Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

[jtaylor]

"Peter Amey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I have been trying to ignore this over-long and tedious "debate";
> however, I do feel obliged to chip in, if only to express my admiration
> for the patience and courtesy of Tony, Guy, Peter and the other rational
> thinkers, in the face of the vapid posturings and insults of the "I
> don't need facts, I just know" crowd (mostly from Leftpondia it seems).
>
> It's no wonder the delusional homeopathic-crystal-energy-vibration
> fantasies of the new age have gained such a hold in the world when
> people so readily reject rational thought on even relatively
> straightforward topics such as helmet effectiveness.
>
> I think I object to the attacks on science and the scientific method
> even more than I object to the over-promotion of ineffective "safety
> devices" for cyclists (especially since such foisting largely seems to
> be an activity of non-cyclists).
>
> What is in all cyclists' interest is more cyclists and more cycling.
> Wrongly charcterizing this normal, everyday, safe and healthy activity
> as so dangerous as to require special safety equipment runs counter to
> that goal. I don't care if people want to wear plastic hats or not (or
> if they want to carry a rabbit's foot or St. Christopher medal or not)
> but I do care when they suggest, without evidence, that others are
> foolish not to follow their lead.
>

Just wondering, were you always this aware of the (lack of) value of cycle
helmets, or did you have to do any reading to become so?

 

[Jeff Starr]

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 22:01:23 +0100, Peter Amey <[email protected]>
wrote:

Lots snipped

>
>but I do care when they suggest, without evidence, that others are
>foolish not to follow their lead.
>
>Peter

And who, in this thread has said that. All the main players in this
thread who wear helmets, are for choice. It is the AHZs that have a
problem with me wearing a helmet.


Life is Good!
Jeff

 

[SMS]

Peter Amey wrote:

> I don't care if people want to wear plastic hats or not (or
> if they want to carry a rabbit's foot or St. Christopher medal or not)
> but I do care when they suggest, without evidence, that others are
> foolish not to follow their lead.

No one in this thread ever suggested anyone was foolish for not wearing
a helmet. What was suggested is that people be honest about the reasons
that they choose not to wear a helmet. I agree with you that the attacks
on the scientific method are objectionable, but it's the AHZs that are
resorting to the junk science when they try to dismiss every case
control study that doesn't agree with their position.

Let's all gang up on the politicians and physicians that want to pass
laws to try to make everything safe for everyone.

 

[Bill Sornson]

SMS wrote:
> Peter Amey wrote:
>
>> I don't care if people want to wear plastic hats or not (or
>> if they want to carry a rabbit's foot or St. Christopher medal or
>> not) but I do care when they suggest, without evidence, that others
>> are foolish not to follow their lead.

> No one in this thread ever suggested anyone was foolish for not
> wearing a helmet.

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?

> What was suggested is that people be honest about
> the reasons that they choose not to wear a helmet. I agree with you
> that the attacks on the scientific method are objectionable, but it's
> the AHZs that are resorting to the junk science when they try to
> dismiss every case control study that doesn't agree with their
> position.
> Let's all gang up on the politicians and physicians that want to pass
> laws to try to make everything safe for everyone.

The AHZs make it /more/ likely with their hysterics, vitriol and
hypocritical hyperbole. (IOW, the more they /poke/ at it, the more it might
just ooze out some puss at 'em.)

Sorno

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:[email protected],
Peter Amey <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> I have been trying to ignore this over-long and tedious "debate";
> however, I do feel obliged to chip in, if only to express my
> admiration for the patience and courtesy of Tony, Guy, Peter and the
> other rational thinkers, in the face of the vapid posturings and
> insults of the "I don't need facts, I just know" crowd (mostly from
> Leftpondia it seems).
> It's no wonder the delusional homeopathic-crystal-energy-vibration
> fantasies of the new age have gained such a hold in the world when
> people so readily reject rational thought on even relatively
> straightforward topics such as helmet effectiveness.
>
> I think I object to the attacks on science and the scientific method
> even more than I object to the over-promotion of ineffective "safety
> devices" for cyclists (especially since such foisting largely seems to
> be an activity of non-cyclists).

