Re: I crash into religion



in message <[email protected]>, Sorni
('[email protected]') wrote:

>> How do you know?
>
> 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.

You've seen a guy wearing a helmet land and be uninjured or
insignificantly injured. You are hypothesizing that he would have been
(more) injured had he not been wearing a helmet. You don't know this.

Last October I crashed at 46mph into a pile of granite boulders, having
failed to take a bend on a downhill. I suffered lacerations to my legs,
a broken back, and a small graze on my forehead. From which you may
conclude that my helmet worked.

It was one of these:
http://www.probikekit.com/display.php?code=C7379

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GP/CS s++: a++ C+++ ULBVCS*++++$ L+++ P--- E+>++ W+++ N++ K w--(---)
M- !d- PS++ PE-- Y+ PGP !t 5? X+ !R b++ !DI D G- e++ h*(-) r++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
 
Peter Clinch wrote:
> 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.

Do you begin to see how overstating a case weakens an argument by giving a
shot at an open goal & making one backtrack?

I've got a lot of experience organising campaigns to change LEA decisions or
obtain LEA action - I've no experience of ever losing a campaign.

Why? Well partly, we were always right! But mainly, because we always
subjected our arguments (verbal and written) to rigorous test in-house
before taking them public. Anyone in-house attacking an argument was not
criticised but the argument dropped/changed/modified accordingly to ensure
that when presenting the case WE retained the initiative and put the
opposition (LEA or other resident pressure group) on the back foot.

pk
 
p.k. wrote:
>
> I've got a lot of experience organising campaigns to change LEA decisions or
> obtain LEA action - I've no experience of ever losing a campaign.
>

Would those be the campaigns that get helmets made mandatory for cycling
to school or playing conkers without googles banned? Winning a
campaign does not mean you were right - the LEAs do plenty of things
that are nonsensical, some of them as a result of campaigns.


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> p.k. wrote:
>>
>> I've got a lot of experience organising campaigns to change LEA
>> decisions or obtain LEA action - I've no experience of ever losing a
>> campaign.
>
> Would those be the campaigns that get helmets made mandatory for
> cycling to school or playing conkers without googles banned? Winning a
> campaign does not mean you were right - the LEAs do plenty
> of things that are nonsensical, some of them as a result of campaigns.

No:

Saving a public park from building development

Saving a local primary school from closure (now one of the top performing
primaries in London)

Fronting a borough wide campaign to get the parental voice heard in a 3 to 2
tier school re-organisation

Representing the resident's voice wrt CPZ implementation

They good enough for you?

pk
 
p.k. wrote:

> No:
<snip>
> They good enough for you?

Not really the point, the point is that it isn't necessarily a case of
what's "good", it's what swings the biggest vote. They might be the
same thing, but it ain't necessarily so.

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/
 
jtaylor wrote:

> Please also tell us if helmet wearing is a decision you will base on
> information or on personal belief.

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

> > Across the entire population, yes. What is a little increased danger
> > for an individual becomes many deaths and serious injuries across the
> > entire population.
>
> And I contend that "what is a little increased PROTECTION for an
individual
> becomes many lives saved (OK, maybe not) and serious injuries PREVENTED
> across the entire population".
>

But your contention is wrong. Population-level studies show exactly the
opposite.

Now, these are the type of studies at which you refuse to look, because you
"...don't need data to make decisions". Do you refuse to look at them
because they disagree with your beliefs?

Remember, MHLs are promoted and legislated by people who make exactly these
errors, and make them in spite of the evidence.
 
"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> jtaylor wrote:

>
> What to do? Hey, I know! Let people make up their own minds. Don't
> ridicule those whose choice differs from ours. (ANd don't make unfounded
> accusations, either -- such as choosing to wear a lid is the same as being
> pro-MHL.)
>

This is not preposterous at all - legislators in the UK are on record as
stating they will introduce an MHL when helmet wearing rises to a certain
level. Wearing a helmet is therefore, ispo facto, a vote for compulsion.
 
