Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience



["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On 16 May 2006, David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Simon Brooke wrote:
> > I don't agree. We don't need to know /why/ helmets make you less safe to
> > know /that/ helmets make you less safe. I agree I'd like to know /why/
> > and also /in what circumstances/, but for the time being I'll continue
> > to use my own judgement (except when racing).
>
> Do we have to understand how something works befre we can predict
> whether it will work or not?

No, but then Simon didn't say we did. He said that we don't.

> If so then you are being inconsistent.

In fact, I think you should cast aside your assumption about what
Simon said, and read it again. You seem to be accusing him of being
inconsistent for saying what you're saying:

I quote "We don't need to know why helmets make you less safe to know
that helmets make you less safe". That's your point, isn't it? Why
do you disagree with it when Simon says it, but then say it yourself?

> That helmets are ineffective at a population level is an empirical
> observation. It is reasonable to then extrapolate that to predicting
> that on the whole they will not do you much good. And then we second
> guess the situations where we think they might do good.

Actually, I think you're being insufficiently precise with your
statement of empirical observation. I think we know that helmet
COMPULSION is ineffective at population level, and there is some
evidence that voluntary helmet wearing is ineffective at population
level. From these statements it is not necessarily reasonable to make
the extrapolation you claim.

I think trying to determine in what circumstances helmet
wearing is ineffective is a key thing to try and know. Note that this
can be wholly based on empirical observation - there is no need to
know why - so there's no need to whip out your straw man.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
in message <[email protected]>, David
Martin ('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> I don't agree. We don't need to know /why/ helmets make you less safe
>> to know /that/ helmets make you less safe. I agree I'd like to know
>> /why/ and also /in what circumstances/, but for the time being I'll
>> continue to use my own judgement (except when racing).
>
> Do we have to understand how something works befre we can predict
> whether it will work or not?
> If so then you are being inconsistent. I'd bet that very few, possibly
> none, of the people here could give a mechanistic account of gravity
> but we cna all use our observations of it to predict its effects.
> That helmets are ineffective at a population level is an empirical
> observation. It is reasonable to then extrapolate that to predicting
> that on the whole they will not do you much good. And then we second
> guess the situations where we think they might do good.

Interesting little side note after tonight's time trial. I took off my
helmet, stuck it in my rucksack, gathered in everyone's race numbers,
stuck them in my rucksack, had a wee bit blether with the guys as you
do, and then set off to ride back. Ian said 'you haven't got your
helmet'. 'It's in my rucksack', said I. 'Simon,' said Ian, 'you've
forgotten your helmet.' 'No I haven't, it's in my rucksack.' The poor
chap was gobsmacked.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; 'I think we should trust our president in every decision
;; that he makes and we should just support that'
;; Britney Spears of George W Bush, CNN 04:09:03
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Simon Brooke wrote:
> > I don't agree. We don't need to know /why/ helmets make you less safe to
> > know /that/ helmets make you less safe. I agree I'd like to know /why/
> > and also /in what circumstances/, but for the time being I'll continue
> > to use my own judgement (except when racing).
>
> Do we have to understand how something works befre we can predict
> whether it will work or not?
> If so then you are being inconsistent. I'd bet that very few, possibly
> none, of the people here could give a mechanistic account of gravity
> but we cna all use our observations of it to predict its effects.

As far as I know, gravity acts consistently 100% of the time. Helmets,
on the other hand, don't.
> That helmets are ineffective at a population level is an empirical
> observation. It is reasonable to then extrapolate that to predicting
> that on the whole they will not do you much good.

On the whole, it depends what kind of accident you have. Helmets
probably provide more protection than a bare head in some kinds of
accidents and less protection than a bare head in others. Not like
gravity, which acts consistently all the time. Extrapolating in this
case is more like playing the odds when you don't really know what they
are.

