Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

[jtaylor]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Out of curiousity, having had a "helmet saved my life"TM moment and a
> > broken helmet on his head, did he leave the ride to go home or continue
> > on riding without a helmet or with a broken helmet?
> >
>
> Your "question" is clearly answered in Snortley's post. But you don't
> read through the posts carefully, do you? You just focus on some key
> points and fly off, once again regurgitating your tired AHZ agenda,
> automaton
>

Well, one of the things that's tiresome is the inconsistency of helmet
wearers' attitudes towards risk.

You, for instance, wear a helmet while cycling, but not while doing more
risky activities such as walking or driving in a motorcar.

"Sortley" believes his helmet was necessary to save his life, but after it
was damaged to the point where it was irrefutably of no value, happily
continued to wear it as a talismanic protection.

And when this is pointed out to you, rather than debate (or horrors, admit)
the point, you trot out that _most_ tiresome tactic, the insult.

 

[Jay Beattie]

jtaylor wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Tony Raven wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Out of curiousity, having had a "helmet saved my life"TM moment and a
> > > broken helmet on his head, did he leave the ride to go home or continue
> > > on riding without a helmet or with a broken helmet?
> > >
> >
> > Your "question" is clearly answered in Snortley's post. But you don't
> > read through the posts carefully, do you? You just focus on some key
> > points and fly off, once again regurgitating your tired AHZ agenda,
> > automaton
> >
>
> Well, one of the things that's tiresome is the inconsistency of helmet
> wearers' attitudes towards risk.
>
> You, for instance, wear a helmet while cycling, but not while doing more
> risky activities such as walking or driving in a motorcar.

But, in Wisconsin, pedal bicycling is more dangerous than hang-gliding,
scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling off curbs.
It's more dangerous than any recreational activity except for getting
hit with an object in a sporting activity. See
http://tinyurl.com/efe6d I would think that New York is twice as
dangerous as Wisconsin, except during the hunting season.-- Jay
Beattie.

P.S. Statistically, I am only 5'10", but I am quite a bit taller in
person.

 

[David Martin]

Jay Beattie wrote:
> > You, for instance, wear a helmet while cycling, but not while doing more
> > risky activities such as walking or driving in a motorcar.
>
> But, in Wisconsin, pedal bicycling is more dangerous than hang-gliding,
> scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling off curbs.
> It's more dangerous than any recreational activity except for getting
> hit with an object in a sporting activity. See
> http://tinyurl.com/efe6d I would think that New York is twice as
> dangerous as Wisconsin, except during the hunting season.-- Jay
> Beattie.

But you have totally omitted exposure from the equation. How many
people skydive compared to cycle? A terrible misuse of statistics.

...d


>
> P.S. Statistically, I am only 5'10", but I am quite a bit taller in
> person.

 

[Clive George]

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

> But, in Wisconsin, pedal bicycling is more dangerous than hang-gliding,
> scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling off curbs.
> It's more dangerous than any recreational activity except for getting
> hit with an object in a sporting activity. See
> http://tinyurl.com/efe6d I would think that New York is twice as
> dangerous as Wisconsin, except during the hunting season.-- Jay
> Beattie.

Now there's a completely useless paper - they even admit that they don't
have exposure information, without which all the rest of their numbers are
utterly meaningless.

clive

 

[[email protected]]

jtaylor wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Tony Raven wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Out of curiousity, having had a "helmet saved my life"TM moment and a
> > > broken helmet on his head, did he leave the ride to go home or continue
> > > on riding without a helmet or with a broken helmet?
> > >
> >
> > Your "question" is clearly answered in Snortley's post. But you don't
> > read through the posts carefully, do you? You just focus on some key
> > points and fly off, once again regurgitating your tired AHZ agenda,
> > automaton
> >
>
> Well, one of the things that's tiresome is the inconsistency of helmet
> wearers' attitudes towards risk.
>

And this has exactly what to do with the Raven 'bot's failure to
carefully read the post to which it was replying, Parrot?


> You, for instance, wear a helmet while cycling, but not while doing more
> risky activities such as walking or driving in a motorcar.
>

See above. Want a cracker. Parrot?