"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> >>
> >>> Um, wasn't you who said of yourself "I don't need data to make
> >>> decisions"?
> >>
> >> Non-sequitur aside, pease provide the FULL CONTEXT of that alledged
> >> remark (something you MHZs are loathe to do, apparently) and I'll
> >> take a look.
> >>
> >
> >
http://groups.google.com/group/rec...._frm/thread/c4d2bfc95869fa05/b52a9b97d2c4cfe4
> >
> > (post #103)
>
> OK, my quote -- again, written /in context/ -- was this: "I don't need
> "data" to help me make simple, basic decisions." Can you make a
distinction
> between that and the blanket MISQUOTE you've attributed to me numerous
times
> now?
>
> It was a reply to Frank, who was belittling me for not being interested in
> spending hours and hours reading obscure tomes supposedly devoted to
> scientific research when in fact they're often biased and flawed (IMO). I
> simply have zero interest in doing that,

How can you say that they are biased and flawed if you will not read them?

And why are you not interested in doing the reading - you've certainly
expressed a huge amount of interest in bicycle helmets in these threads; if
you actually knew something about them you might be able to contribute a
little.
 
"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> While many mountain bikers and BMXers use such pads, most people of course
> deem their head more important to protect than their limbs. Gray matter,
> facial features, eyes, etc.

You wear a cycle helmet that covers your face and eyes?
 
On Mon, 22 May 2006 07:55:50 -0300, "jtaylor"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> While many mountain bikers and BMXers use such pads, most people of course
>> deem their head more important to protect than their limbs. Gray matter,
>> facial features, eyes, etc.
>
>You wear a cycle helmet that covers your face and eyes?

Some do -- those motorcycle-style helmet with moutgaurds and face
masks. I saw a bike messenger in an actual motorcycle helmet, on the
road, on Friday.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 22 May 2006 07:55:50 -0300, "jtaylor"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >
> >> While many mountain bikers and BMXers use such pads, most people of
course
> >> deem their head more important to protect than their limbs. Gray
matter,
> >> facial features, eyes, etc.
> >
> >You wear a cycle helmet that covers your face and eyes?
>
> Some do -- those motorcycle-style helmet with moutgaurds and face
> masks. I saw a bike messenger in an actual motorcycle helmet, on the
> road, on Friday.
>

Good god, next we'll have MFFHL's (Manditory Full-Face Helmet Laws).
 
jtaylor wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 9 May 2006 12:31:19 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The idea that a helmet might actually hurt worse than it
>> helps is counter-intuitive, but then a lot of things are.
>>
>
> It seems that for Ozark and Sorni, intuition triumphs fact every time.

jtaylor strikes yet another devastating blow. (And, of course, a vital one
at that.)
 
jtaylor wrote (of something I said over TEN DAYS ago):
> "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>>>
>>>>> Um, wasn't you who said of yourself "I don't need data to make
>>>>> decisions"?
>>>>
>>>> Non-sequitur aside, pease provide the FULL CONTEXT of that alledged
>>>> remark (something you MHZs are loathe to do, apparently) and I'll
>>>> take a look.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec...._frm/thread/c4d2bfc95869fa05/b52a9b97d2c4cfe4
>>>
>>> (post #103)
>>
>> OK, my quote -- again, written /in context/ -- was this: "I don't
>> need "data" to help me make simple, basic decisions." Can you make
>> a distinction between that and the blanket MISQUOTE you've
>> attributed to me numerous times now?
>>
>> It was a reply to Frank, who was belittling me for not being
>> interested in spending hours and hours reading obscure tomes
>> supposedly devoted to scientific research when in fact they're often
>> biased and flawed (IMO). I simply have zero interest in doing that,
>
> How can you say that they are biased and flawed if you will not read
> them?

You missed the word "often". HTH.
>
> And why are you not interested in doing the reading - you've certainly
> expressed a huge amount of interest in bicycle helmets in these
> threads; if you actually knew something about them you might be able
> to contribute a little.

