#11
|
|||
|
|||
Helmets
Having done a bit of package design and gotten a rudimentry education in
what foam does, I think that the breaking strength of the skull is a poor metric in a discussion of how a helmet protects you. I believe the purpose of a helmet is to decrease the g loading on the brain by absorbing energy so that the grey stuff doesn't slam into the skull case which is the thing that causes damage. Ian has an opinion and I have an opinion. His previous points in helmets discussions dealt with statistical relavency of the necessity of a helmet, and such nonsense as does a helmet protect your thumbs. I have crashed and crushed a large portion of the foam liner in my helmet and did not suffer any concussive injury. Did my helmet play a part in that. i believe it did. you don't have to agree, but I will wear a helmet when I ride a bike and hope that I never crash and need to test its efficacy again. You may dissagree and not wear a helmet. I don't care. "Ian Smith" wrote in message ... On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 14:51:55 -0700, Ben Goren wrote: This past fall, I was clipped by a car that passed me. I have no memory of the crash itself, Quick recap - you have no idea what actually happened, but you're certain that the helmet saved your life. Is that rational? How do you know what effect the helmet had if you don't even know what happened? There's no reason whatsoever to doubt that I'd have at least fractured my skull without the helmet. Not even the reason that skulls take five times the energy to fracture than helmets can absorb? I know, the plural of ``anecdote'' is not data, and all that. But I was the unwilling subject of an experiment that directly contradicts their claims. No, you were not. Please specify one single claim that is contradicted by the accident you don't remember anything about. And the thrust of their claims is that helmets only protect against some kinds of injuries, not all; You dispute that, do you? Your helmet is effective against (say) broken thumbs, is it? Not a one of those arguments carries the slightest bit of weight with me. Apparently so. Curiouser and curiouser. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Helmets
Ian Smith wrote:
Ben Goren wrote: This past fall, I was clipped by a car that passed me. I have no memory of the crash itself, Quick recap - you have no idea what actually happened, but you're certain that the helmet saved your life. Is that rational? How do you know what effect the helmet had if you don't even know what happened? Just because I don't remember the moment of impact doesn't mean that I don't know what happened. There is overwhelming circumstantial evidence, supported by some very fuzzy memories of my own moments before and waking afterwards, that I fell to my left with full force, slowed only by whatever it takes to break an elbow. My elbow, cheeks, and the helmet alone were enough proof of that. Not to mention the bruised left hip that's still a bit numb. There's no reason whatsoever to doubt that I'd have at least fractured my skull without the helmet. Not even the reason that skulls take five times the energy to fracture than helmets can absorb? For the sake of argument, let's say that it would not have cracked my skull. I still would have had a massive goose egg (to match the bruise on my hip) and lost a good bit of scalp due to road rash. And if a hematoma like that would happen on the outside of the skull, just think of what goes on inside. I know, the plural of ``anecdote'' is not data, and all that. But I was the unwilling subject of an experiment that directly contradicts their claims. No, you were not. Please specify one single claim that is contradicted by the accident you don't remember anything about. Let's turn this around. You know even less about this accident than I do. What do you suppose the result would have been had I /not/ been wearing a helmet? Would I somehow have managed to escape the trip to the trauma ER, complete with lights, siren, and escort from the fire department? I'd love to hear your theory. And the thrust of their claims is that helmets only protect against some kinds of injuries, not all; You dispute that, do you? Your helmet is effective against (say) broken thumbs, is it? But of course. Neither thumb sustained any injury. It's also effective at keeping the tigers from eating me. Not a one of those arguments carries the slightest bit of weight with me. Apparently so. Curiouser and curiouser. Obviously, they all carry weight with you. So, I propose a deal: you don't wear a helmet, and I will. Sound fair? Cheers, b& -- EAC Memographer BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy ``All but God can prove this sentence true.'' ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Helmets
gotbent wrote:
Having done a bit of package design and gotten a rudimentry education in what foam does, I think that the breaking strength of the skull is a poor metric in a discussion of how a helmet protects you. I believe the purpose of a helmet is to decrease the g loading on the brain by absorbing energy so that the grey stuff doesn't slam into the skull case which is the thing that causes damage. Obviously. And, equally obviously, the skull is much, much more structurally sound than the helmets -- that's the entire point. It's why modern cars accordion if you look at them worng. And, also obviously, it's not all that hard to overwhelm even the most overprotective full-face high-speed motorcycle racing helmet. If you go head-first into the grill of a Mack truck coming at you at 75 mph, you're dead, helmet or no. Helmets are especially effective in the kinds of crashes they were designed to protect against, which is exactly the crash I had. And mine did its job perfectly. If I had been out in the middle of nowhere when the hit-and-run driver hit me, assuming I came to before I got run over, I could have walked home. Maybe. Hitched a ride, certainly. Ian has an opinion and I have an opinion. His previous points in helmets discussions dealt with statistical relavency of the necessity of a helmet, and such nonsense as does a helmet protect your thumbs. I have crashed and crushed a large portion of the foam liner in my helmet and did not suffer any concussive injury. I didn't escape the concussion, but it was mild. No signs of it after a few hours, or to this day. Did my helmet play a part in that. i believe it did. I have no doubt that I would be much, much unhappier today if it were not for my helmet. At the very least, I'd have an ugly bald spot on the side of my head. you don't have to agree, but I will wear a helmet when I ride a bike and hope that I never crash and need to test its efficacy again. You may dissagree and not wear a helmet. I don't care. I agree. I won't sit on the bike without a helmet. I'm glad that you won't either; our society is more productive, and therefore I'm a