Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet



David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting <[email protected]>:
>> David Damerell wrote:
>>> Your reading comprehension is too limited to explain this. I did
>>> not say that the negative and positive effects were equal. Please
>>> reread it until you understand what I am saying; then perhaps we
>>> can discuss it.

>> You wrote:
>>>>> the supposed negative and positive effects being discussed are
>>>>> equally "once an accident has happened".

>> I'm guessing you meant "equal".

>
> Well, you're wrong. I wrote "equally" because I meant "equally", of
> course. Why don't you try reading what I wrote, not what you think I
> wrote?


"the supposed negative and positive effects being discussed are equally
'once an accident has happened'" makes no sense.

HTH, BS
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Oh dear, you accidentally forgot to provide the evidence to back your
> assertions, as requested in the bit you snipped.
>
> So let's be clear, here: you assert with great confidence that dynamo
> lighting is unsafe.


You're looking more and more like Frank, trying to create strawmen. I
have never stated that dynamo lighting is unsafe.

Again, if you want to discuss the relative merits of each type of
lighting system, please start a thread on that subject. This thread has
digressed enough as it is.
 
David Damerell wrote:

> Quoting Mark & Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]>:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>An interesting test for someone who thinks they _don't_ risk compensate
>>>is this: Get into a car and drive in heavy traffic with no seatbelt
>>>and no airbag.

>>
>> Oh, and considering that the lack of seatbelts as a safety device will
>>stop me driving (or that I will not cycle if I've forgotten my helmet on
>>a ride)

>
>
> Then you pretty clearly risk compensate. Lacking a seatbelt, you reduce
> the chance of being in a motor accident to zero; given a seatbelt, you
> increase it to some higher figure.


Only as a driver or passenger. But most of you anti-helmet crowd
claim that many people will ride less if they are required to wear a
helmet. I'm saying I will ride less if I am forced NOT to wear a helmet.
However, I assume you are not speaking hypothetically or to be cute;
when they mandate that we NOT wear helmets or wear seatbelts, my risk
avoidance will be real and not imaginary.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
 
Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> David Damerell wrote:
>
> > Quoting Mark & Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]>:
> >
> >>[email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>>An interesting test for someone who thinks they _don't_ risk compensate
> >>>is this: Get into a car and drive in heavy traffic with no seatbelt
> >>>and no airbag.
> >>
> >> Oh, and considering that the lack of seatbelts as a safety device will
> >>stop me driving (or that I will not cycle if I've forgotten my helmet on
> >>a ride)

> >
> >
> > Then you pretty clearly risk compensate. Lacking a seatbelt, you reduce
> > the chance of being in a motor accident to zero; given a seatbelt, you
> > increase it to some higher figure.

>
> Only as a driver or passenger. But most of you anti-helmet crowd
> claim that many people will ride less if they are required to wear a
> helmet.


Again: the "anti-helmet crowd" is not interested in forbidding
helmets. It's much more accurate to describe me as "helmet skeptic."

But yes, we do claim that people will ride less if required to wear a
helmet. And, as is usually the case, we have data that shows that's
true. Wearing a helmet is a negative to most people. If not, most
people would be wearing them all the time.


> I'm saying I will ride less if I am forced NOT to wear a helmet.


IOW, you perceive there is protection from the helmet. Therefore,
because of that perceived protection, you engage in an activity you
would otherwise avoid, at least sometimes. Briefly, you are giving
personal testimony about your risk compensation.


> However, I assume you are not speaking hypothetically or to be cute;
> when they mandate that we NOT wear helmets or wear seatbelts, my risk
> avoidance will be real and not imaginary.


And, yet again: There is NOBODY who is seriously proposing that
helmets be outlawed.

But there are many people - in legislatures, in lobbying groups, on
helmet promotion websites - that propose that bicycling without a
helmet should be outlawed.

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:
>
>
> Again: the "anti-helmet crowd" is not interested in forbidding
> helmets. It's much more accurate to describe me as "helmet skeptic."
>
> But yes, we do claim that people will ride less if required to wear a
> helmet. And, as is usually the case, we have data that shows that's
> true. Wearing a helmet is a negative to most people. If not, most
> people would be wearing them all the time.
>
>
>
>> I'm saying I will ride less if I am forced NOT to wear a helmet.

