|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
I submit that on or about Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:03:03 -0400, the person
known to the court as The Wogster made a statement in Your Honour's bundle) to the following effect: So as far as I'm concerned the effect on serious and fatal injuries is zero plus or minus blind luck. Isn't this proof of the magical foam hat (M.F.H.)attitude. Realistically there should be no increases in fatalities or serious injuries, if there are, then the study is skewed by people taking more risks and chances. Oh sure. I think risk compensation, and propensity to take risk, varies so widely in cyclists that it is probably impossible to separate out the effect of helmets in any statistical series. Seems to me that the risk compensation effect (or whatever else it is) balances out the benefits so closely as to make the whole thing moot anyway :-) There are really about 4 kinds of bike accident. Oh I have to disagree. I think that if in an average year there are 100,000 bike accidents, then there will be at a first approximation 100,000 different types of bike accidents. No two crashes I've had have been the same. This is one reason I think the one-size-fits-all approach is flawed. The real aspect is that in certain crashes, a helmet does really well, but not in all cases. The safest is to ride with a helmet, using the same riding style as if you don't have one. Yes, I agree with that. Unfortunately it's unlikely to work that way. Even I (and I think you'd accept I'm as sceptical as anyone) find myself riding faster when I have my magic foam hat on. But knowing that the M.F.H., has such little effect, the question is, why would you take more chances? Tell me about it. I think it's the separation between the rational being and the residual animal. But as humans we love to play with that dichotomy - every time we ride a roller-coaster our analytical brain is sitting there laughing at the terrified monkey :-) 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 |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
I submit that on or about Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:03:03 -0400, the person known to the court as The Wogster made a statement in Your Honour's bundle) to the following effect: So as far as I'm concerned the effect on serious and fatal injuries is zero plus or minus blind luck. Isn't this proof of the magical foam hat (M.F.H.)attitude. Realistically there should be no increases in fatalities or serious injuries, if there are, then the study is skewed by people taking more risks and chances. Oh sure. I think risk compensation, and propensity to take risk, varies so widely in cyclists that it is probably impossible to separate out the effect of helmets in any statistical series. Seems to me that the risk compensation effect (or whatever else it is) balances out the benefits so closely as to make the whole thing moot anyway :-) Agreed, however the helmet lobbyists seem to push the idea that once you don the M.F.H. you will be safe in all cases, and that is one of the reasons people take extra risks...... There are really about 4 kinds of bike accident. Oh I have to disagree. I think that if in an average year there are 100,000 bike accidents, then there will be at a first approximation 100,000 different types of bike accidents. No two crashes I've had have been the same. They may all be different, but they all have similarities as well, which is why I broke it down, the way I did. MV accidents are the same, except there are fewer possibilities but more different consequences. You either hit something, or lose traction. I did want to show that in some cases the M.F.H. might actually help. Also in those particular cases, it can also make it worse, i.e. skull fracture versus neck fracture.... This is one reason I think the one-size-fits-all approach is flawed. The real aspect is that in certain crashes, a helmet does really well, but not in all cases. The safest is to ride with a helmet, using the same riding style as if you don't have one. Yes, I agree with that. Unfortunately it's unlikely to work that way. Even I (and I think you'd accept I'm as sceptical as anyone) find myself riding faster when I have my magic foam hat on. But knowing that the M.F.H., has such little effect, the question is, why would you take more chances? Tell me about it. I think it's the separation between the rational being and the residual animal. But as humans we love to play with that dichotomy - every time we ride a roller-coaster our analytical brain is sitting there laughing at the terrified monkey :-) I think it's more likely that the M.F.H. lobby has psychologically made you wonder if maybe the M.F.H. lobby is somehow correct, and that the M.F.H. will protect you...... W |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