Rick
 
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
>>That helmets are ineffective at a population level is an empirical
>>observation. It is reasonable to then extrapolate that to predicting
>>that on the whole they will not do you much good.
>
> On the whole, it depends what kind of accident you have. Helmets
> probably provide more protection than a bare head in some kinds of
> accidents and less protection than a bare head in others. Not like
> gravity, which acts consistently all the time. Extrapolating in this
> case is more like playing the odds when you don't really know what they
> are.

Wearing a helmet is actually rather like playing roulette. You /know/
that the casino has that slight edge, that when many people play it many
times, some will win and some will lose, but you like to think that
you'll be a winner due to your own 'technique'. ;-)

R.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]lid says...
> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> >>That helmets are ineffective at a population level is an empirical
> >>observation. It is reasonable to then extrapolate that to predicting
> >>that on the whole they will not do you much good.
> >
> > On the whole, it depends what kind of accident you have. Helmets
> > probably provide more protection than a bare head in some kinds of
> > accidents and less protection than a bare head in others. Not like
> > gravity, which acts consistently all the time. Extrapolating in this
> > case is more like playing the odds when you don't really know what they
> > are.
>
> Wearing a helmet is actually rather like playing roulette. You /know/
> that the casino has that slight edge, that when many people play it many
> times, some will win and some will lose, but you like to think that
> you'll be a winner due to your own 'technique'. ;-)
>
Well, we all know how we like to ride.

I always wear a helmet while riding. I avoid high speed descents,
traffic, cliffside rides and rides on terrain/speeds in which I am not
in safe control.

Some accuse me of risk compensation because I ride slower and more
conservatively to avoid situations in which helmets are less safe than
riding bareheaded. I plead guilty. ;-)

Rick
 
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
>
> >
> Well, we all know how we like to ride.
>
> I always wear a helmet while riding...

Sadly, I think we've got lots of folks who don't know how they like to
ride. That's because they've been told from day one that "you must
never ride a bike without a helmet." They may have never ridden any
distance without one!

They may not know that they'll never need one in all their cycling
life, just like almost all the cyclists that came before them. They
may not understand that it's possible to arrive at their destination
without a sweaty, weird hairdo. They may not realize that it's not
necessary to have sponge pads occasionally pouring sweat directly into
their eyes, or to look like a pretend racer-boy when they're just
cruising along.

They may _like_ the wind in their hair. Once, that was a very common
statement of cyclists!

> I avoid high speed descents,

Well, these days I stay under 45 mph, and even that is very rare.

> traffic,

No problem! It's not hard to learn to deal with traffic.

> cliffside rides and rides on terrain/speeds in which I am not
> in safe control.

I agree 100% with the latter.

- Frank Krygowski
 
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> Extrapolating in this
> case is more like playing the odds when you don't really know what they
> are.
>

We do know what the odds are and they are not in favour of helmets.
However some find it difficult to accept because it goes against their
beliefs.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> As far as I know, gravity acts consistently 100% of the time. Helmets,
> on the other hand, don't.

So if I let go of something it will fall down 100% of the time?


> > That helmets are ineffective at a population level is an empirical
> > observation. It is reasonable to then extrapolate that to predicting
> > that on the whole they will not do you much good.
>
> On the whole, it depends what kind of accident you have.
Must remember to choose my accident more carefully in future. Will they
be doing a survey in Consumer Reports or Which soon?

> Helmets
> probably provide more protection than a bare head in some kinds of
> accidents and less protection than a bare head in others. Not like
> gravity, which acts consistently all the time.

Letting go of something means it will fall down all the time?

> Extrapolating in this
> case is more like playing the odds when you don't really know what they
> are.

Indeed. You just have a fair idea of what they might be.

...d
 
David Martin wrote:
> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
>> As far as I know, gravity acts consistently 100% of the time. Helmets,
>> on the other hand, don't.
>
> So if I let go of something it will fall down 100% of the time?
>
>

Gravity acting consistently is not the same as something falling down
100% of the time. It acts consistently on a helium balloon which will
usually rise if you let go of it.