>
>
> IOW, you perceive there is protection from the helmet. Therefore,
> because of that perceived protection, you engage in an activity you
> would otherwise avoid, at least sometimes. Briefly, you are giving
> personal testimony about your risk compensation.


Yes--if you define wearing a helmet as "risk compensation". Of course,
you wouldn't, but I would. ;-)
Of course, there are risks I face every day at home and (especially) in
the workplace. Yes, I wouldn't pick up a hot pan without a potholder.
So you may say the potholder permits me to engage in a theoretically
risky activity. You may, but I reserve the right to call you silly!

Steve
>
>
>
>> However, I assume you are not speaking hypothetically or to be cute;
>>when they mandate that we NOT wear helmets or wear seatbelts, my risk
>>avoidance will be real and not imaginary.

>
>
> And, yet again: There is NOBODY who is seriously proposing that
> helmets be outlawed.
>
> But there are many people - in legislatures, in lobbying groups, on
> helmet promotion websites - that propose that bicycling without a
> helmet should be outlawed.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>



--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
 
In article <Dy7Ne.2831$wb.2478@trndny08>,
Mark & Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:


>> IOW, you perceive there is protection from the helmet. Therefore,
>> because of that perceived protection, you engage in an activity you
>> would otherwise avoid, at least sometimes. Briefly, you are giving
>> personal testimony about your risk compensation.

>
> Yes--if you define wearing a helmet as "risk compensation". Of course,
>you wouldn't, but I would. ;-)


Or if you do something with the helmet that you wouldn't do without it,
because of the (perceived) protection that you get from the helmet.

> Of course, there are risks I face every day at home and (especially) in
>the workplace. Yes, I wouldn't pick up a hot pan without a potholder.
>So you may say the potholder permits me to engage in a theoretically
>risky activity. You may, but I reserve the right to call you silly!


How is that silly? If you're picking up a hot pan that you wouldn't pick
up without the potholder, you're compensating for the protection that
the potholder provides by doing something that would be prohibitively
dangerous without it.

What you're missing is that risk compensation isn't inherently a Bad
Thing; if you're correctly assessing the risks involved and the protection
provided by safety equipment, risk compensation is what allows you to
do things that are desirable or important but that would be dangerous
under some conditions - like, say, getting out of bed in the morning.
Would you trust your potholder to protect you if you were picking up, say,
a red-hot horseshoe fresh off of a blacksmith's anvil? Why or why not?
Would it be silly and/or stupid to give the opposite answer?

For an illustration that's on topic here: When I'm riding my bike
at night, I just turn on my lights and proceed to ride the same way
as I would during the day without worrying about not being seen; I'm
compensating for the added safety provided by the lights (people can see
that I'm there because of the lights, even if they can't actually see me
or the bike) by doing something that decreases my safety (not worrying
about getting out of the way of other road users because they might
not know I'm there). Would it be stupid to assume that I was visible
at night without the lights? Would it be silly to stop and pull off
of the road every time a car came by because they might not see me,
even if I had my lights on?


Where risk compensation is a problem is when the perceived extra
safety from something is greater than the actual extra safety, and
the compensation for the perceived extra safety actually puts you at
significant extra risk. If I gave you a thin plastic glove (like the
ones used by food handlers at fast-food restaurants) and told you that it
would protect your hand from the hot pan (and you believed me), would you
go ahead and pick up the pan with it? If you burned your hand doing it,
would you conclude that picking up hot pans is dangerous and therefore
a Bad Thing to do, or that the glove didn't provide the protection
I claimed it would and that something that actually did provide that
protection would make it safe to pick up the pan?


Go read the description of what kind of impact helmets are actually rated
for (you should have no trouble finding references in any of three or
four current threads). After reading it, would you trust that to protect
you from anything you wouldn't be able to walk away from without it?
If not, why are you doing something with the helmet that puts you at
(perceived) risk of serious injury without it?


Once you've read *and* *understood* that last paragraph, and thought
through the consequences of what it says, go back and read this again:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> IOW, you perceive there is protection from the helmet. Therefore,
>> because of that perceived protection, you engage in an activity you
>> would otherwise avoid, at least sometimes. Briefly, you are giving
>> personal testimony about your risk compensation.


and tell us whether it makes sense, and whether your response to it
makes sense.


dave

--
Dave Vandervies [email protected]
[Y]ou're overlooking the origin of the doctrine, which is inherently based
in mercy, something God has been accused of from time to time, with varying
degrees of justification. --Eric Schwartz in the scary devil monastery
 
"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:3wSMe.9652$p%[email protected]...
> Very appropriate. The reason that some people, i.e. Frank and Guy, are so
> unrelenting in their postings of what is known not to be true, is because
> they want others to share their faith in what they know to be untrue.
> Evangelists are always the most insecure people.