> "Sortley" believes his helmet was necessary to save his life, but after it
> was damaged to the point where it was irrefutably of no value, happily
> continued to wear it as a talismanic protection.
>

Hmm....it was neither Snortley's life nor Snortley's helmet. I guess
your reading comprehension is as poor as the Raven 'bot's, eh, Parrot?

 

[jtaylor]

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

> >
> > Well, one of the things that's tiresome is the inconsistency of helmet
> > wearers' attitudes towards risk.
> >
> > You, for instance, wear a helmet while cycling, but not while doing more
> > risky activities such as walking or driving in a motorcar.
>
> But, in Wisconsin, pedal bicycling is more dangerous than hang-gliding,
> scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling off curbs.
> It's more dangerous than any recreational activity except for getting
> hit with an object in a sporting activity. See
> http://tinyurl.com/efe6d I

That paper does not show what you claim it does.

The paper states that more injuries per unit population occur as you
describe - but that does not mean that the activities themselves are more
(or less) dangerous, as it does not correct for the relative amount of time
spent by the average (Wisconsion) person while engaged in each of those
activities.

I note that the paper reports zero injuries while participants were playing
russian roulette with a fully-chambered revolver. Presumably you would
claim that this is therefore (in Wisconson) a less dangerous activity than
"...hang-gliding, scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling
off curbs..."

 

[[email protected]]

jtaylor wrote:
> "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > >
> > > Well, one of the things that's tiresome is the inconsistency of helmet
> > > wearers' attitudes towards risk.
> > >
> > > You, for instance, wear a helmet while cycling, but not while doing more
> > > risky activities such as walking or driving in a motorcar.
> >
> > But, in Wisconsin, pedal bicycling is more dangerous than hang-gliding,
> > scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling off curbs.
> > It's more dangerous than any recreational activity except for getting
> > hit with an object in a sporting activity. See
> > http://tinyurl.com/efe6d I
>
> That paper does not show what you claim it does.
>
> The paper states that more injuries per unit population occur as you
> describe - but that does not mean that the activities themselves are more
> (or less) dangerous, as it does not correct for the relative amount of time
> spent by the average (Wisconsion) person while engaged in each of those
> activities.
>
> I note that the paper reports zero injuries while participants were playing
> russian roulette with a fully-chambered revolver. Presumably you would
> claim that this is therefore (in Wisconson) a less dangerous activity than
> "...hang-gliding, scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling
> off curbs..."

WHOOOOSH! (that's the sound of the intent of Jay Beattie's post flying
high over the taylor 'bot's "head".)

 

[[email protected]]

On 6 Jun 2006 08:47:04 -0700, "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]>
wrote:

[snip]

>I would think that New York is twice as
>dangerous as Wisconsin, except during the hunting season.-- Jay
>Beattie.

Dear Jay,

How many Wisconsin and New York hunters do you think were killed
accidentally in 2005?

The answer illustrates Frank's point about how we often exaggerate
danger--I try to keep in mind the Colorado hunting statistics while
walking my dog in the state park and picking up live shotgun shells.

(And yes, anyone looking into the matter will realize that the murders
of six Wisconsin citizens who happened to be hunting are irrelevant.)

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Jay Beattie]

David Martin wrote:
> Jay Beattie wrote:
> > > You, for instance, wear a helmet while cycling, but not while doing more
> > > risky activities such as walking or driving in a motorcar.
> >
> > But, in Wisconsin, pedal bicycling is more dangerous than hang-gliding,
> > scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling off curbs.
> > It's more dangerous than any recreational activity except for getting
> > hit with an object in a sporting activity. See
> > http://tinyurl.com/efe6d I would think that New York is twice as
> > dangerous as Wisconsin, except during the hunting season.-- Jay
> > Beattie.
>
> But you have totally omitted exposure from the equation. How many
> people skydive compared to cycle? A terrible misuse of statistics.