Gravity is actually not totally consistent as quantum effects allow the
vanishingly small possibility that when you let go of something that you
would normally expect to fall it could rise. For all practical purposes
though we can ignore that.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
in message <[email protected]>,
Espressopithecus (Java Man) ('[email protected]') wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> That helmets are ineffective at a population level is an empirical
>> observation. It is reasonable to then extrapolate that to predicting
>> that on the whole they will not do you much good.
>
> On the whole, it depends what kind of accident you have. Helmets
> probably provide more protection than a bare head in some kinds of
> accidents and less protection than a bare head in others. Not like
> gravity, which acts consistently all the time. Extrapolating in this
> case is more like playing the odds when you don't really know what they
> are.

It (probably) does depend on the kind of accident you have, so that for
any given type of accident and any given type of riding we don't know
what the odds are. But overall, we do know what the odds are.

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

;; I'd rather live in sybar-space
 
in message <[email protected]>,
[email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:

> They
> may not understand that it's possible to arrive at their destination
> without a sweaty, weird hairdo.
>
> They may like the wind in their hair. Once, that was a very common
> statement of cyclists!

Frank, don't exaggerate the benefits of not wearing a helmet. Yes, I like
the feel of wind in my hair, and my hair usually isn't sweaty when I
arrive at my destination. But IME wind in your hair == weird hairdo,
unless you have /very/ short hair!

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

;; I put the 'sexy' in 'dyslexia'
 
On Tue, 16 May 2006 22:18:12 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:


>
>Interesting little side note after tonight's time trial. I took off my
>helmet, stuck it in my rucksack, gathered in everyone's race numbers,
>stuck them in my rucksack, had a wee bit blether with the guys as you
>do, and then set off to ride back. Ian said 'you haven't got your
>helmet'. 'It's in my rucksack', said I. 'Simon,' said Ian, 'you've
>forgotten your helmet.' 'No I haven't, it's in my rucksack.' The poor
>chap was gobsmacked.

Wow. And you made it home alive.....

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Wed, 17 May 2006 09:38:43 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>in message <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> They
>> may not understand that it's possible to arrive at their destination
>> without a sweaty, weird hairdo.
>>
>> They may like the wind in their hair. Once, that was a very common
>> statement of cyclists!
>
>Frank, don't exaggerate the benefits of not wearing a helmet. Yes, I like
>the feel of wind in my hair, and my hair usually isn't sweaty when I
>arrive at my destination. But IME wind in your hair == weird hairdo,
>unless you have /very/ short hair!

Well, I'll tell you a story about a friend of mine. Accomplished bike
racer (an Olympian) and also uses the bike for errands, etc. around
town.

A few winters ago I ran into her in a coffee shop some ways out of
town, where a lot of cyclists stop. Her hair looked amazingly nice --
flowing and not matted down with "helmet head." I commented on the
hair and she said "Yeah, I stopped wearing a helmet in winter, just a
wool hat." Evidently, while "wind in the hair" is not good, a hat
works better than a helmet. At least for this Irish beauty.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> Frank, don't exaggerate the benefits of not wearing a helmet. Yes, I like
> the feel of wind in my hair, and my hair usually isn't sweaty when I
> arrive at my destination. But IME wind in your hair == weird hairdo,
> unless you have /very/ short hair!

No exaggeration in my case. I've tried it both ways. I used to use a
helmet riding to work. I no longer do so. The difference is clear to
me.

I note that "helmet hair" is a commonly discussed problem regarding
commuting by bike.

- Frank Krygowski
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > Well, we all know how we like to ride.
> >
> > I always wear a helmet while riding...
>
> Sadly, I think we've got lots of folks who don't know how they like to
> ride. That's because they've been told from day one that "you must
> never ride a bike without a helmet." They may have never ridden any
> distance without one!
>
> They may not know that they'll never need one in all their cycling
> life, just like almost all the cyclists that came before them. They
> may not understand that it's possible to arrive at their destination
> without a sweaty, weird hairdo. They may not realize that it's not
> necessary to have sponge pads occasionally pouring sweat directly into
> their eyes, or to look like a pretend racer-boy when they're just
> cruising along.
>
> They may _like_ the wind in their hair. Once, that was a very common
> statement of cyclists!
>
> > I avoid high speed descents,
>
> Well, these days I stay under 45 mph, and even that is very rare.
>
> > traffic,
>
> No problem! It's not hard to learn to deal with traffic.

