Helmets: A religious question

[-]

1. Any post having to do with whether helmets are good or bad,
worthwhile or useless, whether they save lives or are a waste of money,
etc., etc., is essentially religious in nature, and therefore not subject
to rational argument.

2. While there may indeed be some underlying "truth" concerning the
utility of helmets, those who contribute to such threads are generally
more interested in expounding their own opinions (as supported by their
own data selections, interpretations, etc.) than in arriving at a
consensus as to what such an underlying truth might be. The supposedly
"logical" arguments that fill such posts are nothing but a pretext.

3. Opinions in this matter are held with religious conviction: Have you
ever read a statement such as, "I used to think helmets were useless,
until I read the post by Mr. Z. Now I wear one all the time. Thanks for
your great insights, Mr. Z!" No, you have not. (Well, people do change
their religions, so I guess such an exchange would be theoretically
possible, but at a minimum, people of different faiths all believe in a
God of _some_ kind. The helmet wars are more like the believers against
the atheists.)

Conclusion: All pro- or con- helmet posts, as well as those supposedly
soliciting advice about helmets ("Are helmets worth it?" etc., etc., are,
ipso facto, trolls, i.e., invitations to argue -- if not with the poster,
then with each other. A post with a subject line such as "New helmet
research results -- not a troll" is, in fact, a bald-faced troll. Can you
spell T-R-O-L-L? (You can spell it H-E-L-M-E-T if you like!)

Have fun debating this proposition.

AGM

[Mitch Haley]

- wrote:
>
> 2. While there may indeed be some underlying "truth" concerning the
> utility of helmets, those who contribute to such threads are generally
> more interested in expounding their own opinions (as supported by their
> own data selections, interpretations, etc.) than in arriving at a
> consensus as to what such an underlying truth might be. The supposedly
> "logical" arguments that fill such posts are nothing but a pretext.

You appear to have described JPoulos and BZaumen, but most everybody
else here is open to discussion of the facts. You can't, however, make
false claims as to the facts without getting stomped on by the ones who
did their homework and know better.


>
> 3. Opinions in this matter are held with religious conviction: Have you
> ever read a statement such as, "I used to think helmets were useless,
> until I read the post by Mr. Z. Now I wear one all the time. Thanks for
> your great insights, Mr. Z!" No, you have not. (Well, people do change
> their religions, so I guess such an exchange would be theoretically
> possible,

I grew up believing in God and motorcycle helmets. It wasn't a far
jump from there to believing in bicycle helmet advertising. In the
late 1980's I saw the rapid changeover from helmets to foam hats and
began to think that style was more important than protection. It didn't
matter that much to me, I still had a stockpile of helmets that would
last me a while. It was here that I first began to realize it was all
about style and profits, and not at all about injury prevention.

> A post with a subject line such as "New helmet
> research results -- not a troll" is, in fact, a bald-faced troll. Can you
> spell T-R-O-L-L? (You can spell it H-E-L-M-E-T if you like!)
> Have fun debating this proposition.

Now who is trolling?

Mitch.

[Mitch Haley]

- wrote:
>
> 2. While there may indeed be some underlying "truth" concerning the
> utility of helmets, those who contribute to such threads are generally
> more interested in expounding their own opinions (as supported by their
> own data selections, interpretations, etc.) than in arriving at a
> consensus as to what such an underlying truth might be. The supposedly
> "logical" arguments that fill such posts are nothing but a pretext.

You appear to have described JPoulos and BZaumen, but most everybody
else here is open to discussion of the facts. You can't, however, make
false claims as to the facts without getting stomped on by the ones who
did their homework and know better.


>
> 3. Opinions in this matter are held with religious conviction: Have you
> ever read a statement such as, "I used to think helmets were useless,
> until I read the post by Mr. Z. Now I wear one all the time. Thanks for
> your great insights, Mr. Z!" No, you have not. (Well, people do change
> their religions, so I guess such an exchange would be theoretically
> possible,

I grew up believing in God and motorcycle helmets. It wasn't a far
jump from there to believing in bicycle helmet advertising. In the
late 1980's I saw the rapid changeover from helmets to foam hats and
began to think that style was more important than protection. It didn't
matter that much to me, I still had a stockpile of helmets that would
last me a while. It was here that I first began to realize it was all
about style and profits, and not at all about injury prevention.