No duh? It was exemplary of the terrible use of statistics throughout
this thread -- "20 times more head injuries walking than riding a bike"
being a prime example -- all based on gross numbers without any
correction for populution differences, including total population
numbers, ages, infirmity, etc., etc. Any time someone says that a
helmet protected them from any injury, we get this chorus of "oh no!
that is statistically impossible; just read the following ten papers.
You are more likely to die of head injury while petting your cat on the
sofa! And moreover, the helmet actually made your injuries worse!" I
would like to see, just once, a concession that the poster probably
avoided a nasty scalp injury. But then we will get the ten harpies
crying that they rode their bikes into brick walls at 100kph with
nothing but paper Burger King crowns and nothing happened to them. This
will be followed by ten more arguing that the 3cm bulk added to their
heads could make the difference between hitting a tree branch and not,
and could result in mortal rotational injury. And then ten more will
argue that people do crazy things when they wear helmets -- like riding
under low-hanging tree branches, etc., etc. The whole thing turns into
this breathless rant against helmets when, for many, helmets have clear
benefits, albeit not life saving benefits. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[[email protected]]

Jay Beattie wrote:
> David Martin wrote:
> > Jay Beattie wrote:
> > > > You, for instance, wear a helmet while cycling, but not while doing more
> > > > risky activities such as walking or driving in a motorcar.
> > >
> > > But, in Wisconsin, pedal bicycling is more dangerous than hang-gliding,
> > > scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling off curbs.
> > > It's more dangerous than any recreational activity except for getting
> > > hit with an object in a sporting activity. See
> > > http://tinyurl.com/efe6d I would think that New York is twice as
> > > dangerous as Wisconsin, except during the hunting season.-- Jay
> > > Beattie.
> >
> > But you have totally omitted exposure from the equation. How many
> > people skydive compared to cycle? A terrible misuse of statistics.
>
> No duh? It was exemplary of the terrible use of statistics throughout
> this thread -- "20 times more head injuries walking than riding a bike"
> being a prime example -- all based on gross numbers without any
> correction for populution differences, including total population
> numbers, ages, infirmity, etc., etc. Any time someone says that a
> helmet protected them from any injury, we get this chorus of "oh no!
> that is statistically impossible; just read the following ten papers.
> You are more likely to die of head injury while petting your cat on the
> sofa! And moreover, the helmet actually made your injuries worse!" I
> would like to see, just once, a concession that the poster probably
> avoided a nasty scalp injury. But then we will get the ten harpies
> crying that they rode their bikes into brick walls at 100kph with
> nothing but paper Burger King crowns and nothing happened to them. This
> will be followed by ten more arguing that the 3cm bulk added to their
> heads could make the difference between hitting a tree branch and not,
> and could result in mortal rotational injury. And then ten more will
> argue that people do crazy things when they wear helmets -- like riding
> under low-hanging tree branches, etc., etc. The whole thing turns into
> this breathless rant against helmets when, for many, helmets have clear
> benefits, albeit not life saving benefits. -- Jay Beattie.

Accurate, succinct and to the point. The best post of this very long
thread!

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Jay Beattie <[email protected]>:
>jtaylor wrote:
>>You, for instance, wear a helmet while cycling, but not while doing more
>>risky activities such as walking or driving in a motorcar.
>But, in Wisconsin, pedal bicycling is more dangerous than hang-gliding,
>scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling off curbs.
>It's more dangerous than any recreational activity except for getting
>hit with an object in a sporting activity. See
>http://tinyurl.com/efe6d

"Lack of exposure information is an important limitation of this
study. As the denominators for this study are from population
statistics, our rate estimates do not provide information about
relative risks per participant-time for different activities, nor can
we separate the effect of higher participation rates from other
factors which potentially increase risk among groups with higher
sports and recreation related injury hospitalization rates."