I have no problem riding in traffic -- have done so for decades and am
experienced at riding visibly, predictably, lawfully and defensively.
But there are a lot of wingnuts driving. I've been forced off the road
twice -- once deliberately and once by a careless bus driver who wasn't
paying attention. It only takes once. So I avoid traffic wherever
possible. Fortunately, our city is making great strides creating
dedicated cycle lanes, which provide a little extra margin of safety.
But there's always a careless driver out there . . . .

Rick
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> > Extrapolating in this
> > case is more like playing the odds when you don't really know what they
> > are.
> >
>
> We do know what the odds are and they are not in favour of helmets.
> However some find it difficult to accept because it goes against their
> beliefs.
>
So you're saying barehead is safer than helmets in all circumstances?

Rick
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> > As far as I know, gravity acts consistently 100% of the time. Helmets,
> > on the other hand, don't.
>
> So if I let go of something it will fall down 100% of the time?

Surely you're joking.
>
>
> > > That helmets are ineffective at a population level is an empirical
> > > observation. It is reasonable to then extrapolate that to predicting
> > > that on the whole they will not do you much good.
> >
> > On the whole, it depends what kind of accident you have.
> Must remember to choose my accident more carefully in future.

So you disagree with the proposition that helmets are less safe in some
kinds of accidents but more safe in others?

> Will they
> be doing a survey in Consumer Reports or Which soon?
>
> > Helmets
> > probably provide more protection than a bare head in some kinds of
> > accidents and less protection than a bare head in others. Not like
> > gravity, which acts consistently all the time.
>
> Letting go of something means it will fall down all the time?

I hope this isn't an example of the thought process you used in deciding
helmets don't work.

Rick
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
> >
> > Frank, don't exaggerate the benefits of not wearing a helmet. Yes, I like
> > the feel of wind in my hair, and my hair usually isn't sweaty when I
> > arrive at my destination. But IME wind in your hair == weird hairdo,
> > unless you have /very/ short hair!
>
> No exaggeration in my case. I've tried it both ways. I used to use a
> helmet riding to work. I no longer do so. The difference is clear to
> me.
>
> I note that "helmet hair" is a commonly discussed problem regarding
> commuting by bike.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Jees! Fran, er, Frank:

Just wait a few years. You can look like me or Sheldon Brown....:)

HAND
get a bent!
 
in message <[email protected]>,
Espressopithecus (Java Man) ('[email protected]') wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
>> > Extrapolating in this
>> > case is more like playing the odds when you don't really know what
>> > they are.
>> >
>>
>> We do know what the odds are and they are not in favour of helmets.
>> However some find it difficult to accept because it goes against their
>> beliefs.
>>
> So you're saying barehead is safer than helmets in all circumstances?

I don't think anyone's said that. Bareheaded is clearly safer in
'average' circumstances. Unfortunately we don't know which
circumstances, and we don't know why. My personal guess is that helmets
don't help much in high speed impacts (because not protective enough) or
in very low speed impacts (because not needed).

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

For office use only. Please do not write or type below this line.
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
"David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> > As far as I know, gravity acts consistently 100% of the time. Helmets,
> > on the other hand, don't.
>
> So if I let go of something it will fall down 100% of the time?

I bet you are going to make an example of a helium
balloon. A tethered helium balloon is holding up all that
air that wants to fall around it an occupy the space it is
taking up. When the balloon is released, all that air
falls down. Gravity is universal. Get used to it.

[...]

--
Michael Press
 
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
363
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