Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

Sorni wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:
Sorni wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:
Sorni wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:
Talking of things you can't or won't address, when are you going
to take my challenge? Just tell me where the step change down in
head injuries occured from an MHL induced step doubling of helmet
wearing. http://www.cycling.raven-family.com/Helmet%20Graphs.jpg
February 16th.


I'll take that as a "won't address" response. I wonder why you
ducked the test?
What test?

The one above in the text you didn't snip

That's a test? Looks like two squiggly lines in very generic graphs (no
values given for either axis). I do note the decidedly downward trend,
however vague the mystery figures for the two mystery countries may be.

We're getting somewhere. You agree you cannot identify where the
doubling of helmet use from one year to the next has created an
associated drop in head injuries? Both graphs (x-axis: calendar year,
y-axis: # head injuries) had an MHL induced doubling of helmet wearing
(to virtually 100%) between two consecutive years during the period shown


Too bad I've not been talking about MHLs at all, nor overall population
studies (which include old people on MUPs, DUI cases, kids on who-knows-what
kind of bikes, etc. etc.). As it relates to helmets, I only care about road
cycling and mountain biking, as those are the two types of riding I do
almost exclusively. Lids make sense for both. To me. You can do what you
want. (MHLs aside, of course.)


Neither am I talking about MHLs. Here they are purely the instigator of
a step change doubling of helmet wearing and if, as you claim, helmets
had an injury preventative effect you would expect an equally clear
reduction in head injuries. If TRT were right with their 85% you would
expect head injuries to virtually disappear as everyone switched to
helmet wearing. How do you explain the fact that you can't identify any
reduction let alone a reduction of the magnitude TRT would predict?


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

"Ozark Bicycle" wrote in message
oups.com...

Well, no, some of us cannot do what we wish, because people like you who
ignore the data allow and promote MHLs.


What to say? I'm opposed to any MHLs, but if any group deserved to have
a MHL inflicted upon them, it's the overheated, context snipping, truth
bending, repetitive, shrill, monotonic ******s from URC.


Ah.

There's that argument-ending dialctical technique again; nevermind the data,
just trot out some insults. That'll convince everybody...

"Sorni" wrote in message
...


I'm the one who injected the "lids in the shower" example, because
it's often used by...your crowd. Arguing that people would be
better off wearing helmets while bathing than they are while bike
riding /doesn't/ mean that the latter is a bad idea.


Actually, it is meant to point out that wearing a helmet while
cycling is a SILLY idea - in that no-one would consider wearing a
helmet while showering, or crossing a down-town street; but the same
people are so frightened of what they mistakenly perceive to be the
dangerous act of riding a bicycle that they ignore the data that
shows it is less likely to result in an injury that, well, showering
or crossing a down-town street.

Based on your precious "total population" studies which include all kinds
(literally infinite) of bike ridings (kids, senior citizens, DUIs, MUP
users, etc etc etc etc etc)... I care about road cyclists and mountain
bikers. (And I trust 'em to shower safely. Hell, I trust 'em to /ride/
safely, too -- but there are unforeseen things out there, and the pavement
and pointy rocks at least here where I live are rather hard.)

But pavement and pointy rocks (and even unforseen things), while you may be
frightened of them, are a vanishly small danger to cyclists. That's what
the data you ignore says.

Ed Pirrero wrote:

Not in the UK it isn't; information passing and coordination via the
internet has resulted in repeated attempts at MHLs being shot down.

Cite?

E.P.