> A post with a subject line such as "New helmet
> research results -- not a troll" is, in fact, a bald-faced troll. Can you
> spell T-R-O-L-L? (You can spell it H-E-L-M-E-T if you like!)
> Have fun debating this proposition.

Now who is trolling?

Mitch.

[Paul Cassel]

Mitch Haley wrote:


>
> I grew up believing in God and motorcycle helmets. It wasn't a far
> jump from there to believing in bicycle helmet advertising. In the
> late 1980's I saw the rapid changeover from helmets to foam hats and
> began to think that style was more important than protection. It didn't
> matter that much to me, I still had a stockpile of helmets that would
> last me a while. It was here that I first began to realize it was all
> about style and profits, and not at all about injury prevention.
>
>
Do you wear motorcycle helmets on a bicycle? Nobody I've heard of denies
motorcycle helmets prevent some injuries in a crash. The debate is if
wearing of them causes more crashes due to limited scan, hearing, etc.
OTOH, there seems to be some inferential evidence that wearing helmets
on a bicycle can create injury. That's something I've never heard
claimed for motorcycle helmets.

-paul

[Paul Cassel]

Mitch Haley wrote:


>
> I grew up believing in God and motorcycle helmets. It wasn't a far
> jump from there to believing in bicycle helmet advertising. In the
> late 1980's I saw the rapid changeover from helmets to foam hats and
> began to think that style was more important than protection. It didn't
> matter that much to me, I still had a stockpile of helmets that would
> last me a while. It was here that I first began to realize it was all
> about style and profits, and not at all about injury prevention.
>
>
Do you wear motorcycle helmets on a bicycle? Nobody I've heard of denies
motorcycle helmets prevent some injuries in a crash. The debate is if
wearing of them causes more crashes due to limited scan, hearing, etc.
OTOH, there seems to be some inferential evidence that wearing helmets
on a bicycle can create injury. That's something I've never heard
claimed for motorcycle helmets.

-paul

[Peter]

Paul Cassel wrote:
> Mitch Haley wrote:

>> I grew up believing in God and motorcycle helmets. It wasn't a far
>> jump from there to believing in bicycle helmet advertising. In the
>> late 1980's I saw the rapid changeover from helmets to foam hats and
>> began to think that style was more important than protection. It didn't
>> matter that much to me, I still had a stockpile of helmets that would
>> last me a while. It was here that I first began to realize it was all
>> about style and profits, and not at all about injury prevention.
>>
> Do you wear motorcycle helmets on a bicycle? Nobody I've heard of denies
> motorcycle helmets prevent some injuries in a crash. The debate is if
> wearing of them causes more crashes due to limited scan, hearing, etc.
> OTOH, there seems to be some inferential evidence that wearing helmets
> on a bicycle can create injury.

The only evidence along those lines that I've seen discussed here is
statistical data showing that in some areas greatly increased helmet
use was accompanied by an increased risk of injury per rider. Whether
that was due to greater risk taking (risk compensation), fewer riders
leading to less awareness by motorists, injuries due to the increased
size and weight of the helmet, or other factors not considered in the
studies has never been analyzed. Nor do I think there is sufficient
data to do such an analysis.

> That's something I've never heard
> claimed for motorcycle helmets.

Then you haven't seen many pro and con arguments on motorcycle helmets.
The debate on the impact of helmets on neck injuries has gone on for
a long time

[Peter]

Paul Cassel wrote:
> Mitch Haley wrote:

>> I grew up believing in God and motorcycle helmets. It wasn't a far
>> jump from there to believing in bicycle helmet advertising. In the
>> late 1980's I saw the rapid changeover from helmets to foam hats and
>> began to think that style was more important than protection. It didn't
>> matter that much to me, I still had a stockpile of helmets that would
>> last me a while. It was here that I first began to realize it was all
>> about style and profits, and not at all about injury prevention.
>>
> Do you wear motorcycle helmets on a bicycle? Nobody I've heard of denies
> motorcycle helmets prevent some injuries in a crash. The debate is if
> wearing of them causes more crashes due to limited scan, hearing, etc.
> OTOH, there seems to be some inferential evidence that wearing helmets
> on a bicycle can create injury.

