Re: I crash into religion

[41]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> 41 wrote:
>
> > And by gum, when the Daily Express and the Daily Mail both cast doubt
> > on a blood test, you know you're on to something.
>
> Possibly, but whether it's the accuracy of the blood test is something
> else again... ;-/

None of that information comes from scoops by those papers. There's
even more in the Times Online:
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-958104,00.html>

 

[41]

Sorni wrote:
> jtaylor wrote:
> > "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 14 May 2006 02:38:36 GMT, "Sorni"
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> And "emotional decisions" are...BAD somehow?
> >>
> >>> Assuming access to good information, they're less effective than
> >>> decisions based on reason, and are less useful in trying to serve
> >>> as a model to other people.
> >>
> >> Ah, see, that's where I and many other helmet users differ from you
> >> and Frank and Richard and 41 and...the rest: WE DON'T CLAIM TO BE
> >> MODELS FOR ANYONE.
> >>
> >
> > The problem is that you may well not claim this, you are nevertheless
> > seen as models by those who (like yourself) are unaware of the true
> > value of cycle helmets (none) and will use your wearing of them as
> > rationale for a compulsory helmet law.
>
> Value of cycling helmets = "NONE"? No use talking further...

Which you then proceed to do, in three more successive posts, plenty
more on the way. Conclusion: according to yourself, you are useless.

 

[Jay Beattie]

jtaylor wrote:
> "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > > On Sun, 14 May 2006 02:38:36 GMT, "Sorni"
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >> And "emotional decisions" are...BAD somehow?
> >
> > > Assuming access to good information, they're less effective than
> > > decisions based on reason, and are less useful in trying to serve as a
> > > model to other people.
> >
> > Ah, see, that's where I and many other helmet users differ from you and
> > Frank and Richard and 41 and...the rest: WE DON'T CLAIM TO BE MODELS FOR
> > ANYONE.
> >
>
> The problem is that you may well not claim this, you are nevertheless seen
> as models by those who (like yourself) are unaware of the true value of
> cycle helmets (none) and will use your wearing of them as rationale for a
> compulsory helmet law.

Your conclusions are based on population studies, which I think you
would agree do not necessarily reflect the risks encountered by
particular individuals. Helmets have considerable value for many
riders who race, ride off road or who are exposed to increased risks
due to weather conditions or road hazards. We can all debate the
magnitude of value and what types of injuries can be avoided by a
helmet. I think we would all agree that helmets help prevent focal
injury including skull fracture and scalp injury.

I watched the process here in Oregon that resulted in our MHL (which
applies to children 16 years old and younger), and can safely say that
those in favor of the law were not crusading helmet wearers. They were
Kaiser Hospital doctors and nurses and soccer moms, one of whom was a
former legislative assistant and knew how to toss a bill in the hopper.
Indeed, some helmet wearers were against the the law because it took
attention away from other safety issues. I know this because I was on
the board of the State's largest bicycle advocacy group, and we were
asked to testify in favor of the bill, which we declined to do for a
number of reasons. One of our members opposed the bill formally on
behalf of another organization. Everyone on the board wore a helmet.
-- Jay Beattie.

 

[Sorni]

41 wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> jtaylor wrote:
>>> "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> message news:[email protected]...
>>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 14 May 2006 02:38:36 GMT, "Sorni"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> And "emotional decisions" are...BAD somehow?
>>>>
>>>>> Assuming access to good information, they're less effective than
>>>>> decisions based on reason, and are less useful in trying to serve
>>>>> as a model to other people.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, see, that's where I and many other helmet users differ from you
>>>> and Frank and Richard and 41 and...the rest: WE DON'T CLAIM TO BE
>>>> MODELS FOR ANYONE.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is that you may well not claim this, you are
>>> nevertheless seen as models by those who (like yourself) are
>>> unaware of the true value of cycle helmets (none) and will use your
>>> wearing of them as rationale for a compulsory helmet law.
>>
>> Value of cycling helmets = "NONE"? No use talking further...
>
> Which you then proceed to do, in three more successive posts, plenty
> more on the way. Conclusion: according to yourself, you are useless.

Stalk much? (BTW, I was talking to jtaylor. HTH.)