And why are you returning to an exchange that's over 10 days old? (My
comments were from 5/11; today is the 22nd.)

I've explained my positions and opinions over and over. At least stick to
"current material"...

Bill "now wonder these threads won't die" S.
 
jtaylor wrote:
> "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> jtaylor wrote:
>
>>
>> What to do? Hey, I know! Let people make up their own minds. Don't
>> ridicule those whose choice differs from ours. (ANd don't make
>> unfounded accusations, either -- such as choosing to wear a lid is
>> the same as being pro-MHL.)
>>
>
> This is not preposterous at all - legislators in the UK are on record
> as stating they will introduce an MHL when helmet wearing rises to a
> certain level. Wearing a helmet is therefore, ispo facto, a vote for
> compulsion.

I'm not in the UK. HTH.
 
jtaylor wrote:
> "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> While many mountain bikers and BMXers use such pads, most people of
>> course deem their head more important to protect than their limbs.
>> Gray matter, facial features, eyes, etc.
>
> You wear a cycle helmet that covers your face and eyes?

You go back 12 days to troll for aggravation? (At least in two threads so
far. How many are there?)

(My comment, /in context/, was that most mtb-ers don't wear all the elbow
and knee pads and chest protectors, etc. They DO wear helmets because the
head is more important to at least /try/ to protect. Yours may not be.)
 
In article <[email protected]>, Sorni wrote:
>jtaylor wrote:
>> "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> jtaylor wrote:
>>>
>>> What to do? Hey, I know! Let people make up their own minds. Don't
>>> ridicule those whose choice differs from ours. (ANd don't make
>>> unfounded accusations, either -- such as choosing to wear a lid is
>>> the same as being pro-MHL.)
>>
>> This is not preposterous at all - legislators in the UK are on record
>> as stating they will introduce an MHL when helmet wearing rises to a
>> certain level. Wearing a helmet is therefore, ispo facto, a vote for
>> compulsion.
>
>I'm not in the UK. HTH.

You are however, crossposting to uk.rec.cycling. Followup-To: set.
 
"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> jtaylor wrote:
> > "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> jtaylor wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> What to do? Hey, I know! Let people make up their own minds. Don't
> >> ridicule those whose choice differs from ours. (ANd don't make
> >> unfounded accusations, either -- such as choosing to wear a lid is
> >> the same as being pro-MHL.)
> >>
> >
> > This is not preposterous at all - legislators in the UK are on record
> > as stating they will introduce an MHL when helmet wearing rises to a
> > certain level. Wearing a helmet is therefore, ispo facto, a vote for
> > compulsion.
>
> I'm not in the UK. HTH.
>

Does your jurisdiction have an MHL?

Yet?
 
"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> jtaylor wrote:
> > "Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >> While many mountain bikers and BMXers use such pads, most people of
> >> course deem their head more important to protect than their limbs.
> >> Gray matter, facial features, eyes, etc.
> >
> > You wear a cycle helmet that covers your face and eyes?
>


>
> (My comment, /in context/, was that most mtb-ers don't wear all the elbow
> and knee pads and chest protectors, etc. They DO wear helmets because the
> head is more important to at least /try/ to protect. Yours may not be.)
>

But why, then, did you say "facial features, eyes, etc."

Are you subscribing to the supposed magical protective properties of
helmets - y'know, like the ability to prevent something like 75% of leg
injuries?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Re: I crash into religion
Replies
10
Views
473
UK and Europe
Don Whybrow
D
J
Re: I crash into religion
Replies
4
Views
429
UK and Europe
John Forrest Tomlinson
J
J
Re: I crash into religion
Replies
3
Views
404
UK and Europe
Simon Brooke
S
J
Re: I crash into religion
Replies
3
Views
370
UK and Europe
Ozark Bicycle
O
S
Re: I crash into religion
Replies
371
Views
6K
UK and Europe
Espressopithecus (Java Man)
E
Top Bottom Back