The only evidence along those lines that I've seen discussed here is
statistical data showing that in some areas greatly increased helmet
use was accompanied by an increased risk of injury per rider. Whether
that was due to greater risk taking (risk compensation), fewer riders
leading to less awareness by motorists, injuries due to the increased
size and weight of the helmet, or other factors not considered in the
studies has never been analyzed. Nor do I think there is sufficient
data to do such an analysis.

> That's something I've never heard
> claimed for motorcycle helmets.

Then you haven't seen many pro and con arguments on motorcycle helmets.
The debate on the impact of helmets on neck injuries has gone on for
a long time

[Mitch Haley]

Paul Cassel wrote:
>
> Do you wear motorcycle helmets on a bicycle?

No, just hard hats with EPS padding.
Bell Tourlight, V-1 Pro, Stratus(what was I thiking
when I bought that Darth Vader hat?) and I also
have a genuine Foam Hat, a 1990 Specialized Sub-6.
Can't remember when I last wore one of them.

I wore full-face fiberglass when I rode M/C.
Put one on pavement and one onto the side of
a stop sign running pickup, never felt the head
contact either time. I had time to pull my head
back when I hit the truck, I was quite proud of
myself for preventing head contact until I got
home and found brown paint on my orange helmet.
Mitch.

[Mitch Haley]

Paul Cassel wrote:
>
> Do you wear motorcycle helmets on a bicycle?

No, just hard hats with EPS padding.
Bell Tourlight, V-1 Pro, Stratus(what was I thiking
when I bought that Darth Vader hat?) and I also
have a genuine Foam Hat, a 1990 Specialized Sub-6.
Can't remember when I last wore one of them.

I wore full-face fiberglass when I rode M/C.
Put one on pavement and one onto the side of
a stop sign running pickup, never felt the head
contact either time. I had time to pull my head
back when I hit the truck, I was quite proud of
myself for preventing head contact until I got
home and found brown paint on my orange helmet.
Mitch.

[Blair P. Houghton]

- > wrote:
>Have fun debating this proposition.

No.

--Blair
"You're the troll."

[Blair P. Houghton]

- > wrote:
>Have fun debating this proposition.

No.

--Blair
"You're the troll."

[Paul Cassel]

Peter wrote:

>
>
> The only evidence along those lines that I've seen discussed here is
> statistical data showing that in some areas greatly increased helmet
> use was accompanied by an increased risk of injury per rider. Whether
> that was due to greater risk taking (risk compensation), fewer riders
> leading to less awareness by motorists, injuries due to the increased
> size and weight of the helmet, or other factors not considered in the
> studies has never been analyzed. Nor do I think there is sufficient
> data to do such an analysis.
>

That's evidence enough. I have no idea why the injury rate is up, but it
is and that's enough for me. I'm very skeptical about risk compensation,
but also think it's moot. Whatever happens to bicycle riders when they
wear helmets, something does which raises the injury rate.

>
> Then you haven't seen many pro and con arguments on motorcycle helmets.
> The debate on the impact of helmets on neck injuries has gone on for
> a long time
>

I've never heard a serious argument for neck injuries using motorcycle
helmets. As to time, I've been riding for 40 years and used to write for
a bike publication. I think I've heard all the arguments, but I separate
serious points from spurious. While I think the less sight / less
hearing argument is serious, I don't the neck injury one for
motorcycles. It may be for bicycles.

-paul

[Paul Cassel]

Peter wrote:

>
>
> The only evidence along those lines that I've seen discussed here is
> statistical data showing that in some areas greatly increased helmet
> use was accompanied by an increased risk of injury per rider. Whether
> that was due to greater risk taking (risk compensation), fewer riders
> leading to less awareness by motorists, injuries due to the increased
> size and weight of the helmet, or other factors not considered in the
> studies has never been analyzed. Nor do I think there is sufficient
> data to do such an analysis.
>

That's evidence enough. I have no idea why the injury rate is up, but it
is and that's enough for me. I'm very skeptical about risk compensation,
but also think it's moot. Whatever happens to bicycle riders when they
wear helmets, something does which raises the injury rate.