Smug. OK. Then please explain the contradiction between your pure science
and applied science, as observed in the way insurers ask _lower_ premiums
from helmet wearers than helmet avoiders. Since they make money by applying
the available statistics, they should be doing the opposite, no ? In
evaluating this contradiction, it seems that the "pure science" fanatics are
simply enjoying repetitive mental masturbation, not enlightening anyone.
>
> What is in all cyclists' interest is more cyclists and more cycling.
> Wrongly charcterizing this normal, everyday, safe and healthy activity
> as so dangerous as to require special safety equipment runs counter to
> that goal. I don't care if people want to wear plastic hats or not
> (or if they want to carry a rabbit's foot or St. Christopher medal or
> not) but I do care when they suggest, without evidence, that others
> are foolish not to follow their lead.
>
If cycling without a helmet is not dangerous (careful - I am in agreement),
then how does this activity suddenly become dangerous when a helmet is worn
? Again, please apply real-world risk evaluation, as successfully (even
profitably) applied by insurers.
--
Sandy
--
Il n'est aucune sorte de sensation qui soit plus vive
que celle de la douleur ; ses impressions sont sûres,
elles ne trompent point comme celles du plaisir.
- de Sade.

 

[Tony Raven]

SMS wrote on 24/07/2006 04:40 +0100:

>
> I agree with you that the attacks
> on the scientific method are objectionable, but it's the AHZs that are
> resorting to the junk science when they try to dismiss every case
> control study that doesn't agree with their position.

That is a gross misrepresentation of the situation as has been pointed
out many times. Many of the people here you accuse of being AHZs
started from a point of being uninformed pro-helmet, have extensive
training and experience in the review of scientific literature and as a
result of that review, not only identified that most of the published
pro-helmet studies were badly flawed but also that the most reliable
research methodologies and studies did not show any benefit and possibly
showed disbenefit of wearing helmets. As a result we changed our views.

Whereas you started pro-helmet, appear to have neither read any of the
papers nor have the necessary training for critical scientific review
and continue to be pro-helmet.

So which of us is dismissing studies that disagree with their position?

>
> Let's all gang up on the politicians and physicians that want to pass
> laws to try to make everything safe for everyone.

Aye to that.

--
Tony

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

 

[Burt]

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


I agree with you that the attacks
> on the scientific method are objectionable, but it's the AHZs that are
> resorting to the junk science when they try to dismiss every case control
> study that doesn't agree with their position.

Straw Man Scharf's obsessive words of the day: junk science (defn: anything
that doesn't agree with what I imagine to be true)

 

[Burt]

"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dans le message de news:[email protected],
>
> Smug. OK. Then please explain the contradiction between your pure
> science and applied science, as observed in the way insurers ask _lower_
> premiums from helmet wearers than helmet avoiders.

Care to give us an example of where this has happened, fully referenced so
it can be checked? Or is this just another pro-helmet Straw Man (see
Scharf)

 

[Tony Raven]

Sandy wrote on 24/07/2006 06:44 +0100:
>
> Smug. OK. Then please explain the contradiction between your pure science
> and applied science, as observed in the way insurers ask _lower_ premiums
> from helmet wearers than helmet avoiders.

Would those be the same insurers who wanted an extreme sports premium
for cycle touring?

--
Tony

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

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> Dans le message de news:[email protected],
> Peter Amey <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> I have been trying to ignore this over-long and tedious "debate";
>> however, I do feel obliged to chip in, if only to express my
>> admiration for the patience and courtesy of Tony, Guy, Peter and the
>> other rational thinkers, in the face of the vapid posturings and
>> insults of the "I don't need facts, I just know" crowd (mostly from
>> Leftpondia it seems).
>> It's no wonder the delusional homeopathic-crystal-energy-vibration
>> fantasies of the new age have gained such a hold in the world when
>> people so readily reject rational thought on even relatively
>> straightforward topics such as helmet effectiveness.
>>
>> I think I object to the attacks on science and the scientific method
>> even more than I object to the over-promotion of ineffective "safety
>> devices" for cyclists (especially since such foisting largely seems to
>> be an activity of non-cyclists).
>
> Smug. OK. Then please explain the contradiction between your pure
> science and applied science, as observed in the way insurers ask
> _lower_ premiums
> from helmet wearers than helmet avoiders.

Do they? Where? Cite please.

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

;; Human history becomes more and more a race between
;; education and catastrophe.
H.G. Wells, "The Outline of History"

 

[jtaylor]

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Amey wrote:
>
> > I don't care if people want to wear plastic hats or not (or
> > if they want to carry a rabbit's foot or St. Christopher medal or not)
> > but I do care when they suggest, without evidence, that others are
> > foolish not to follow their lead.
>
> No one in this thread ever suggested anyone was foolish for not wearing
> a helmet.


You have Ozark and Sorni in your killfile?

