Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:58:43 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>There is really no problem with those studies. It's when people try to
>"add on" to the studies and make claims that "explain" the results with
>claims of the MHL drastically reducing the number of cyclists based on
>someone standing on a street corner counting cyclists.

Don't forget the telephone surveys, automated counters, traffic census
data and the fact that the reduction in all non-head presented to
hospital all support those people counting on street corners counting
cyclists.

But hey, presumably you prefer the alternative, where they make it up
and pretend cycling didn't decline. Unfortunately they got caught out
on that one...

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

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:14:29 +0100, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> said in <[email protected]>:

>> That's what so amusing! Someone posts so much junk science, claiming
>> helmets provide absolutely no benefit, but the same person is out riding
>> with a helmet, even though there's no law compelling him to do so.

>Not a law, but a race rule in that case, IIRC.
>But a "zealot" wouldn't even own one, let alone use one for a small
>number of events. So it's not "amusing", it's a simple
>demonstration that you're posting with a chip on your shoulder
>rather than conveying straightforward facts.

It was a fun race, I'm not at all sure the rule did apply, several of
the riders were certainly bareheaded.

I guess that in the black-and-white world of the liddites one must
either be for or against helmets, rather than making a pragmatic
choice based on the actual practical likelihood of falling off. Which
in this case was quite high, given the mass start of disparate
machines.

Scharf and Sornson's replies make it quite clear that they are
actively looking for an argument rather than actually making an effort
to understand anybody else's views.

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

 

[[email protected]]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

<snipped>

- about bicycle helmets -

>As I have said many times in many
> discussions, the entire debate is massively more complicated than you
> or any of your cronies would have people believe.

"Massively more complicated"?? Perhaps to an OC personality type in
search of a "cause" it is "massively more complicated".To the rest of
us, it's quite simple: consider the situation in concert with one's
personal experiences and decide whether or not to wear a simple,
inexpensive, lightweight, well-ventilated,
minimally-protective-but-harmless plastic helmet or not. Make the
decision, yay or nay, and ride on.

Have you tried a strong laxative, "Guy"?

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 2 Aug 2006 12:48:22 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
><snipped>
>
>- about bicycle helmets -
>
>>As I have said many times in many
>> discussions, the entire debate is massively more complicated than you
>> or any of your cronies would have people believe.
>
>"Massively more complicated"?? Perhaps to an OC personality type in
>search of a "cause" it is "massively more complicated".To the rest of
>us, it's quite simple: consider the situation in concert with one's
>personal experiences and decide whether or not to wear a simple,
>inexpensive, lightweight, well-ventilated,
>minimally-protective-but-harmless plastic helmet or not. Make the
>decision, yay or nay, and ride on.
>

That's a simple way to make a decision, and there's nothing wrong with
it as long as you leave it at that. Some might argue, with strong
basis, against the "harmless" bit but that doesnt' seem like a big
deal to me.

Unless you happen to claim confidence in the helmet being effective
against serious injuries. Then you're probably wrong -- things
aren't quite as simple. But leave it as your described and that's
fine. "Minimally-protective" is the key word.

I have to wonder if you use the "minimally protective" line in
discussions in other places. That is, I wonder if you are really that
honest with people you ride with.

>Have you tried a strong laxative, "Guy"?

And are you coming to New York City later this summer? Do you at
least have likely dates? You'd said I'd be afraid to call you an
idiot to your face, and when I said I wouldn't you rapidly responded
by saying you'd be in my town. So let's have it happen.

JT

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

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 2 Aug 2006 12:48:22 -0700, [email protected] said in
<[email protected]>:

>>As I have said many times in many
>> discussions, the entire debate is massively more complicated than you
>> or any of your cronies would have people believe.

>"Massively more complicated"?? Perhaps to an OC personality type in
>search of a "cause" it is "massively more complicated".To the rest of
>us, it's quite simple: consider the situation in concert with one's
>personal experiences and decide whether or not to wear a simple,
>inexpensive, lightweight, well-ventilated,
>minimally-protective-but-harmless plastic helmet or not. Make the
>decision, yay or nay, and ride on.

As HL Mencken said, "for every complex problem there is a solution
which is simple, neat and wrong". As ever, you prove the wisdom of
his words, while providing a very fine example of the logical fallacy
"begging the question".

>Have you tried a strong laxative, "Guy"?

Unnecessary. Any time I need ****, I can read your posts.

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

 

[Bill Sornson]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:29:13 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> said
> in <[email protected]>:
>
>>> Holy shitoly! Is it ever going to end?

>> Guy's smugness? Nah.

> For the simple and obvious reason that it would have to start first.

LOL Good one! LOL

 

[[email protected]]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On 2 Aug 2006 12:48:22 -0700, [email protected] said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >>As I have said many times in many
> >> discussions, the entire debate is massively more complicated than you
> >> or any of your cronies would have people believe.
>
> >"Massively more complicated"?? Perhaps to an OC personality type in
> >search of a "cause" it is "massively more complicated".To the rest of
> >us, it's quite simple: consider the situation in concert with one's
> >personal experiences and decide whether or not to wear a simple,
> >inexpensive, lightweight, well-ventilated,
> >minimally-protective-but-harmless plastic helmet or not. Make the
> >decision, yay or nay, and ride on.
>
> As HL Mencken said, "for every complex problem there is a solution
> which is simple, neat and wrong".

