Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience



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

> A law isn't
> something you whip together over a few hours, it's a rather complicated
> piece of writing. And since there "has" to be repercussions if you break
> the law there is a considerable bit of research that has to be done to
> define the proper response as well. Then there's the whole bit of the
> enforcing agencies that has to be brought up to speed and taught to use
> the new law, which can be a task in itself, specially if they question
> the merits of the law.
>


Interesting, this last point.

Sorni claims as a mitigating factor for the MHL in his state that it is
neither being enforced, nor obeyed. Perhaps the American approach to the
rule of law (expediency and personal comfort trumps it) is the reason they
have so many MHLs?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

sip

>
> 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!
>

snip

No worries, obs. We can only hope.

BTW. No REAL American would ride a froggie bike!
...and Harry is just down the street from me.

HAND
 
In uk.rec.cycling jtaylor <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:22:41 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
>> said in <[email protected]>:


>> Which leaves us back where we started: the hypothesis that helmets
>> save meaningful injuries is unproven. Wear one or not, personal
>> choice, and recognise that it's just that. Think of it as a religious
>> issue.


> He already does - only religion can support a belief denied by fact.


Occams's Razor: the simpler hypothesis is stupidity.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
On 3 Aug 2006 17:59:21 -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.


It is indeed very complex, unless you are utterly determined to see
everything as black-is-white.

Sorry, that's black AND white.

No, I was right the first time.

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? wrote:
> On 3 Aug 2006 17:59:21 -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.

>
> 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.

And now we will turn our attention to the next complex matter: "How
many angels can dance on the head of a pin?".
 
H M Leary wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> sip
>
> >
> > 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!
> >

> snip
>
> No worries, obs. We can only hope.
>
> BTW. No REAL American would ride a froggie bike!



You may be Leary of them, but I'm not!


> ..and Harry is just down the street from me.



I'm glad to see that they're still around and, AFAICT, they haven't
switched production to somewhere in Asia.
>
> HAND


You, too.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> > On 3 Aug 2006 17:59:21 -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.

> >
> > 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.
>
> And now we will turn our attention to the next complex matter: "How
> many angels can dance on the head of a pin?".
>

That depends. Is a helmeted or unhelmeted pinhead?

;-)

Rick
 
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> >
> > Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> > > On 3 Aug 2006 17:59:21 -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.
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > And now we will turn our attention to the next complex matter: "How
> > many angels can dance on the head of a pin?".
> >

> That depends. Is a helmeted or unhelmeted pinhead?
>
> ;-)
>


The helmeted pinhead's head is larger and heavier than the unhelmeted
pinhead's head. Celestial population studies strongly suggest the
larger, heavier pinhead is more like to strike an angel, or even an
Archangel. Clearly, helmet use makes celestial navagation more
dangerous.

Our next installment: "Helmeted Angels in America".
 
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:

> Is a helmeted or unhelmeted pinhead?


Apparently, Tony gets photographed /with/ a lid, so...helmeted!

:-D
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

snip
> >
> > BTW. No REAL American would ride a froggie bike!

>
>
> You may be Leary of them, but I'm not!
>

Thats leery. get it straight...)

> > ..and Harry is just down the street from me.

>
>
> I'm glad to see that they're still around and, AFAICT, they haven't
> switched production to somewhere in Asia.
> >

Got blown away by one of HH guad tandems the other day. Stoker was
bigger than most NFL linebackers!...gives whole new meaning to "hauling
ass"

Bicycle shop in Phillie has a $14,000 Cyfac Gothica bike. That thing
would look gorgeous above my mantle. I could never ride it for fear of
scrathing it.

HAND

If you have to ask, you can't afford it. - J Paul Getty
 
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> SMS wrote:


> > and then [injury and fatality rates] decreased 41% the year the MHL was
> > introduced. Some people may believe that injury and fatality rates
> > should keep going down indefinitely after an MHL is introduced,

>
> Do they? They just think they should go down at all, and it doesn't
> appear that they do.


He has just said that in fact they do go down, by 41%, so as long as
they kept them down - and that figure is correct - that needs to be
addressed.

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


Now I know that this has been asked before, but I can't resist asking it
again. If you, B***S**t and various suck puppets think it's "a *very*
trivial issue" how come you waste so much time on it?

You're either a liar or a hypocrite. Or you could be both.
 
"Chris Malcolm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In uk.rec.cycling jtaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>> Which leaves us back where we started: the hypothesis that helmets
>>> save meaningful injuries is unproven. Wear one or not, personal
>>> choice, and recognise that it's just that. Think of it as a religious
>>> issue.

>
>> He already does - only religion can support a belief denied by fact.

>
> Occams's Razor: the simpler hypothesis is stupidity.


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

>
> Now I know that this has been asked before, but I can't resist asking
> it again. If you, B***S**t and various suck puppets think it's "a
> *very* trivial issue" how come you waste so much time on it?
>
> You're either a liar or a hypocrite. Or you could be both.


Or, and you might lean forward and pay attention to this, Blurt, some people
can't stand bullies, liars, weasels and arrogant gasbags and thus speak up
when they spew. For example, this response to /you/.