 

[Richard]

Jay Beattie wrote:
> Your conclusions are based on population studies, which I think you
> would agree do not necessarily reflect the risks encountered by
> particular individuals.

I agree.

> Helmets have considerable value for many
> riders who race, ride off road or who are exposed to increased risks
> due to weather conditions or road hazards.

Helmets appear to have /some/ value for some of the above. However, if
your racing speed is 30 mph+, or the road hazards are motor vehicles
hitting you, the impacts are so far outside the design spec for helmets
that they can safely be said to have no useful value at all.

> helmet. I think we would all agree that helmets help prevent focal
> injury including skull fracture and scalp injury.

Er, no, I don't. Scalp lacerations and bruising, yes. Skull
fracture, given the relative strengths of bone and of expanded
polystyrene? I think not.

> I watched the process here in Oregon that resulted in our MHL (which
> applies to children 16 years old and younger), and can safely say that
> those in favor of the law were not crusading helmet wearers. They were
> Kaiser Hospital doctors and nurses and soccer moms, one of whom was a
> former legislative assistant and knew how to toss a bill in the hopper.

But, I would suggest, they knew nothing about the mechanics of crashes,
the population studies on helmet injuries, and the effects on the health
of the population through decreased cycle use. (If they did know about
those things and still pushed the law through, then that makes things
worse).

> Indeed, some helmet wearers were against the the law because it took
> attention away from other safety issues.

Indeed.

R.

 

[p.k.]

Richard wrote:
> Jay Beattie wrote:
>> Your conclusions are based on population studies, which I think you
>> would agree do not necessarily reflect the risks encountered by
>> particular individuals.
>
> I agree.
>
>> Helmets have considerable value for many
>> riders who race, ride off road or who are exposed to increased risks
>> due to weather conditions or road hazards.
>
> Helmets appear to have /some/ value for some of the above. However,
> if your racing speed is 30 mph+, or the road hazards are motor
> vehicles hitting you, the impacts are so far outside the design spec
> for helmets that they can safely be said to have no useful value at
> all.


It is perfectly possible to have a collision with car travelling at 30mph
plus and for the head impact with the ground to be at a far lower speed
within the design range of the helmet thus your statement "the impacts are
so far outside the design spec for helmets that they can safely be said to
have no useful value at all. " is an overstatement.

pk

 

[[email protected]]

Jay Beattie wrote:
>
>
> Your conclusions are based on population studies, which I think you
> would agree do not necessarily reflect the risks encountered by
> particular individuals. Helmets have considerable value for many
> riders who race, ride off road or who are exposed to increased risks
> due to weather conditions or road hazards.

If they were promoted that way, there would be much less frustration
regarding this issue. But they are not promoted that way. They are
promoted as being absolutely necessary for all riders, under penalty of
death. This can't be good for cycling!

> I watched the process here in Oregon that resulted in our MHL (which
> applies to children 16 years old and younger), and can safely say that
> those in favor of the law were not crusading helmet wearers. They were
> Kaiser Hospital doctors and nurses and soccer moms, one of whom was a
> former legislative assistant and knew how to toss a bill in the hopper.
> Indeed, some helmet wearers were against the the law because it took
> attention away from other safety issues.

Incidentally, this illustrates the value of helmet threads.
Disseminating information on the real [lack of] benefit of helmets
really can make a difference.

When a friend and I testified against our state's proposed MHL, it was
obvious that most of the people standing up and passionately pleading
for the law had not heard a negative word about helmets. That included
nurses (but, IIRC, no doctors were there that day). Some came up to
us afterwards to ask for more information. And one, a Safe Kids
activist who is now a good friend of mine, has since changed her mind
on the issue. Her words to me were "You're right, Frank, there's SO
much more to bike safety than helmets!"

More importantly, it was obvious the legislators had never heard a
negative word about helmets. When we began to speak, quoting data,
numbers, large studies, sources, they literally sat up to take notice.
One committee member actually woke up - he had been dozing as the
pro-helmet camp droned on.

