Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

Quoting Jeff Starr :
And why are you afraid of reading actual experiences?

Afraid? No. But anyone who isn't trying to justify their own irrationality
can see very simply that one in every few thousand cyclists dying in
accidents and one in ten or one in twenty helmet wearers convinced it
saved their life does not add up.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corrido r,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruitkonomiyak i,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose :yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!spar kle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
Your #3 specifically states that the head must have struck an object. You
were asked (twice) why you wish to exclude insances where an unhelmeted head
did _not_ strike an object, but would have so done had a helmet been worn.

How would you ever know this to be the case?

Precisely. You have just noticed what people have been trying to point
out to you for some time; your "study" is flawed from the very beginning.

R.

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Ozark Bicycle:
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).

How about "object struck head" instead?

Attacked by a goose that came at me full tilt on the wing from behind beating
with it's wings (ever hear of a "baton fracture"?), pecking, biting, and clawing
after the initial impact

Bruised the hell out of one scapula. I'm pretty sure the helmet saved myhead
from some sort of damage, but I can't say what.

Consider that more fully. Obviously the goose was mad at you and trying
to tell you to take off that #$%@*!!! helmet.ê

wrote:

Dear Ozark,

Always fascinating to see posters who believe that they can
to dictate what other posters can write.

Or not wear on their head?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

1

Jeff wrote:
Type 1:

hit an immovable object--tore my thumb ligament and fell backwards onto
pavement -- head hit first
helmet shattered, slight concussion but no fracture of skull
Reasonable sure I would have suffered brain damage if I hadn't been wearing
a helmet

Jeffrey R Fischman, MD

Could you describe the damage to your helmet more specifically. You say
it shattered: did the styrofoam compress at all?

Thanks.

o

On 9 May 2006 13:44:29 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
wrote:


Helmut Springer wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
I'm looking for three data points he

As your measure is always the subjective 'feel' of the reporting
person you are not collecting data, you are collecting impressions,
i.e. noise.

It's still data. It's data about what people perceive. Perceptions
are not noise; they are perceptions. "Noise" is a subjective
assessment in this context.

--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer

Right, I'm looking for peoples first hand experiences/feelings. That is
data, no?

Yes, it's data, but not in the objectively-measured sense.
Unfortunately, in the specific context under separate discussion, the
collection of this data will provide no basis for conclusions that the
anti-helmet adherents will accept as valid concerning the objective
value of a helmet as protective gear either from the standpoint of
effectiveness or necessity[1]. Their dismissal of positive reports
will almost certainlly be of the form "Well, of course they thought
their helmets helped; they were wearing a helmet, so they were
automatically predisposed to a favorable conclusion concering its
use." As far as they are concerned, no test yet devised and applied
has demonstrated that a helmet is effecive in preventing injury in
actual riding situations, and I question whether any test is possible
that will satisfy some of the more strident objectors. From what I've
seen, they've loaded the argument every bit as egregiously as the
pro-mandatory-helmets types.

This is a discussion that could go on endlessly without ever reaching
a conclusion that was universally accepted about the real value of
helmets, in part because that value is, itself, a *subjectively*
determined factor. The opinions of others have no bearing on it, and
should not be treated as relevant to the actual value of one's own
determination.

There is no point in continuing the discussion here, as has been
demonstrated too many times already.



[1] I am assuming, without having read the responses, that the
majority of data collected has been or will be supportive of the use
of helmets; if the majority was to be negative instead, I would
anticipate exactly as much dismissive rhetoric from the pro-helmet
side, with the main argument predicted to be "How do you know a helmet
wouldn't have helped[2] (or didn't help)? You have no basis for
comparison."

[2] Filtering out the reports of "the impact was to a place where the
helmet would not have been", on the basis of irrelevance, would be
appropriate; after that, the posited argument seems likely to be
advanced for the remaining reports.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Richard wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
Your #3 specifically states that the head must have struck an object. You
were asked (twice) why you wish to exclude insances where an unhelmeted head
did _not_ strike an object, but would have so done had a helmet been worn.

How would you ever know this to be the case?

Precisely.

Then the input would be specious, would it not?


You have just noticed what people have been trying to point
out to you for some time; your "study" is flawed from the very beginning.


"I wasn't wearing a helmet and I didn't hit my head, but if I were
wearing a helmet, I would have hit my head". Wow.....

1) a car hit me, I went over the hood, helmeted head hit the pavement,
helmet was broken, toe was broken, head was not (no concussion or other
mental effects, 'cept for my friends who think I'm crazy).

On a meta-note. Would someone please start a separate thread in the
vein of "Designing a Helmet Poll." Please stop debating the merits of
the poll here and limit to your first-hand experiences.

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
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.)

So near to perfection!

OB, the only way you missed perfect statistical insignificance with this
"data" collection was to limit responses to those who have a financial
interest in selling helmets.

Pat