Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience



John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 10 Aug 2006 16:21:21 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >> On 10 Aug 2006 15:46:21 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> >(Hint to JFT, try the current [i.e,. not the cached] version of the
> >> >site. Try clicking on #26. Feel like a fool now?)
> >>
> >> What site are you talking about?

>
> >
> >Gawd! What are you basing your position on?
> >
> >(In case you're "playing dunb" for public consumption, take my earlier
> >advice. You can avoid appearing a total idiot.)

>
> I have no idea what you are talking about. I thought perhaps you
> meant the website www.ozarkbicycleservice.com but don't see anything
> there other than text.
>
> What are you talking about? What/which earlier advice?
>
>


Every time I do not want to believe you are so profoundly stupid, you
prove me wromg.

Good Gawd, you are a waste of time. No mas!
 
"H M Leary" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Aeek <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 14:27:40 +0100, Peter Clinch
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >But it quite possibly might have been a negative in that particular
>> >instance, is a fair summary IMHO. Though you can come up with other
>> >scenarios where they might well help.

>>
>> Absolutely. Later on I did a full body and face plant into the grass
>> from running off the path and the helmet protected my forehead.
>> I broke my Rudys on my nose rather than my nose so maybe thats a case
>> for mandatory cycling glasses?
>> I could conclude that bitumen is softer than grass, that fits my
>> personal sample!

>
> Ah Crockey, Mate.
>
> Maybe you should take some riding lessons and learn how to stay upright!


Maybe it was the corks dangling off strings on the Aussie version of the
helmet that caused a distraction ;-)

Paul
(PS New Zealanders also say Crikey - which is what I'm sure you meant to
write, unless you were referring to a throat ailment)
 
On 10 Aug 2006 17:09:18 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 10 Aug 2006 16:21:21 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> >> On 10 Aug 2006 15:46:21 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >(Hint to JFT, try the current [i.e,. not the cached] version of the
>> >> >site. Try clicking on #26. Feel like a fool now?)
>> >>
>> >> What site are you talking about?

>>
>> >
>> >Gawd! What are you basing your position on?
>> >
>> >(In case you're "playing dunb" for public consumption, take my earlier
>> >advice. You can avoid appearing a total idiot.)

>>
>> I have no idea what you are talking about. I thought perhaps you
>> meant the website www.ozarkbicycleservice.com but don't see anything
>> there other than text.
>>
>> What are you talking about? What/which earlier advice?

>
>Every time I do not want to believe you are so profoundly stupid, you
>prove me wromg.
>


Please just give me the URL of the site you are talking about and I'll
take a look.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:15:53 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>> The fundamental weakness in your position is that I originally thought
>> it *was* simple until I actually studied it, prompted by others on the
>> cycling newsgroup.


>IOW, peer pressure caused you to question your own common sense and sound
>judgment.


No, references to the evidence caused me to question my own
prejudices. Rightly, as it turns out.

The fact that you consider your judgment to be more reliable than
formal evidence has already been established. I lack your
self-confidence.

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 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 18:30:48 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>LOL, in order to be successful it has to be based on real science, not
>junk science. There are lots of team efforts that involve using junk
>science (or junk history for that matter) to prove something.


That would be the 85% figure again,. of course.

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 Thu, 10 Aug 2006 08:50:42 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>There's your proof, "kids have been observed."


Indeed. Mok et. al. wrote the paper. Children wearing helmets take
more risks.

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 6 Aug 2006 17:13:53 -0700, [email protected] said in
<[email protected]>:

>Hee hee! Do you really believe that the fact that you changed your
>position re: helmets has any relevance to me? You, sir, are a rather
>simple minded, obsessive compulsive personality type in search of a
>"cause".


You say. Actually the term obsessive-compulsive would appear to apply
rather more aptly to those whose obsession leads them to make helmets
compulsory.

Interestingly, I can't recall anyone ever changing from sceptic to
pro-helmet as a result of reading the evidence, but I do know a
significant number who have changed from pro-helmet to sceptical. Make
of that what you will.

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
 
In uk.rec.cycling [email protected] wrote:

> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> In uk.rec.cycling Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> >> On 4 Aug 2006 12:21:52 -0700, [email protected] said in
>> >> <[email protected]>:
>> >>
>> >>>> It is indeed very complex,
>> >>
>> >>> You could hardly think otherwise. To do so would be to admit that you
>> >>> have wasted your time and energy amassing a "library" of "data" on a
>> >>> *very* trivial issue.
>> >>
>> >> The fundamental weakness in your position is that I originally thought
>> >> it *was* simple until I actually studied it, prompted by others on the
>> >> cycling newsgroup.

>>
>> > IOW, peer pressure caused you to question your own common sense and sound
>> > judgment.

>>
>> Exactly. That's how science works, and the reason it is so much more
>> successful than common sense: it's a team effort.


> No, not "exactly". The simple decision to wear or not wear a helmet is
> not "science". It's really quite simple: "Assess, decide and ride". Why
> do you seek to make a very simple decision complex?


As a scientist I've been trained to avoid taking decisions which are
simple and wrong.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]