In other words, it shows nothing of the kind.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruitkonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

 

[Jay Beattie]

[email protected] wrote:
> jtaylor wrote:
> > "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > >
> > > > Well, one of the things that's tiresome is the inconsistency of helmet
> > > > wearers' attitudes towards risk.
> > > >
> > > > You, for instance, wear a helmet while cycling, but not while doing more
> > > > risky activities such as walking or driving in a motorcar.
> > >
> > > But, in Wisconsin, pedal bicycling is more dangerous than hang-gliding,
> > > scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling off curbs.
> > > It's more dangerous than any recreational activity except for getting
> > > hit with an object in a sporting activity. See
> > > http://tinyurl.com/efe6d I
> >
> > That paper does not show what you claim it does.
> >
> > The paper states that more injuries per unit population occur as you
> > describe - but that does not mean that the activities themselves are more
> > (or less) dangerous, as it does not correct for the relative amount of time
> > spent by the average (Wisconsion) person while engaged in each of those
> > activities.
> >
> > I note that the paper reports zero injuries while participants were playing
> > russian roulette with a fully-chambered revolver. Presumably you would
> > claim that this is therefore (in Wisconson) a less dangerous activity than
> > "...hang-gliding, scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling
> > off curbs..."
>
> WHOOOOSH! (that's the sound of the intent of Jay Beattie's post flying
> high over the taylor 'bot's "head".)

I'm glad someone got it. It's kind of like poking a stick into an ant
hill. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 6 Jun 2006 08:47:04 -0700, "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >I would think that New York is twice as
> >dangerous as Wisconsin, except during the hunting season.-- Jay
> >Beattie.
>
> Dear Jay,
>
> How many Wisconsin and New York hunters do you think were killed
> accidentally in 2005?
>
> The answer illustrates Frank's point about how we often exaggerate
> danger--I try to keep in mind the Colorado hunting statistics while
> walking my dog in the state park and picking up live shotgun shells.
>
> (And yes, anyone looking into the matter will realize that the murders
> of six Wisconsin citizens who happened to be hunting are irrelevant.)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

Whooosh! (there goes the intent of Jay Beattie's post again, right over
Smarmy Carl's head.)

 

[[email protected]]

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Jay Beattie <[email protected]>:
> >jtaylor wrote:
> >>You, for instance, wear a helmet while cycling, but not while doing more
> >>risky activities such as walking or driving in a motorcar.
> >But, in Wisconsin, pedal bicycling is more dangerous than hang-gliding,
> >scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling off curbs.
> >It's more dangerous than any recreational activity except for getting
> >hit with an object in a sporting activity. See
> >http://tinyurl.com/efe6d
>
> "Lack of exposure information is an important limitation of this
> study. As the denominators for this study are from population
> statistics, our rate estimates do not provide information about
> relative risks per participant-time for different activities, nor can
> we separate the effect of higher participation rates from other
> factors which potentially increase risk among groups with higher
> sports and recreation related injury hospitalization rates."
>
> In other words, it shows nothing of the kind.
>

I'm getting tired of typing "Whoosh!" ;-)

You URC AHZs really are a sad, unperceptive, humourless lot, eh?

"Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto."

 

[Sorni]

David Damerell wrote:

> "Lack of exposure information is an important limitation of this
> study. As the denominators for this study are from population
> statistics, our rate estimates do not provide information about
> relative risks per participant-time for different activities, nor can
> we separate the effect of higher participation rates from other
> factors which potentially increase risk among groups with higher
> sports and recreation related injury hospitalization rates."
>
> In other words, it shows nothing of the kind.

Gee, a worthless population study. Who'd've thunk it?

BS (really)

 

[[email protected]]

Jay Beattie wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > jtaylor wrote:
> > > "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, one of the things that's tiresome is the inconsistency of helmet
> > > > > wearers' attitudes towards risk.
> > > > >
> > > > > You, for instance, wear a helmet while cycling, but not while doing more
> > > > > risky activities such as walking or driving in a motorcar.
> > > >
> > > > But, in Wisconsin, pedal bicycling is more dangerous than hang-gliding,
> > > > scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling off curbs.
> > > > It's more dangerous than any recreational activity except for getting
> > > > hit with an object in a sporting activity. See
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/efe6d I
> > >
> > > That paper does not show what you claim it does.
> > >
> > > The paper states that more injuries per unit population occur as you
> > > describe - but that does not mean that the activities themselves are more
> > > (or less) dangerous, as it does not correct for the relative amount of time
> > > spent by the average (Wisconsion) person while engaged in each of those
> > > activities.
> > >
> > > I note that the paper reports zero injuries while participants were playing
> > > russian roulette with a fully-chambered revolver. Presumably you would
> > > claim that this is therefore (in Wisconson) a less dangerous activity than
> > > "...hang-gliding, scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling
> > > off curbs..."
> >
> > WHOOOOSH! (that's the sound of the intent of Jay Beattie's post flying
> > high over the taylor 'bot's "head".)
>
> I'm glad someone got it. It's kind of like poking a stick into an ant
> hill. -- Jay Beattie.