Early Day Motion by Eric Martlew MP in 2004
Private Members Bill by Eric Marlew in 2005
Three debates in the House of Lords on proposed amendments to the Road
Safety Bill to introduce a mandatory helmet law in 2006

If you read the following discussion in Parliament
(http://tinyurl.com/nq3s8) where the Transport Secretary, Alistair
Darling, responds to the main MHL protagonist Eric Martlew (neither by
the way are cyclists) you will see the "lack of unanimity" is what kept
an MHL out of the Road Safety Bill and that "lack of unanimity" was in
large part due to urc members, particularly Guy Chapman and colleagues,
coordinating the provision of the evidence to our MPs. My MP who is now
well informed on the matter (and a cyclist), is the Opposition Health
Secretary and you will notice the new Conservative leader, David
Cameron, a keen cyclist, does not see the need to be seen wearing a
helmet when cycling despite being attacked for it by the usual suspects:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...icle355191.ece

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Quoting Paul Murphy :
"David Damerell" wrote in message
Quoting Paul Murphy :
"David Damerell" wrote in message
Quoting Paul Murphy :
I know I'm very aware of my vulnerability when cycling irrespective of
whether I'm wearing a helmet or not
Who do you suppose is _not aware of their vulnerability when cycling?
I suppose the answer would stereotypically be a male teenager (who's gonna
live for ever anyway) would be least aware of the extent of their
vulnerability.
But in fact we regularly get reports of male teenagers saying they would
not have done such-and-such a jump without their helmet, etc.
Which is why I mentioned stereotypically.

Which in this case turns out to mean "not actually an answer to the
question".

I wouldn't base any important decisions on this and would always get
to know the individual first.

Yes, yes, we know you think you're a special and unique snowflake.
--
David Damerell Distortion Field!
Today is Monday, June.

Quoting Paul Murphy :
"David Damerell" wrote in message
Quoting Paul Murphy :
"David Damerell" wrote in message
mature people, provocative wordplay or misquoting. I believe although we
all have alot in common, everyone is unique to an extent, dont you?
Meaningless platitudes to the rescue!
I asked a question and you haven't given me a yes or no....
That's not a question, it's gibberish; and furthermore I attempted to
reply below.
So was your answer a yes to everyone being unique to an extent or a no?

Meaningless platitudes don't need an answer. Come back when you have an
argument.

The odds could be 99% against it and I still wouldn't rule it out, as long
as there's that possibility.
Oh, right, so when I say "I've won the lottery and I must have done so
because I know myself better than you", you wouldn't think that was a
silly thing to say? After all, the odds are only 99.9whatever % against
it...
I fail to see how winning the lottery has anything at all to do with a
persons behaviour or psychology (as long as they buy a ticket) so self
knowledge would be irrelevant here.

Just as self-knowledge is irrelevant in a case - like risk compensation -
where just about everyone's self-knowledge leads them to an erroneous
conclusion.

the same thing about themselves. How are you different from them?
One difference is they don't all say it.
Actually, "I don't do it" is an _incredibly_ common response to hearing
about risk compensation. There are still an enormous number of people just
like you.
I didn't say that "I don't do it" though (universally),

No. You said you don't do it while riding a bike. Just like every other
special unique snowflake. What's different about you?

I could make that helmet statement too, also with complete confidence...
And you'd, with overwhelming odds, be wrong there, too.
With underwhelming odds that may mean something.
With underwhelming odds I may have won the lottery [1]. You'd still be
right to laugh at me if I said I was completely confident I had.
See my above comment re relevancy.

Well, that's even further off. Self-knowledge might inform risk
compensation; but no matter how well you understand your own psychology it
doesn't tell you how hard your skull is.

Spare us the appeal to emotion, please, or at least use "for the sake of
the CHILDREN", it's traditional.
What makes you think I was appealing to your emotions -
Obviously you are trying to recast this question in a maximally emotive
way. I'm not going to play.
You haven't answered either the original question (now snipped out but see
earlier in thread) or this new one now, why are you not going to play?

Because you're engaging in a cheap rhetorical trick to distract attention
from the point; that there is absolutely no reason to suppose you are any
different from the vast masses who risk compensate and think they don't.
--
David Damerell Distortion Field!
Today is Monday, June.

I have experienced two 1) events. Walked away from both. (Bikes were
trashed)

I saw a 1) from about 3 feet away. His head 'bounced" against the
pavement. He also walked away. His bike was also trashed.

I saw a good freind of mine, get hit by a car in Boulder CO. He was NOT
wearing a helmet, and still to this day has 'blinding headaches'.