That, and they have jobs which feature virtually limitless and unsupervised
access to computers.

Oh, yeah, that and no life at all.
 
Dave Vandervies wrote:
> In article <Dy7Ne.2831$wb.2478@trndny08>,
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:

>
>
>>>IOW, you perceive there is protection from the helmet. Therefore,
>>>because of that perceived protection, you engage in an activity you
>>>would otherwise avoid, at least sometimes. Briefly, you are giving
>>>personal testimony about your risk compensation.

>>
>> Yes--if you define wearing a helmet as "risk compensation". Of course,
>>you wouldn't, but I would. ;-)

>
>
> Or if you do something with the helmet that you wouldn't do without it,
> because of the (perceived) protection that you get from the helmet.
>
>
>> Of course, there are risks I face every day at home and (especially) in
>>the workplace. Yes, I wouldn't pick up a hot pan without a potholder.
>>So you may say the potholder permits me to engage in a theoretically
>>risky activity. You may, but I reserve the right to call you silly!

>
>
> How is that silly? If you're picking up a hot pan that you wouldn't pick
> up without the potholder, you're compensating for the protection that
> the potholder provides by doing something that would be prohibitively
> dangerous without it.
>
> What you're missing is that risk compensation isn't inherently a Bad
> Thing; if you're correctly assessing the risks involved and the protection
> provided by safety equipment, risk compensation is what allows you to
> do things that are desirable or important but that would be dangerous
> under some conditions - like, say, getting out of bed in the morning.
> Would you trust your potholder to protect you if you were picking up, say,
> a red-hot horseshoe fresh off of a blacksmith's anvil? Why or why not?
> Would it be silly and/or stupid to give the opposite answer?


Context is everything. Anti-helmet folks using risk compensation seem
to say that any perceived protective measure is useless for its intended
function--that safety measures in short do not promote safety--that they
promote risky behavior. There is no acknowledgement that there is any
benefit to safety devices or behaviors. No time in this very lengthy
debate (to my knowledge) is spent on speculating how safety devices can
be improved; only whether they have a right to exist at all

>
> For an illustration that's on topic here: When I'm riding my bike
> at night, I just turn on my lights and proceed to ride the same way
> as I would during the day without worrying about not being seen; I'm
> compensating for the added safety provided by the lights (people can see
> that I'm there because of the lights, even if they can't actually see me
> or the bike) by doing something that decreases my safety (not worrying
> about getting out of the way of other road users because they might
> not know I'm there). Would it be stupid to assume that I was visible
> at night without the lights? Would it be silly to stop and pull off
> of the road every time a car came by because they might not see me,
> even if I had my lights on?
>
>
> Where risk compensation is a problem is when the perceived extra
> safety from something is greater than the actual extra safety, and
> the compensation for the perceived extra safety actually puts you at
> significant extra risk. If I gave you a thin plastic glove (like the
> ones used by food handlers at fast-food restaurants) and told you that it
> would protect your hand from the hot pan (and you believed me), would you
> go ahead and pick up the pan with it? If you burned your hand doing it,
> would you conclude that picking up hot pans is dangerous and therefore
> a Bad Thing to do, or that the glove didn't provide the protection
> I claimed it would and that something that actually did provide that
> protection would make it safe to pick up the pan?
>
>
> Go read the description of what kind of impact helmets are actually rated
> for (you should have no trouble finding references in any of three or
> four current threads). After reading it, would you trust that to protect
> you from anything you wouldn't be able to walk away from without it?
> If not, why are you doing something with the helmet that puts you at
> (perceived) risk of serious injury without it?
>
>
> Once you've read *and* *understood* that last paragraph, and thought
> through the consequences of what it says, go back and read this again:
>
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>IOW, you perceive there is protection from the helmet. Therefore,
>>>because of that perceived protection, you engage in an activity you
>>>would otherwise avoid, at least sometimes. Briefly, you are giving
>>>personal testimony about your risk compensation.

>>

>
> and tell us whether it makes sense, and whether your response to it
> makes sense.