The Wogster wrote: Agreed, however the helmet lobbyists seem to push the idea that once you don the M.F.H. you will be safe in all cases, and that is one of the reasons people take extra risks...... Helmet lobbyists do have a problem there. They typically want to convince everyone that: 1) Bicycling without a helmet is really dangerous - so dangerous that you should NEVER bike without a helmet!!! 2) Helmets are VERY, VERY protective. Even though their certification standards are so low, they still prevent almost 100% of head injuries - specifically, 85%. It's such a simple way to remove almost all of that terrible danger!!! 3) There is nothing you can do that's more important for bike safety than wearing a helmet!!! The problem is, they've touted the incredible protection so long that now, many riders feel incredibly protected, and behave accordingly. What can they do? Start saying "Um, wait, we didn't mean they protect you THAT well." If they start getting specific and giving the public real certification numbers and real population results of helmet use, people will see helmets are about as effective as lucky rabbits feet. The current trend seems to be to (finally) add some other safety advice onto the helmet propaganda, while still claiming helmets are the most important step... more important than, say, lights at night, riding on the proper side of the road, etc. I note, though, that in the US, the push for MHLs seems to have slowed somewhat. There are still individual communities being deluded into enacting laws, but the enactment of state laws has slowed to a trickle. Perhaps this is because obesity and lack of exercise are getting much more attention, and those problems argue against discouraging cylcing. Well, we can hope - or pretend - that's the case. I'd prefer to see widespread acknowledgement of the fact that ordinary bicycling is _not_ particularly dangerous, certainly not dangerous enough to require protective gear. I suppose I'll never forgive the helmet pushers for that slander of my favorite activity. - Frank Krygowski |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
I submit that on or about Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:53:42 -0700, the person
known to the court as "(PeteCresswell)" made a statement in Your Honour's bundle) to the following effect: 5) Front wheel washes out on mud, canted wet tree root, slippery stone or whatever. Operator goes down hard, sort of sideways/face-first, slapping head sideways on hard ground - hard enough to lose conciousness. I tend not to wear a magic hat, so make damn sure that doesn't happen to me. I've lost the bike due to slippery conditions I think twice in the last five years, once I'd slowed down in response to the slippery road (ice) so the bike went down but I stayed standing, the other time I took a roundabout too fast on a wet day and the bike went sideways; I landed flat on my arse. Took out my best pair of bibtights, too. I was not happy! Anyone who is genuinely serious about preventing head injury while riding will be on a recumbent trike, where the risk is negligible, or a recumbent bike, where it is small. 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 |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
"hell0.com (Alex B.)" wrote: You guys can go on all you want citing statistically insignificant personal events, but you are neither convincing anyone, nor proving anything... If you want to see statistics abused, visit the social sciences. Misdirected questions yield true but meaningless statistics. "Gazing at sheaves of statistics without 'prejudgment' is futile." -- Murray Rothbard "Experience . . . brings out the impossibility of learning anything from facts till they are examined and interpreted by reason; and teaches that the most reckless and treacherous of all theorists is he who professes to let facts and figures speak for themselves." -- Alfred Marshall |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message ... Mind you, what would I know? I suffered a serious bicycle crash many years ago and wasn't wearing a helmet, so obviously I'm dead! No, dear boy -- not dead, but seriously addled. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Per The Wogster:
There are really about 4 kinds of bike accident. 1) Bike hits another object, rider does a toss over handlebars and lands nose first, gaining a 3rd degree case of road rash. Helmet effect - none. 2) Bike hits another object, rider does a toss over handlebars, and while airborne hits another object head first. Helmet effect moderate to good. 3) Bike hits object and rider is partially crushed against object, helmet effect none. 4) Operator loses control and bike goes down sideways in a skid. Helmet effect none. 5) Front wheel washes out on mud, canted wet tree root, slippery stone or whatever. Operator goes down hard, sort of sideways/face-first, slapping head sideways on hard ground - hard enough to lose conciousness. Been there, done that. The several-inch-high pyramid shaped outcropping that was a few inches from where the side of my melon slapped the ground completed my little attitude adjustment. -- PeteCresswell |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: Anyone who is genuinely serious about preventing head injury while riding will be on a recumbent trike, where the risk is negligible, or a recumbent bike, where it is small. I note that in the US, at least, almost all recumbent riders wear helmets. Yes, even the few on recumbent trikes! To me, this is proof that the hat choice is based on some variant of fashion, not logic. (Um, and if "fashion" affects even recumbent riders, nobody is immune! ;-) - Frank Krygowski |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
I submit that on or about Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:43:58 -0500, the person
known to the court as "Bob the Cow" made a statement in Your Honour's bundle) to the following effect: Mind you, what would I know? I suffered a serious bicycle crash many years ago and wasn't wearing a helmet, so obviously I'm dead! No, dear boy -- not dead, but seriously addled. Apparently I must be. I put it down to the next crash, where I was wearing a helmet but was more seriously injured. 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|