The information we're trading won't get disseminated any other way. As
they say, follow the money, There is much more money to be made by
promoting helmets and forcing people to wear them, rather than by
arguing against them.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Dane Buson]

In rec.bicycles.tech Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Oh, and we've all forgotten to mention that having a smoke alarm
> stuck to the hall ceiling reads roughly bugger all on the
> hassle-o-meter, and wearing a foam box on your head to ride a bike
> and then finding somewhere to stow it anywhere you've arrived
> doesn't.

I just dangle it from the handlebars in the vain hope someone will
adscond with it. Sadly, noone appears to want my cheap, sweaty, scuffed
helmet. [1]

[1] No, this is not any kind of endorsement towards wearing one. I live
in MHL country.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing
what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions.
-- David Jones

 

[41]

Sorni wrote:
> 41 wrote:
> > Sorni wrote:
> >> jtaylor wrote:
> >>> "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>> message news:[email protected]...
> >>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 14 May 2 006 02:38:36 GMT, "Sorni"
> >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> And "emotional decisions" are...BAD somehow?
> >>>>
> >>>>> Assuming access to good information, they're less effective than
> >>>>> decisions based on r eason, and are less useful in trying to serve
> >>>>> as a model to other people.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ah, see, that's where I and many other helmet users differ from you
> >>>> and Frank and Richard and 41 and...the rest: WE DON'T CLAIM TO BE
> >>>> MODELS FOR ANYONE.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The problem is that you may well not claim this, you are
> >>> nevertheless seen as models by those who (like yourself) are
> >>> unaware of the true value of cycle helmets (none) and will use your
> >>> wearing of them as rati onale for a compulsory helmet law.
> >>
> >> Value of cycling helmets = "NONE"? No use talking further...
> >
> > Which you then proceed to do, in three more successive posts, plenty
> > more on the way. Conclusion: according to yourself, you are useless.
>
> Stalk much? (BTW, I was talking to jtaylor. HTH.)

Scuse me for butting in on your private conversation. I was under the
impression this was a public newsgroup. Thanks though, we can now rest
assured you will not interject anywhere. What a pleasure that will be.
i

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Jay Beattie <[email protected]>:
>Your conclusions are based on population studies, which I think you
>would agree do not necessarily reflect the risks encountered by
>particular individuals. Helmets have considerable value for many
>riders who race, ride off road or who are exposed to increased risks
>due to weather conditions or road hazards.

Er... if the population studies show no effect, and helmets have
considerable value for some riders, who do you suppose bears the extra
risk to keep the overall effect at or close to zero?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is Second Sunday, May - a weekend.

 

[Richard]

p.k. wrote:

> It is perfectly possible to have a collision with car travelling at 30mph
> plus and for the head impact with the ground to be at a far lower speed
> within the design range of the helmet

Indeed. Now, *what proportion* of crashes where the motor vehicle is
going >= 30 mph involve a head impact with the ground such that the
helmet provides useful benefit. I suggest that the majority of
collisions where a motor vehicle hits a cyclist involve either direct
impact, and/or the vehicle running over the casualty; crash statistics
coupled with simple frontal area considerations suggest that, to first
order, any glancing impact crashes are a very small fraction of the whole.

(And don't forget to exclude all those crashes where the cyclist
sustained fatal non-head injuries, since clearly in those situations
they have no useful value at all even if they do protect the head
perfectly.)

> thus your statement "the impacts are
> so far outside the design spec for helmets that they can safely be said to
> have no useful value at all. " is an overstatement.

Until you can show that the proportion above/the overstatement is
significant, I stand by my argument; if you wish, I will qualify it with
"in the vast majority of cases".

R.

 

[jtaylor]

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

..
>
> Stalk much? (BTW, I was talking to jtaylor. HTH.)
>

Really?

How about answering these questions, then...

a) Is helmet wearing one of those simple decisions for which you have
decided you don't need data?

b) If you always wear a helmet for its (putative) protective value while
cycling, why don't you also do so while walking or driving in a motorcar?

c) If for some reason you had your bike with you and were in a nice place to
ride, but your helmet was unavailable, would you still ride?

 

[Richard]

Sorni wrote:

> Take a hi-speed skididng fall.

Have done, thanks.

> The helmet will help lessen or prevent
> cetrain types of injuries.