It makes sense, as does my response--because the use of the term "risk
compensation" in this thread has become as slippery as Frank wants it to be.

Steve

>
>
> dave
>



--
Cut the nonsense to reply
 
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> David Damerell wrote:
>> Quoting <[email protected]>:
>>> David Damerell wrote:
>>>> Your reading comprehension is too limited to explain this. I did
>>>> not say that the negative and positive effects were equal. Please
>>>> reread it until you understand what I am saying; then perhaps we
>>>> can discuss it.
>>> You wrote:
>>>>>> the supposed negative and positive effects being discussed are
>>>>>> equally "once an accident has happened".
>>> I'm guessing you meant "equal".

>>
>> Well, you're wrong. I wrote "equally" because I meant "equally", of
>> course. Why don't you try reading what I wrote, not what you think I
>> wrote?

>
> "the supposed negative and positive effects being discussed are equally
> 'once an accident has happened'" makes no sense.


Do you suppose that's what he meant when he said that he meant to write
"equally"? I'm thinking that what he's saying is that he meant to write
nonsense.
 
Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
> Context is everything. Anti-helmet folks using risk compensation seem
> to say that any perceived protective measure is useless for its intended
> function--that safety measures in short do not promote safety--that they
> promote risky behavior.


That phrase "seem to say" is as accurate as a third grader saying "The
teacher seems to say three times four is fourteen." IOW, you must not
have been paying attention.

What we're saying - well expressed by Dave - is that whether a "safety"
measure is useful or not depends at least partly on whether the user
has a realistic sense of its protective effect.

Risk compensation is real, and denying it is vacuous. It's far too
easy to demonstrate. But that doesn't disprove the benefit of _any_
safety item. To attach hypothetical numbers (for explanation only), if
the person behaves 30% riskier and the protection is 40% greater, the
person still comes out ahead. If the person behaves 50% riskier with
that same protection, the person comes out behind.

What affects the person's behavior? In part, his estimate of
protection. As I've said before, side impact beams in car doors are
largely unknown to consumers. They're not visible, and people don't
think about their presence. They probably cause negligible risk
compensation. Therefore, if they have _any_ protective effect, it's
probably a net positive situation.

OTOH, helmets are constantly obvious on one's head. Worse, the public
has been convinced that they prevent 85% of truly serious head
injuries. Many people probably believe they prevent 85% of fatalities.
Given those facts, helmets probably generate extreme risk
compensation.

I really do believe that if people knew and understood the incredibly
low level of impact in the certification tests, helmet-induced risk
compensation would largely vanish. Unfortunately, the helmet promotion
hasn't started with "Helmets are 85% effective." It's started with
"Cycling is incredibly dangerous." At this point, I think our phobic
public would stop cycling entirely.

> There is no acknowledgement that there is any
> benefit to safety devices or behaviors.


I don't need to come in here and praise safety devices. We have an
entire industry, plus dozens of government agencies, doing that all the
time. It's reached ludicrous proportions.

Regarding "safety behaviors," I can discuss those readily. Those are
where the emphasis _should_ be. But it's not, not at all. "Bicycle
safety" has become equated with "bicycle helmet."

Maybe it's a natural effect of an instant gratification consumer
society - but
when people want to be safer, they don't try to _learn_ anything; they
try to _buy_ something. And hey, if that "something" fixes 85% of the
problem, why bother with learning?

> No time in this very lengthy
> debate (to my knowledge) is spent on speculating how safety devices can
> be improved; only whether they have a right to exist at all


We can talk about how to improve helmets, if that's what you want.
It's simple. Make them much thicker. Do away with most of the
ventilation holes. Bring back the hard shells. Oh, and redesign the
ridiculously ineffective straps with something that will keep its shape
and adjustment - maybe solid plastic.

One more thing: If you take the recommendation of the Thompson &
Rivara team (originators of the "85%" ****), you should build rigid
chin bars into all bike helmets. You know - full face helmets for
ordinary riding. They actually have called for such things.

Do all those things, and you can probably increase a bike helmet's
protective range from the current 14 mph impact of a decapitated head,
to perhaps an 18 mph impact of a decapitated head.


> the use of the term "risk
> compensation" in this thread has become as slippery as Frank wants it to be.


You know, I teach for a living. And I've learned that not all students
will get the subject material, no matter what I do or say.