little bit richer, when everybody is as healthy as possible. I doubt Mr. Smith will change his opinion, but it'd sure be nice if he did, for the same reason. The way I see it, the bike is itself the cheapest health insurance available to me (coupled, of course, with a good diet with lots of fresh veggies, complex carbohydrates, and healthy meats), and the helmet is the cheapest accident insurance I can get for the bike. The helmet is by no means the /only/ accident insurance; I've got a mirror, I just bought an HID light that I'll be running during the day (with matching taillight), I'll soon have a lime green aerotrunk on the back, and I'm working on more visibility aids. I follow all traffic rules, and I'm not afraid to take the whole lane. And, of course, most importantly, I assume that I'm /still/ invisible to everybody on the road. Defense in depth is crucial, as everybody should know. A helmet is a vital part of a cyclist's defenses, but it's just one part. Cheers, b& -- EAC Memographer BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy ``All but God can prove this sentence true.'' ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Helmets
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, gotbent wrote:
Having done a bit of package design and gotten a rudimentry education in what foam does, I think that the breaking strength of the skull is a poor metric in a discussion of how a helmet protects you. You were the one that introduced fractured skull into the discussion. Now, faced with even rudimentary facts, you decide best not. a helmet, and such nonsense as does a helmet protect your thumbs. You were the one that disagreed with the assertion that a helmet does not protect against all injuries. crashed and crushed a large portion of the foam liner in my helmet and did not suffer any concussive injury. You suffered brain injury. Recap: You crashed. You suffered a brain injury. You can't remember what happened, but you're sure the helmet saved your life. By all means wear a helmet. However, you also made stupid assertions about how your experience contradicts the findings of the website referenced (an assertion you've singularly failed to even attempt to support when challenged). So don't pretend it's a rational or coherent decision. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Helmets
On Sun, 04 Feb 2007, Ben Goren wrote:
Helmets are especially effective in the kinds of crashes they were designed to protect against, which is exactly the crash I had. No, they are designed for a fall from a little below head-height when stationary. Your crashed was outside test spec. mine did its job perfectly. Eh? You suffered brain injury, yet you think your helmet did its job of protecting your brain? I doubt Mr. Smith will change his opinion, but it'd sure be nice if he did, for the same reason. I have changed my opinion. I used to think helmets were obviously the right thing. Then I looked at the actual facts. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Helmets
On Sun, 04 Feb 2007, Ben Goren wrote:
Ian Smith wrote: Ben Goren wrote: I know, the plural of ``anecdote'' is not data, and all that. But I was the unwilling subject of an experiment that directly contradicts their claims. No, you were not. Please specify one single claim that is contradicted by the accident you don't remember anything about. Let's turn this around. You know even less about this accident than I do. What do you suppose the result would have been had I /not/ been wearing a helmet? I don't know, but you'll note that I'm not the one making dumb assertions about the definite outcome had you not been wearing a helmet. That's the point. You are making the assertions, you defend them. I'm not making specific assertions and claiming them as fact regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Helmets
On 05 Feb 2007 07:11:39 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, gotbent wrote: Having done a bit of package design and gotten a rudimentry education in what foam does, I think that the breaking strength of the skull is a poor metric in a discussion of how a helmet protects you. You were the one that introduced fractured skull into the discussion. Sorry, realised it wasn't you, it was Ben Goren. You'll need to substitute something like "He's the one that..." in the rest of the message for it to make sense. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Helmets
Ben Goren wrote:
Well, don't just take my word for it; for something as important as a helmet, it behooves you to do your full due diligence. Look at the data for places where helmet wearing practically doubled overnight with mandatory helmet laws: no discernible effect on serious head injuries. No discernible effect means not actually important. I used to think they were a no-brainer and diligently wore one every trip for over a decade. I even had a "saved me a fractured skull!" anecdote, but then I went back to read the data and AFAICT as a trained science professional with a medical research library just down the corridor they really are irrelevant to your basic chances of a serious injury. Wear one if you want, but don't fool yourself (or try to fool anyone else) you need one. 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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Helmets
Ben Goren wrote:
snip There's no reason whatsoever to doubt that I'd have at least fractured my skull without the helmet. So it's a safe assumption that anyone getting a concussion-worthy hit is practically /bound/ to fracture their skull? That's a *very* big assumption, and not one born out by one hell of a lot of falls. I know, the plural of ``anecdote'' is not data, and all that. But I was the unwilling subject of an experiment that directly contradicts their claims. No it doesn't contradict their claims. It says "Yet there is no evidence that helmets save lives or prevent serious injury at all across cyclists as a whole", and even if yours *did* save your life then your admission that it is a single anecdote, combined with the clear qualification "across cyclists as a whole" still does not render it wrong. Serious head injury rates have been unimproved by increasing wearing rates of helmets anywhere you look at the data is what the above means, not that a helmet never did a single person any good (instances of good can be balanced by instances of bad, of course). 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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Helmets week on my new blog, a question regarding helmets and my blog. | 101bike | Racing | 7 | March 18th 06 03:14 AM |
Helmets & HSE | Richard | UK | 15 | January 10th 06 04:20 PM |
Helmets | Timo | UK | 101 | December 10th 05 05:47 PM |
Helmets helmets helmets and weird heads | Tamyka Bell | Australia | 3 | November 30th 04 11:25 AM |
Helmets | Peter Taylor | UK | 53 | February 10th 04 04:28 PM |