Poet 'n Know It, BS

PS: good one with my initials! LOL Never heard /that/ before! LOL
 
D.M. Procida wrote:
> Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> SMS wrote:

>
>>> and then [injury and fatality rates] decreased 41% the year the MHL was
>>> introduced. Some people may believe that injury and fatality rates
>>> should keep going down indefinitely after an MHL is introduced,

>> Do they? They just think they should go down at all, and it doesn't
>> appear that they do.

>
> He has just said that in fact they do go down, by 41%, so as long as
> they kept them down - and that figure is correct - that needs to be
> addressed.


It also needs to be said that even if injury rates go up slightly, even
with an MHL, you shouldn't blame helmets, nor when injury rates go down
slightly should you claim that helmets were necessarily responsible.

The problem with people like Guy, Peter, etc., is that they don't
understand the difference between causation and correlation.
 
Posting as "Burt" , Tony Raven screeched:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.

>
> Now I know that this has been asked before, but I can't resist asking it
> again. If you, B***S**t and various suck puppets think it's "a *very*
> trivial issue" how come you waste so much time on it?
>


Because it's good fun to disembowel liars, Raven.

> You're either a liar or a hypocrite. Or you could be both.


"Burt": sockpuppet, asshole or an asshole's sockpuppet?
 
SMS wrote:
> D.M. Procida wrote:
> > Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> SMS wrote:

> >
> >>> and then [injury and fatality rates] decreased 41% the year the MHL was
> >>> introduced. Some people may believe that injury and fatality rates
> >>> should keep going down indefinitely after an MHL is introduced,
> >> Do they? They just think they should go down at all, and it doesn't
> >> appear that they do.

> >
> > He has just said that in fact they do go down, by 41%, so as long as
> > they kept them down - and that figure is correct - that needs to be
> > addressed.

>
> It also needs to be said that even if injury rates go up slightly, even
> with an MHL, you shouldn't blame helmets, nor when injury rates go down
> slightly should you claim that helmets were necessarily responsible.


"If the rates go up even slightly" upon imposition of a mandatory
helmet law, even if you don't blame helmets, you MUST admit the helmet
law has not achieved its stated objective!

I don't recall an instance where serious head injury counts decreased
by 41%. But if, as in the cases I'm familiar with, it's achieved by a
similar reduction in cycling, it's foolish to applaud it. The
mentality that accepts that would just as illogically accept outlawing
cycling, to prevent _all_ cycling injuries!

The purpose of any protective measure must be to reduce the head
injuries _per rider_. Helmets have utterly failed in that.

>
> The problem with people like Guy, Peter, etc., is that they don't
> understand the difference between causation and correlation.


Oh please! We have pointed out the step drops in cycling was exactly
at the time MHLs were introduced. We have pointed out the drops were
confirmed by multiple measuring techniques. We have pointed out that
surveys confirmed the reasons for the drops. You, Mr. Scharf, have
claimed that the _step_ drops in cycling were somehow caused by
_gradually_ changing factors. Sound to me like it's _your_
understanding that's lacking!

- Frank Krygowski
 
SMS wrote:

> It also needs to be said that even if injury rates go up slightly, even
> with an MHL, you shouldn't blame helmets, nor when injury rates go down
> slightly should you claim that helmets were necessarily responsible.
>
> The problem with people like Guy, Peter, etc., is that they don't
> understand the difference between causation and correlation.


I understand it perfectly well. What I understand but which you
seem not to is that correlation and causation /can/ be related,
even when it doesn't suit my preconceived opinions.

Furthermore, I understand that no benefit from a measure is no net
benefit from a measure. Now, it /may/ be the case that everywhere
people look at helmet efficacy in populations all the possible
confounding factors, depsite them being in different environments
at different times, coincidentally come together to make helmets
look basically pointless in the overall ecology, and the next place
you try them might well be different, but experience of Reality
teaches us that a simpler explanation (i.e., helmets don't actually
help reduce net serious injuries) is far, far more likley than
baroque constructions where "facts" have to be pulled out of the
air on a regular basis to make all the pieces fit.

And on the subject of pulling facts out of the air, your citation
for total mileage being basically unaffected by MHLs is still
conspicuosly absent. Please provide it.

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/
 
On 5 Aug 2006 21:15:36 -0700, [email protected] wrote:


>"If the rates go up even slightly" upon imposition of a mandatory
>helmet law, even if you don't blame helmets, you MUST admit the helmet
>law has not achieved its stated objective!


No one has to admit anything. Some other guys like Sorni and Ozark
told us they can say whatever they want to as their statements are
only opinions. They can say whatever they want to...and often they
do.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
Burt wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...


> > 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.

>
> Now I know that this has been asked before, but I can't resist asking it
> again. If you, B***S**t and various suck puppets think it's "a *very*
> trivial issue" how come you waste so much time on it?
>
> You're either a liar or a hypocrite. Or you could be both.


A simpler explanation would be that it has become a mission of his to
keep the thread going. He's opposed to an MHL, he doesn't think helmets
are particularly effective against serious injury, he's not at all
concerned when he's made to look ridiculous, as in his maths debacle,
and he regards the whole issue as trivial. Yet he continues to post
provocatively on every side issue. I don't know about you but I call
that trolling.

--
Dave...