Some just can't comprehend, and some just don't want to comprehend.

Whatever the reason, Steven, I'd recommend you drop this class. If you
truly don't understand what risk compensation is by now, you're just
not keeping up.

- Frank Krygowski
 
In article <3w4Ne.2836$wb.2818@trndny09>,
Mark & Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]>
wrote:

> David Damerell wrote:
>
> > Quoting Mark & Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]>:
> >
> >>[email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>>An interesting test for someone who thinks they _don't_ risk compensate
> >>>is this: Get into a car and drive in heavy traffic with no seatbelt
> >>>and no airbag.
> >>
> >> Oh, and considering that the lack of seatbelts as a safety device will
> >>stop me driving (or that I will not cycle if I've forgotten my helmet on
> >>a ride)

> >
> >
> > Then you pretty clearly risk compensate. Lacking a seatbelt, you reduce
> > the chance of being in a motor accident to zero; given a seatbelt, you
> > increase it to some higher figure.

>
> Only as a driver or passenger. But most of you anti-helmet crowd


There is no "anti-helmet crowd." It is all in your head.

[...]

--
Michael Press
 
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Context is everything. Anti-helmet folks using risk compensation
>> seem

>
> There are no "anti-helmet folks." It is all in your mind.


That's funny, I could have sworn it's been on my computer screen!
 
Bob the Cow wrote:

> That, and they have jobs which feature virtually limitless and unsupervised
> access to computers.


Virtually or morally?

--
IT Management. Tel: +64 3 479 5478
Web and database hosting, Co-location. Web: http://www.wic.co.nz
Software development. Email: [email protected]
 
I submit that on or about Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:38:19 -0400, the person
known to the court as The Wogster <[email protected]> made a
statement (<[email protected]> in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

>I doubt it would take much to feed the output of a hub generator into a
>trickle type charger that charges a small battery, then have the battery
>power the lamps, giving you the best of both worlds.


No need: modern dynamo lights are available with built-in standlights.
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
 
I submit that on or about Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:42:54 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS <[email protected]> made a statement
(<iU2Ne.9769$p%[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

> > Oh dear, you accidentally forgot to provide the evidence to back your
> > assertions, as requested in the bit you snipped.
> > So let's be clear, here: you assert with great confidence that dynamo
> > lighting is unsafe.


>You're looking more and more like Frank, trying to create strawmen. I
>have never stated that dynamo lighting is unsafe.


So you say. And of course in ScharfWorld, denouncing them as
"woefully inadequate" is of course completely different...

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.bicycles.misc/msg/0932eb63e019ed2d?dmode=source&hl=en

But once again you "forgot" to post any evidence! So, where is your
externally verifiable evidence that these systems are "woefully
inadequate"? Per-mile collision data for dynamo versus battery users
would prove your point nicely.

You also say "The only good dynamo system remains the very expensive
Dymotec S12 with its 12 volt/5W headlight." This conflicts with the
opinions of a very large number of dynamo users: the SON 6V hub is
widely reckoned to be the best dynamo on the market.

You also instruct people not to rely on the generator lighting systems
on the commuter bikes you discuss on your pages. I guess that since
you read on a web page somewhere that you are "one of Earth's leading
experts on bicycle lighting" that must make your judgment superior to
that of the manufacturers of those bikes, to say nothing of the many
cyclists who have bought them and mysteriously failed to die as a
result of their "woefully inadequate" lighting. Mind you, a 0.2W LED
is enough to stop side-impacts, it's only 3W headlights which are
inadequate...

>Again, if you want to discuss the relative merits of each type of
>lighting system, please start a thread on that subject. This thread has
>digressed enough as it is.


Once again you miss the point. This is not really about lighting,
it's about the way you make dogmatic assertions, falsely portray as
extremists those who would allow cyclists to make choices other than
the one you make, as if it is your dogmatic view which is balanced:
you do not permit of the possibility that you may be wrong, but when
challenged for hard evidence you are mysteriously silent.

I guess to a zealot like you every agnostic looks like an atheist :)
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:
> I submit that on or about Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:38:19 -0400, the person
> known to the court as The Wogster <[email protected]> made a
> statement (<[email protected]> in Your
> Honour's bundle) to the following effect:
>
>
>>I doubt it would take much to feed the output of a hub generator into a
>>trickle type charger that charges a small battery, then have the battery
>>power the lamps, giving you the best of both worlds.

