Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience



On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:10:55 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

Opinions can still influence people and if that influence results in
less cycling, or more laws about helmets, that affects me and it
affects realitly.

So it's a threat.

Given that the opinion is often based on flawed logic about safety or
flawed assumptions about the effectiveness, I'll respond to that
threat.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:10:55 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Opinions can still influence people and if that influence results in
> less cycling, or more laws about helmets, that affects me and it
> affects realitly.
>
> So it's a threat.
>
> Given that the opinion is often based on flawed logic about safety or
> flawed assumptions about the effectiveness, I'll respond to that
> threat.

Ooooh.
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:10:55 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Opinions can still influence people and if that influence results in
> less cycling, or more laws about helmets, that affects me and it
> affects realitly.
>
> So it's a threat.
>
> Given that the opinion is often based on flawed logic about safety or
> flawed assumptions about the effectiveness, I'll respond to that
> threat.
>
>

He's a crusader! Here he comes to save the day!

Is he behind door #1:

http://tinyurl.com/s392b

or door #2:

http://tinyurl.com/krueq

I feel safer already.
 
jtaylor wrote:
> "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?
>
>

After returning to cycling in the early 90s,after a longish break, I
bought a helmet because it seemed obvious that it was sensible to do so.
I then started to pick up odd inconsistencies between the claims being
vigorously made for cycle helmet effectiveness and the actual (actually,
lack of) evidence of that effectivenss. Since I earn a living from the
risk assessment of complex engineering systems this intrigued me and I
started reading the available research. Having done so I am now wholly
sceptical of the effectiveness of cycle helmets in saving lives or
preventing life-changing injuries. They appear to have some
effectiveness against certain classes of non-life-threatening accident
but, perhaps, at the risk of slightly increasing the risk of more
serious injury.

IMHO helmets are compeltely irrelevent as a life-saving measure; yet
every time I open a newspaper or magazine I am told that the "first,
best thing you can do for cycling safety is to buy and wear a helmet".
I think this is bad and counter-productive advice for the reasons given
above: characterizing cycling as dangerous deters cyclist and reduced
cyclist numbers increase cycling risk.

Peter

--
www.amey.org.uk
 
Jeff Starr wrote:
> 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.
>
>

I hav ebeen unable to find any AHZs in this thread. I think AHZs exist
only in the minds of those who inveneted th term and continue to use it.

I think we are pretty much agreed on free choice. My only extension to
that is that I would like that free choice to be informed by facts.
That in turn requires the pro-helmet lobby to stop making wildly
inaccurate claims for cycle helmet effectiveness. (e.g. one UK lobby
group routinely claims a number for children killed by cycling head
injuries that exceeds the actual figure for child deaths from all causes).

Peter



--
www.amey.org.uk
 
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. 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.

AS mentioned above, I can't find an AHZ anywhere in this entire thread.
AHZs were invented by someone as a form of abuse and the term
continues to be used in that way by some posters. There are several
people who reasonably object to excessive claims for cycle helmet
effectiveness being made by various lobby groups and those misleading
claims being allowed to influence public policy. I think we pretty much
all agree on freedom of (informed) choice.

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

I think I might even agree with that!

Peter


--
www.amey.org.uk
 
Peter Amey wrote:

> IMHO helmets are compeltely irrelevent as a life-saving measure

Strawman. Virtually every poster on these newsgroups agrees with that.

HTH
 
Bill Sornson wrote:
> 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?

I think what I said was "claiming, without evidence, that they are
foolish". I can reasonably object to this because it adds to the
general preponderance of received wisdom on helmet effectiveness without
actually shedding any light on their real effectiveness. As an
engineering risk professional this bothers me. If I designed aircraft
the way helmet advocates propmote helmets you would probably need a good
helmet to because it would be raining airliners :)
>
>
>>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.)
>

Can't agree. Having come to the debate late and read it from start to
finish I really haven't seen anything but calm courteous logic from
those that you wrongly characterize as AHZs. The insults all seem to
come from elsehwere.

Peter

--
www.amey.org.uk
 
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.

Peter

--
www.amey.org.uk
 
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.

Peter


--
www.amey.org.uk
 
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:04:37 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Peter Amey wrote:
>
>> IMHO helmets are compeltely irrelevent as a life-saving measure
>
>Strawman. Virtually every poster on these newsgroups agrees with that.

Even if what you say is true about this newsgroup is true, it's
important to say what you quote from Arney above here and elsewhere --
I hear the claim that helmets save lives too often. I think most of
us do. And that claim is an anti-cycling message.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:04:37 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Peter Amey wrote:
>>
>>> IMHO helmets are compeltely irrelevent as a life-saving measure
>>
>> Strawman. Virtually every poster on these newsgroups agrees with
>> that.
>
> Even if what you say is true about this newsgroup is true, it's
> important to say what you quote from Arney above here and elsewhere --
> I hear the claim that helmets save lives too often. I think most of
> us do. And that claim is an anti-cycling message.

Guess what? I agree completely. The /harm/ comes in accusing reasonable,
pro-choice helmet wearers of being sinister, pro-MHL schemers. They tend to
resent it, and if it goes on long and nastily enough they might just say
screw it, /why not/ an MHL if I wear one already. The hell with those
dishonest AHZs.

Seriously. There /will/ be a backlash if the sleazy weasely (sic) tactics
continue and/or expand beyond Usenet.
 
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.
 
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.

Your response to questions about the importance of wearing a helmet is
similar.

If you want to argue that questioning what people say when it seems
implausible is politically unwise, fine. We can have that discussion.
But don't try to pass off on me the responsbility you face when you
say things that are unproven, illogical or just plain wrong. If that
upsets you, so be it.

JT

PS -- I got a gift in the mail last week from a person I had an
intense argument about helmets with online earlier this year. He's
emotionally mature enough to take my criticism of his beliefs as an
adult. The gift was unrelated to the helmet discussion, but was nice
reminder that not everyone is as dopey and defensive as you are.




****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:40:28 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>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.

As ever you accuse others of your own worst fault. The sceptics in
this thread have cites genuine valid concerns with the case-control
studies, which are simply dismissed out of hand by the studies'
authors. Diane Thompson still believes the 85% figure; when she
worked on the Cochrane review she included so many of her own studies
that they dominate the results, and she *completely excluded* anything
which disagreed with her predefined conclusions.

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

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:53:53 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:
[about Sorni]
>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.

JT

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

As with other examples, very telling that you'd miss this.

Bill "I'd really prefer a tall slender blonde /woman/ be obsessed with me"
S.

LOL
 
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.

JT

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

If that was all you stated, then nobody would bother to respond. The fact
that you post endless drivel, and claim that everyone else has a speck in
their eye when you have a veritable forest in yours, means that you will get
a lot of responses. Perhaps you're just a sad and lonely person who likes
to feel some human interaction, albeit, very removed.
>
>
 
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
298
Cycling Equipment
Sorni
S
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
449
Cycling Equipment
Mike Causer
M
J
Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience
Replies
10
Views
356
UK and Europe
Mike Causer
M
S
Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience
Replies
0
Views
301
Cycling Equipment
Sorni
S
S
Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience
Replies
0
Views
256
UK and Europe
Sorni
S
S
Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience
Replies
0
Views
284
Cycling Equipment
Sorni
S
S
Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience
Replies
0
Views
278
UK and Europe
Sorni
S
J
Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience
Replies
0
Views
343
Cycling Equipment
John Forrest Tomlinson
J
Top Bottom Back