For an OC type such as you, I'm sure the "helmet question" is, indeed,
complex. The rest of us merely assess, decide and ride.


> As ever, you prove the wisdom of
> his words, while providing a very fine example of the logical fallacy
> "begging the question".
>

When you can shift your mind into low gear and seperate the issues of
the free choice to use or not use a helmet from your dread of a MHL,
let us know. 'Til then, bugger off.


> >Have you tried a strong laxative, "Guy"?
>
> Unnecessary. Any time I need ****, I can read your posts.
>

How very clever, "Guy". OTOH, I'm sure the Great Leader Raven will
always deign to give you your daily ration of "ice cream". Hold your
nose and enjoy!

 

[Peter Clinch]

[email protected] wrote:

> For an OC type such as you, I'm sure the "helmet question" is, indeed,
> complex. The rest of us merely assess, decide and ride.

How anyone can have a memory so short to have forgotten about the people
who will decide for you, after they've been mentioned so much not only
here but by themselves, makes one wonder...

> When you can shift your mind into low gear and seperate the issues of
> the free choice to use or not use a helmet from your dread of a MHL,
> let us know. 'Til then, bugger off.

As you should know from the recently posted pictorial record, Guy is
quite capable of doing that, so no buggering off required.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[[email protected]]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > For an OC type such as you, I'm sure the "helmet question" is, indeed,
> > complex. The rest of us merely assess, decide and ride.
>
> How anyone can have a memory so short to have forgotten about the people
> who will decide for you, after they've been mentioned so much not only
> here but by themselves, makes one wonder...
>

The concern that increased helmet use will lead to a MHL (note the
specificity:"lead to a MHL) seems to be restricted to a few posters
from the UK.


> > When you can shift your mind into low gear and seperate the issues of
> > the free choice to use or not use a helmet from your dread of a MHL,
> > let us know. 'Til then, bugger off.
>
> As you should know from the recently posted pictorial record, Guy is
> quite capable of doing that, so no buggering off required.
>

>From his comments regarding that event, he apparently thought helmet
use was mandatory for the participation, hence, "free choice" had
nothing to do with it.

 

[jtaylor]

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

[for the benefit of newbies who do not understand the usual method of
quoting on usenet, the portion prefixed by ODD numbers of quote marks (">")
is a quote from "Ozark", the portion below prefixed by EVEN numbers of quote
marks is a quote from Peter Clinch]


>
> Peter Clinch wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > For an OC type such as you, I'm sure the "helmet question" is, indeed,
> > > complex. The rest of us merely assess, decide and ride.
> >
> > How anyone can have a memory so short to have forgotten about the people
> > who will decide for you, after they've been mentioned so much not only
> > here but by themselves, makes one wonder...
> >
>
> The concern that increased helmet use will lead to a MHL (note the
> specificity:"lead to a MHL) seems to be restricted to a few posters
> from the UK.
>

Well, no.

It is the concern of the whole of the cycling population of the UK, seeing
as it is the stated position of members of parliament to introduce an MHL
when helmet wearing reaches a certain threshold; not only that, buit there
are indications that other countries have QNGO's that are moving the same
way - as has been posted here TWICE; now thrice, for the benefit of
refreshing your short memory, as noted by Peter Clinch:

"A recent example: The Swiss BfU (Schweizerische Beratungsstelle fuer
Unfallverhuetung), which is the official Swiss advisory board for the
prevention of non-professional accidents, lobbies strongly for
helmet-wearing.

In a recent press release, cited by many Swiss newspapers, the BfU now
officially wants a helmet law for children under 14 yrs old. The same
official statement says that the BfU continues to count on voluntary helmet
use for adults. However, when asked directly, the BfU states that it does
want a helmet law for everyone once voluntary helmet wearing is greater than
40 percent..."

 

[Peter Clinch]

[email protected] wrote:

> The concern that increased helmet use will lead to a MHL (note the
> specificity:"lead to a MHL) seems to be restricted to a few posters
> from the UK.

Since it's been stated by government departments that they would only
push for an MHL once voluntary wearing has increased, the "few posters
from the UK" have very good evidence that they're right.

>From his comments regarding that event, he apparently thought helmet
> use was mandatory for the participation, hence, "free choice" had
> nothing to do with it.

I think you should read them again:
"It was a fun race, I'm not at all sure the rule did apply, several of
the riders were certainly bareheaded."

So Nul Points for observation, and Nul Points for correctness.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Bill Sornson]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> The concern that increased helmet use will lead to a MHL (note the
>> specificity:"lead to a MHL) seems to be restricted to a few posters
>> from the UK.
>
> Since it's been stated by government departments that they would only
> push for an MHL once voluntary wearing has increased, the "few posters
> from the UK" have very good evidence that they're right.