 

[jtaylor]

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

> Smug. OK. Then please explain the contradiction between your pure
science
> and applied science, as observed in the way insurers ask _lower_ premiums
> from helmet wearers than helmet avoiders. Since they make money by
applying
> the available statistics, they should be doing the opposite, no ? In
> evaluating this contradiction, it seems that the "pure science" fanatics
are
> simply enjoying repetitive mental masturbation, not enlightening anyone.
> >

Insurers are not trying to equate risk, they are trying to maximise profit.

If they believe that the populace believes that a certain activity has a
greater risk, they will attempt to assign it a greater cost for the
insurance they offer. If such is the case where you live, then you are
suffering doubly because of the activities of pro-helmet-zealots.

 

[[email protected]]

SMS wrote:

<snipped>

>
> Let's all gang up on the politicians and physicians that want to pass
> laws to try to make everything safe for everyone.

If I may:

Let's stand up to the politicians, lobbyists, special interests and
assorted "do gooders" who work to give the government unwarranted
control in the life of it's citizens.

 

[jtaylor]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> SMS wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> >
> > Let's all gang up on the politicians and physicians that want to pass
> > laws to try to make everything safe for everyone.
>
> If I may:
>
> Let's stand up to the politicians, lobbyists, special interests and
> assorted "do gooders" who work to give the government unwarranted
> control in the life of it's citizens.
>

Great.

You'll be writing letters to the editor of your local papers and to your
gov't representatives calling for the repeal of the MHLs that you now have.

Do tell us how you get on.

 

[SMS]

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.

 

[Clive George]

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

> 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.

Not just unfair - plain wrong.

If I were to take every precaution to make my life safer, it would be very
dull indeed.

clive

 

[Bill Sornson]

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.

You just expressed an opinion. People are entitled to them.

If I said "People who bungee jump are nuts" or "anyone who'd try riding that
section of trail is crazy", am I being /unfair/??? Maybe it's narrow-minded
or judgmental or scaredy-cat or whatever, but it's just an /opinion/.

If one is secure in one's decisions and choices, then others' /opinions/
about them shouldn't matter much if at all.

A local mountain bike trail here is called Noble Canyon. It's very rugged
and technical. I know guys who can clean every inch of it -- some of them
on hardtails -- and I honestly don't know how they do it. I think anyone
who would do that ride helmetless is foolish (nuts, crazy, has a death wish,
etc.). Is that "unfair" to think that? (You may disagree, but that too is
just an opinion.)

So if that's acceptable, why is it so much different for, say, a treacherous
mountain descent on the road?

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)...

Sorno

 

[jtaylor]

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 03:54:25 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> 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
>
> It's upsetting because it's wrong. And it's upsetting because there
> are too many people saying it, and it's contributing to things like
> laws and rules about helmets when there shouldn't be any. That's a
> threat to the sport I love.
>
> So if you want to pretend you operate in a vacuum and that what you
> say in public doesn't matter, you're going to face criticism. And if
> what you say is demonstrably wrong, then the criticism is likely to be
> severe.
>

And when he responds to the criticism not with rationale, but with insult -
well, then, we have the iq of discount cycle mechanics (hard) at work.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 03:54:25 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> 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

It's upsetting because it's wrong. And it's upsetting because there
are too many people saying it, and it's contributing to things like
laws and rules about helmets when there shouldn't be any. That's a
threat to the sport I love.

So if you want to pretend you operate in a vacuum and that what you
say in public doesn't matter, you're going to face criticism. And if
what you say is demonstrably wrong, then the criticism is likely to be
severe.

JT


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

 

[Bill Sornson]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 03:54:25 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
{CONTEXT?}

>> 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

> It's upsetting because it's wrong.

No, it's an /opinion/ -- one with which you may completely disagree, but
it's nonetheless just an opinion.

> And it's upsetting because there
> are too many people saying it, and it's contributing to things like
> laws and rules about helmets when there shouldn't be any. That's a
> threat to the sport I love.
>
> So if you want to pretend you operate in a vacuum and that what you
> say in public doesn't matter, you're going to face criticism. And if
> what you say is demonstrably wrong, then the criticism is likely to be
> severe.

Works both ways, Flogger. When AHZs attack someone for merely expression an
opinion, it affects the public perception of those who oppose MHLs. Why are
they so angry? Why are they so personally abusive? Why do they resort to
lies, deceptions and distortions to "win" their arguments?

Just watch. I think there's going to be a backlash if the AHZs act IRL like
they do on here.

Luckily, I doubt they have the integrity to do so