I wasn't wearing a helmet. I didn't suffer any head injury at all; my
head didn't hit the ground. I've no doubt that if I had been wearing a
helmet, it would've struck the ground; I was staring ants in the eye as
I slide past them. Now, you were telling me about how vital a helmet
is in this situation...

R.

 

[Sorni]

Richard wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>
>> Take a hi-speed skididng fall.
>
> Have done, thanks.
>
>> The helmet will help lessen or prevent
>> cetrain types of injuries.
>
> I wasn't wearing a helmet. I didn't suffer any head injury at all; my
> head didn't hit the ground. I've no doubt that if I had been wearing
> a helmet, it would've struck the ground; I was staring ants in the
> eye as I slide past them. Now, you were telling me about how vital
> a helmet is in this situation...

Only when one /does/ hit one's head.

HTH, BS

 

[Richard]

Sorni wrote:

>>>The helmet will help lessen or prevent
>>>cetrain types of injuries.
>>
>>I wasn't wearing a helmet. I didn't suffer any head injury at all; my
>>head didn't hit the ground. I've no doubt that if I had been wearing
>>a helmet, it would've struck the ground; I was staring ants in the
>>eye as I slide past them. Now, you were telling me about how vital
>>a helmet is in this situation...
>
> Only when one /does/ hit one's head.

Ah, I see. If I hit my head *because* I'm wearing a helmet, I should
therefore wear a helmet in case I hit my head... perfectly clear.

R.

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Richard wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>
>> Take a hi-speed skididng fall.
>
> Have done, thanks.
>
>> The helmet will help lessen or prevent
>> cetrain types of injuries.
>
> I wasn't wearing a helmet. I didn't suffer any head injury at all; my
> head didn't hit the ground. I've no doubt that if I had been wearing
> a helmet, it would've struck the ground; I was staring ants in the
> eye as I slide past them. Now, you were telling me about how vital
> a helmet is in this situation...

I have done the same.
--
Ambrose

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Mon, 15 May 2006 17:49:26 +0100, Richard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Jay Beattie wrote:
>> Your conclusions are based on population studies, which I think you
>> would agree do not necessarily reflect the risks encountered by
>> particular individuals.
>
>I agree.
>
>> Helmets have considerable value for many
>> riders who race, ride off road or who are exposed to increased risks
>> due to weather conditions or road hazards.
>
>Helmets appear to have /some/ value for some of the above. However, if
>your racing speed is 30 mph+,

It's quite possible to fall at that speed and not hit your head hard.
I fell going about 28mph once and just scuffed my helmet while
rolling.

>Er, no, I don't. Scalp lacerations and bruising, yes.

Yeah, probably saved me from that.

Not all crashes are head-on at the speed the rider is going.

JT


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

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 15 May 2006 09:09:02 -0700, "Jay Beattie"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>I watched the process here in Oregon that resulted in our MHL (which
>applies to children 16 years old and younger), and can safely say that
>those in favor of the law were not crusading helmet wearers. They were
>Kaiser Hospital doctors and nurses and soccer moms, one of whom was a
>former legislative assistant and knew how to toss a bill in the hopper.
> Indeed, some helmet wearers were against the the law because it took
>attention away from other safety issues. I know this because I was on
>the board of the State's largest bicycle advocacy group, and we were
>asked to testify in favor of the bill, which we declined to do for a
>number of reasons. One of our members opposed the bill formally on
>behalf of another organization. Everyone on the board wore a helmet.

Interesting.

JT

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

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Mon, 15 May 2006 19:50:08 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>Take a hi-speed skididng fall. The helmet will help lessen or prevent
>cetrain types of injuries. I know because I've seen it. I know because
>others have reported it right here in this little newsgroup.

Yeah. I *think* helmets help prevent cuts and bruises in those sorts
of accidents too.

JT

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

 

[Peter Clinch]

p.k. wrote:

> It is perfectly possible to have a collision with car travelling at 30mph
> plus and for the head impact with the ground to be at a far lower speed
> within the design range of the helmet thus your statement "the impacts are
> so far outside the design spec for helmets that they can safely be said to
> have no useful value at all. " is an overstatement.

On the one hand, yes, but on the other it is probably no longer a
collision where a helmet will make significant differences to the
survival chances, so we're back to bumps and grazes.

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/