"Ozark Bicycle" wrote in
oups.com:

I'm looking for three data points he

1) My head struck on object (pavement, vehicle, another cyclist, etc.)
whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and I feel the helmet lessened
the extent of my injuries.

or

2) My head struck on object whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and
I doubt it either lessened or worsened the extent of my injuries (i.e.,
the helmet made no difference).

or

3) My head struck an object whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and
I feel the helmet worsened the extent of my injuries.

Please limit responses to the three scenarios as outlined above. As
simple or as detailed as you like. And, *first hand* accounts only
(i.e., it happened to you). And no responses of "studies show",
"statistics prove", etc.
(And I'm counting on everyone's honesty.)



*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

Michael Press wrote:
In article
.com,
"Ed Pirrero" wrote:

Suggest to your wife that she do the research.

I suggest to you that you look up the meaning of the words "not going
to fight that battle."

I do not propose that you engage in a battle with your
wife. I suggest that you talk about it.

Hey, I'm curious - are you always such an asshole, or just one on the
internet?

It's a freakin' figure of speech, but of course you knew that already.

It's too bad your parents didn't teach you any manners. By not doing
their primary job as parents, they have left you ill-equipped to deal
with other members of society. Rest assured that you will be taught
manners by someone, in an unpleasant fashion.

Be that as it may, have have discussed it with her. She, like many
other folks, remains unconvinced (surely even someone as obtuse as you
could recognize that even with the most concrete evisdence, there will
be a sceptic or two.) So, since it *doesn't cost me anything* to wear
the damn thing (anecdotes aside for *increased* injury rates), I wear
it for her sake.

Now that I've explained it to you like you're a six-year-old, maybe
you'll grasp what I'm saying. I do not hold out hope.

E.P.

Michael Press wrote:
In article

Your insinuations are offensive, but I've read enough of your
dribblings to know you're not adult enough to offer an apology.

Was it something I said?

Yes. Are you adult enough to recognize that your insinuations are
offensive, or do you need some public schooling in the matter?

E.P.

Quoting Espressopithecus (Java Man) :
says...
Quoting Espressopithecus (Java Man) :
Frank Krygowski:
4) Many people are convinced their helmets saved them.
At the other extreme, it's possible that helmets OFTEN help but MORE
OFTEN make things worse. It's possible to have these two cases generate
the same overall population statistics.
Well... no, surely, it's not. If only one in every few thousand cyclists
can expect to die cycling at all, how could the one-in-twenty "saved my
life" possibly be right? Helmets would have to make things worse and help
in the same incidents...
What is it about the phrase "at the other extreme" you don't understand?

Spare me the cheap shots, please.

The same overall population statistic could be generated by many
different underlying processes,

However, I don't believe the overall population statistics could possibly
be generated by underlying processes which cause helmets to often help but
more often make things worse.

I have restored some quoted text from Frank to make the context clear. He
was saying that many people are convinced their helmets saved them (and
that these people are overwhelmingly deluded). As I understand it, you
were disagreeing with the assertion that these people are necessarily
overwhelmingly deluded.

If you _don't_ disagree with that assertion - if you _do_ agree that
people who believe that helmets saved their life are necessarily almost
all deluded - please say so, and clarify what you _are_ asserting.

If you do disagree with that assertion, I'd very much like to see a
hypothetical case that agrees with the figures. Let's assume net
efficiency of helmets is overall zero for simplicity. Only one in every
few thousand cyclists can expect to die cycling; you can pick any value of
"few thousand" you please. One in every twenty helmet users has a "saved
my life" story; if you don't like twenty, pick another reasonable value.
You can divide up the net zero efficiency of helmets however you please,
even with patently ridiculous effects like helmets preventing all head
injuries. You'll probably need a figure for the proportion of fatal
accidents to unhelmeted cyclists involving fatal non-head injuries; make
it reasonable.

I don't think there's _any_ way you can make even, say, one in four of
those people with saved-my-life stories be correct.
--
David Damerell Distortion Field!
Today is Monday, June.