>
>
> No need: modern dynamo lights are available with built-in standlights.
> Guy


But think about it for a second, the argument against dynamo lights is
their low power (no matter how you look at it, 3Watts at 3V is pretty
dim). The problem with battery systems is that the batteries, go flat.

So, how about combining the two, a hub generator outputs power at all
times, so it would be charging the battery, ride all day, and your
battery is fully charged, then you can ride all night, without being
concerned with a battery that is going to go flat.

W
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]> wrote:


> Context is everything. Anti-helmet folks using risk compensation seem
>to say that any perceived protective measure is useless for its intended
>function--that safety measures in short do not promote safety--that they
>promote risky behavior.


The only reason they seem to be saying that is because you're not reading
for comprehension. It usually goes something like this:

Helmet Zealot: Everybody should wear a helmet.
FK: Why? What benefit do they provide?
HZ: They prevent head injuries.
FK: What kind of head injuries?
HZ: All of 'em.
FK: Really? Cite?
HZ: You're claiming they don't? Cite?
FK: Here you go.
HZ2: But helmets prevent most serious injuries, so everybody should
wear one.
FK: No, they don't, and if you ride as if they will you're exposing
yourself to more risk.
HZ2: But cycling is dangerous, and people need the helmet to protect
them.

....and this is where risk compensation gets introduced. If the protective
measure is completely inadequate for its intended function, then it *is*
useless, risk compensation or not - and if it's assumed to be effective,
it's worse than useless, because of the risk compensation that that
assumption leads to.

Of course, Frank isn't always as clear as he could be on the subject,
but I think that's an unavoidable consequence of the amount of time he
spends arguing with idiots about it. When the best response you can
hope for, no matter how well you present something, is a blank stare
(or the usenet equivalent), there's no way to tell whether you need to
improve your presentation, and not much of an incentive to do so either.

Which is why it's nice to have people who don't spend enough time arguing
with idiots to run into that, but aren't sick enough of it that they
don't occasionally stick their heads in to address some particularly
egregious reasoning errors. I like to think I'm one of those.



>
>Dave Vandervies wrote:


>> Once you've read *and* *understood* that last paragraph, and thought
>> through the consequences of what it says, go back and read this again:
>>
>>
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>IOW, you perceive there is protection from the helmet. Therefore,
>>>>because of that perceived protection, you engage in an activity you
>>>>would otherwise avoid, at least sometimes. Briefly, you are giving
>>>>personal testimony about your risk compensation.
>>>

>>
>> and tell us whether it makes sense, and whether your response to it
>> makes sense.

>
> It makes sense, as does my response--because the use of the term "risk
>compensation" in this thread has become as slippery as Frank wants it to be.


Slipperier than it should be, perhaps, but you're as much to blame as
him for that (if not more).

And it appears you still haven't read and understood what I wrote.
Are you going to, or are you just going to tell us why you should be
allowed to remain stupid because you can't be bothered to understand
what we're trying to tell you?


dave

--
Dave Vandervies [email protected]
(In the interest of full disclosure, I do, however, have a friend
who is a rocket scientist.)
--Ben Pfaff in comp.lang.c
 
Dave Vandervies wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Context is everything. Anti-helmet folks using risk compensation
>> seem
>> to say that any perceived protective measure is useless for its
>> intended function--that safety measures in short do not promote
>> safety--that they promote risky behavior.

>
> The only reason they seem to be saying that is because you're not
> reading for comprehension. It usually goes something like this:
>
> Helmet Zealot: Everybody should wear a helmet.
> FK: Why? What benefit do they provide?
> HZ: They prevent head injuries.
> FK: What kind of head injuries?
> HZ: All of 'em.


Bzzt. Disqualified right there! (Has anyone EVER said that?!?)

Thanks for playing; enjoy your lovely parting gift. {pause} HOPE IT FITS!
<eg>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
>Dave Vandervies wrote:


>> HZ: All of 'em.

>
>Bzzt. Disqualified right there! (Has anyone EVER said that?!?)


Probably not in so many words, but given the reactions that come up when
somebody tries to point out that a helmet really isn't much more than
a scratch protector, it's hardly unfair as a one-line summary.


dave

--
Dave Vandervies [email protected]
(In the interest of full disclosure, I do, however, have a friend
who is a rocket scientist.)
--Ben Pfaff in comp.lang.c
 

Similar threads