>
> Then you haven't seen many pro and con arguments on motorcycle helmets.
> The debate on the impact of helmets on neck injuries has gone on for
> a long time
>

I've never heard a serious argument for neck injuries using motorcycle
helmets. As to time, I've been riding for 40 years and used to write for
a bike publication. I think I've heard all the arguments, but I separate
serious points from spurious. While I think the less sight / less
hearing argument is serious, I don't the neck injury one for
motorcycles. It may be for bicycles.

-paul

[Bill Z.]

Paul Cassel > writes:

> Peter wrote:
>
> > The only evidence along those lines that I've seen discussed here is
> > statistical data showing that in some areas greatly increased helmet
> > use was accompanied by an increased risk of injury per rider. Whether
> > that was due to greater risk taking (risk compensation), fewer riders
> > leading to less awareness by motorists, injuries due to the increased
> > size and weight of the helmet, or other factors not considered in the
> > studies has never been analyzed. Nor do I think there is sufficient
> > data to do such an analysis.
> >
>
> That's evidence enough. I have no idea why the injury rate is up, but
> it is and that's enough for me.

Don't believe what you've read about it here regarding increased risks
unless you've personally checked the sources.

> I've never heard a serious argument for neck injuries using motorcycle
> helmets. As to time, I've been riding for 40 years and used to write
> for a bike publication. I think I've heard all the arguments, but I
> separate serious points from spurious. While I think the less sight /
> less hearing argument is serious, I don't the neck injury one for
> motorcycles. It may be for bicycles.

Since bicycle helmets are thinner and lighter than motorcycle helmets,
it would be hard to believe that there is an increased risk of a neck
injury for a bicylce helmet over a motorcycle helmet, without there
being an even higher risk when not using a helmet at all.

Chances are you've seen yet another bogus argument.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Paul Cassel > writes:

> Peter wrote:
>
> > The only evidence along those lines that I've seen discussed here is
> > statistical data showing that in some areas greatly increased helmet
> > use was accompanied by an increased risk of injury per rider. Whether
> > that was due to greater risk taking (risk compensation), fewer riders
> > leading to less awareness by motorists, injuries due to the increased
> > size and weight of the helmet, or other factors not considered in the
> > studies has never been analyzed. Nor do I think there is sufficient
> > data to do such an analysis.
> >
>
> That's evidence enough. I have no idea why the injury rate is up, but
> it is and that's enough for me.

Don't believe what you've read about it here regarding increased risks
unless you've personally checked the sources.

> I've never heard a serious argument for neck injuries using motorcycle
> helmets. As to time, I've been riding for 40 years and used to write
> for a bike publication. I think I've heard all the arguments, but I
> separate serious points from spurious. While I think the less sight /
> less hearing argument is serious, I don't the neck injury one for
> motorcycles. It may be for bicycles.

Since bicycle helmets are thinner and lighter than motorcycle helmets,
it would be hard to believe that there is an increased risk of a neck
injury for a bicylce helmet over a motorcycle helmet, without there
being an even higher risk when not using a helmet at all.

Chances are you've seen yet another bogus argument.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:04:23 GMT, - >
wrote in message >:

>3. Opinions in this matter are held with religious conviction: Have you
>ever read a statement such as, "I used to think helmets were useless,
>until I read the post by Mr. Z. Now I wear one all the time. Thanks for
>your great insights, Mr. Z!" No, you have not.

I have seen a lot of people who start out as strongly pro-helmet and
after realising that the case is anything but clear cut, they revise
their views. I am one of them.

Here is a particularly gracious example:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ch7bnq%24csc%241%40news.swman.net.uk

I have never seen a helmet zealot make a convert, but that could well
be because the default these days is to believe the hype. Much of the
evidence supporting the helmet sceptical position is, after all,
counter-intuitive.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:29:47 GMT, "Ken [NY)" >
wrote in message >:

>69% of all statistics are made up.

I thought it was 86.4%? Are you teling me they made that up?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University