It's easier to "get it" if you're not blindered by an agenda.....

 

[[email protected]]

Sorni wrote:
> David Damerell wrote:
>
> > "Lack of exposure information is an important limitation of this
> > study. As the denominators for this study are from population
> > statistics, our rate estimates do not provide information about
> > relative risks per participant-time for different activities, nor can
> > we separate the effect of higher participation rates from other
> > factors which potentially increase risk among groups with higher
> > sports and recreation related injury hospitalization rates."
> >
> > In other words, it shows nothing of the kind.
>
> Gee, a worthless population study. Who'd've thunk it?
>
> BS (really)

Isn't it a hoot to see the Sanctimonious Stiffs (tm) take seriously
something so obviously posted with tongue firmly in cheek?

 

[[email protected]]

Sorni wrote:

(snip)

I'm not contributing per se.

I just wanna be 1666 on 06/06/06.

Hope I timed it right.

Whatever.

Guess I could tell about having an armchair view of a T-bone accident a
couple of weeks ago tomorrow. Jerk in an old Caddy so intent on
hitting/running two of us off the road as he entered our right-of-way
from our left at a tee intersection, guess what? he didn't see the big
ol' 3/4 ton work truck bearing down on him @ 60mph. PU driver didn't
yank it over and run into us (time limitations? risk to self from ditch
where I endo-d safely as convergence neared?). Impressive impact. PU
driver (pity the innocent) got a hurt arm. Didn't see if the jackass in
the Caddy had to give breath, blood, urine. Doubt either vehicle rolls
under own power again. Well, we were lucky and also paying a bunch of
attention before the Caddy driver screwed up.

Ummm...

(taps foot, shifts in chair).

The speed limit on certain Texas highways has been raised to 80mph.
Meaning, the safety Nazis lost one in their drive to control behavior
universally...

tap, tap.

OK, we're going swimming. I'm pushing Post. Wish me luck...
--D-y

 

[David Martin]

[email protected] wrote:
> > No duh? It was exemplary of the terrible use of statistics throughout
> > this thread --
<snip>
> > The whole thing turns into
> > this breathless rant against helmets when, for many, helmets have clear
> > benefits, albeit not life saving benefits. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> Accurate, succinct and to the point. The best post of this very long
> thread!

An inaccurate parody, attempting to belittle that which he does not
understand in a populist rant.
It might go down well at a union meeting but in a technical discussion
rates you as a

It is prima facie evicence that leftpondians cannot do sarcasm or
irony.

...d

 

[Sorni]

David Martin wrote (messing up the attributions, of course):
> [email protected] wrote:
{MYSTERY WRITER:}

>>> No duh? It was exemplary of the terrible use of statistics
>>> throughout this thread --
> <snip>
>>> The whole thing turns into
>>> this breathless rant against helmets when, for many, helmets have
>>> clear benefits, albeit not life saving benefits. -- Jay Beattie.

>> Accurate, succinct and to the point. The best post of this very long
>> thread!

> An inaccurate parody, attempting to belittle that which he does not
> understand in a populist rant.
> It might go down well at a union meeting but in a technical discussion
> rates you as a
>
> It is prima facie evicence that leftpondians cannot do sarcasm or
> irony.

Boy, you love to make blanket statements & conclusions extrapolated from
singular opinions. However, when someone lumps all the anti-helmet zeal---
err, posters together, then it's bloody watch out!

At least you're consistent with your double standards and contradictory
arguments.

Bill "sorry, Sandy" S.