But not about Sally Tenspeed donning a lid in Podunk, Iowa. No "threat" to
you gits whatsoever.

You seem to be projecting your frustration and impotence on to others.

Hey, here's an idea: cut it out.

HTH

 

[jtaylor]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Clinch wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >> The concern that increased helmet use will lead to a MHL (note the
> >> specificity:"lead to a MHL) seems to be restricted to a few posters
> >> from the UK.
> >
> > Since it's been stated by government departments that they would only
> > push for an MHL once voluntary wearing has increased, the "few posters
> > from the UK" have very good evidence that they're right.
>
> But not about Sally Tenspeed donning a lid in Podunk, Iowa. No "threat"
to
> you gits whatsoever.
>

Sure.

That's why there are so many MHL's in the US - people like you don't
understand how they get passed (or don't care - you too? You do have one in
your state, no?).

 

[Bill Sornson]

jtaylor wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> The concern that increased helmet use will lead to a MHL (note the
>>>> specificity:"lead to a MHL) seems to be restricted to a few posters
>>>> from the UK.
>>>
>>> Since it's been stated by government departments that they would
>>> only push for an MHL once voluntary wearing has increased, the "few
>>> posters from the UK" have very good evidence that they're right.

>> But not about Sally Tenspeed donning a lid in Podunk, Iowa. No
>> "threat" to you gits whatsoever.


> Sure.
>
> That's why there are so many MHL's in the US - people like you don't
> understand how they get passed (or don't care - you too? You do have
> one in your state, no?).

By your "logic" ( LOL ), then, WE should be giving YOU grief for wearing
helmets.

Many UK posters have admonished many US posters that "choosing to wear a
helmet is a vote for compulsion". That /may/ be true over there (although
even that is way over-stated for fear-mongering purposes), but it's /not/
true over here.

Sally Tenspeed in Podunk is NOYB. Period.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 2 Aug 2006 14:37:43 -0700, [email protected] said in
<[email protected]>:

>For an OC type such as you, I'm sure the "helmet question" is, indeed,
>complex. The rest of us merely assess, decide and ride.

And for a black-is-white (sorry, black-*and*-white) Liddite like you
I'm sure it's - well, black and white. Things often are when you are
determined to look at them only in the most superficial terms.

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

 

[[email protected]]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On 2 Aug 2006 14:37:43 -0700, [email protected] said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >For an OC type such as you, I'm sure the "helmet question" is, indeed,
> >complex. The rest of us merely assess, decide and ride.
>
> And for a black-is-white (sorry, black-*and*-white) Liddite like you
> I'm sure it's - well, black and white. Things often are when you are
> determined to look at them only in the most superficial terms.
>
>

What a fool I've been, treating, as I have, helmet use a simple matter
of choice: Sunglasses, yes or no? Trousers or shorts? Top up or top
down? Red wine or white? Motobecane or Havnoonian?

Now I see this is a very weighty question, akin to pondering the future
of western civilization!

I have seen the error of my ways!

Can I ever rehabilitate myself in your eyes, O Wise One? And, most
importantly, in the eyes of the Wonderous Raven, Great Leader of the
Helmet Sceptics?

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 3 Aug 2006 15:17:59 -0700, [email protected] said in
<[email protected]>:

>What a fool I've been, treating, as I have, helmet use a simple matter
>of choice

Indeed. It's a very complex matter. Read Mok et. al. for a hint of
why.

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

 

[[email protected]]

Just zis Guy needs a life, you know? wrote:
> On 3 Aug 2006 15:17:59 -0700, [email protected] said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >What a fool I've been, treating, as I have, helmet use a simple matter
> >of choice
>
> Indeed. It's a very complex matter.


Yep, almost as complex as deciding whether to hang that new roll of TP
sheets out or sheets in.

(What would an OC such as "Guy" do without a cause, however trivial or
meaningless?)

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> Just zis Guy needs a life, you know? wrote:
>> On 3 Aug 2006 15:17:59 -0700, [email protected] said in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> What a fool I've been, treating, as I have, helmet use a simple
>>> matter of choice
>>
>> Indeed. It's a very complex matter.
>
>
> Yep, almost as complex as deciding whether to hang that new roll of TP
> sheets out or sheets in.

Sheets OUT, of course. (I can't cite any /studies/ or anything, but it's
common sense backed by experience. Don't ask.)

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Just zis Guy needs a life, you know? wrote:
> >> On 3 Aug 2006 15:17:59 -0700, [email protected] said in
> >> <[email protected]>:
> >>
> >>> What a fool I've been, treating, as I have, helmet use a simple
> >>> matter of choice
> >>
> >> Indeed. It's a very complex matter.
> >
> >
> > Yep, almost as complex as deciding whether to hang that new roll of TP
> > sheets out or sheets in.
>
> Sheets OUT, of course. (I can't cite any /studies/ or anything, but it's
> common sense backed by experience. Don't ask.)

The population studies show fewer people wipe when there is a MSOL
(Mandatory Sheets Out Law), this makes going potty more dangerous!
Going potty is no more dangerous than walking! Do you have a MSOL
whilst walking?