is where we
come back on topic.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Amey wrote:
>
> > IMHO helmets are compeltely irrelevent as a life-saving measure
>
> Strawman. Virtually every poster on these newsgroups agrees with that.
>

Then why did one of the most vocal (and abusive) of the pro-helmet-zealots
start this thread, with the express limitation that instances of wearing a
helmet which were not a benefit were to be prohibited?
 
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

Wow.

Talk about the Sorni Swerve.

Here's his reply to a post not five hours ago:

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Amey wrote:
>
> > IMHO helmets are compeltely irrelevent as a life-saving measure
>
> Strawman. Virtually every poster on these newsgroups agrees with that.
>
 
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:D[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.
>

Wrong.

In the UK it is exactly that.

Every helmet worn is a silent vote for compulsion.
 
"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

Why, when the population-level studies are MUCH more likely to show the
truth about that effect you wish to examine?

We have case-control studies showing helmets reducing leg injuries. Would
you trust those more than the population-level studies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Re: How big is big? (was: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience)
Replies
35
Views
782
UK and Europe
Bill Sornson
B
S
Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience
Replies
0
Views
338
UK and Europe
Sorni
S
J
Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience
Replies
10
Views
362
UK and Europe
Mike Causer
M
S
Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience
Replies
0
Views
257
UK and Europe
Sorni
S
S
Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience
Replies
0
Views
278
UK and Europe
Sorni
S
Top Bottom Back