Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????

wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
Sid wrote:

Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and
hit my hit while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.

Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't
grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet
agenda?

I'd describe the point as "simplistic" rather than "simple."

Ozark and Sorni are big fans of reducing complex issues down to levels
they can understand.

Hunh...yuk yuk. That be about right, unh... Ain't got no need for no city
lernin'!

That seems to preclude actually learning
anything - hence Sorni's mockery of study,

You decided to deride helmets and then went and found additional "studies"
(dubious term, that) to confirm your belief (opinion!). The only difference
with me (and I suspect many others) is we don't NEED studies to verify what
to us are simple, easy, common sense decisions (CHOICES).

Different people have different styles, habits, ways, etc. Frank. Should I
DAGS and cite something to back that up?

and Ozark's refusal to
consider that "common sense" is often wrong.

Bite us. (OK, that's wrong.)

So we have the above pair, quite content to strenuously defend a
device that is obviously under-designed, because - what? It's
better than nothing, even if it's no good for its advertised purpose?

And to advocate its use only for cycling - why? Because cycling is
responsible for such a tiny number of head injuries, compared to other
sources?

Of course, they haven't assimilated the fact that the best data
indicates these things don't work, and aren't generally needed anyway
- how could they? That would require reading!

Horse ****. There are just as many reputable sources indicating that
helmets ARE effective. Just because YOU discount them doesn't mean they
aren't valid.

But they laugh at the idea of taking any time to read any serious
studies on this issue - why? Because they need all their time to
blather on Usenet?

OMG that's rich coming from you. If I fall over laughing, I hope I have my
lid on!

I'd suggest learning enough about this issue to at _least_ defend your
views logically, based on real-world facts instead of overconfident
daydreams. But I know that won't happen.

Logic: better to have some protection on one's head when banging it against
hard and maybe even pointy objects/surfaces. Even The Smartest Person In
The World (the intellectual bully with at least two-score IQ points on me so
that makes him 180++) believes in and wears helmets on bike rides. And like
you, he seems to extensively research nearly every waking thought he has, so
it MUST be a pretty informed choice (CHOICE).

Also, Doctor Google, if I and Ozark are such intellectual lightweights, then
why the hell do you CARE what the hell we say/think/argue/defend?!? Aren't
you secure enough in your lofty internet tower to just smugly dismiss us as
the backwoods buffoons we so obviously are?

OK, back to the comics page and reruns for us. WE AIN'T EQWIPT TO DO THESE
TALKY THINGS ON THIS HERE INTERNET THING.

Bowleggedly skulking away, Billy Bob S.

NYC XYZ wrote:
Okay, so I got a nice new helmet for club rides and such. Luckily, so
far, no one's been a Helmet Nazi about it -- just mild chiding
comments, but I just smile and keep pedalling and no one's pulled me
over yet or kicked me out. =)

well, since you bought it anyway why not start wearing it when on your
bike? This is usually enough to appease the Nazis as they tend to be
more fixated on helmut wearing than safety vbg

best wishes
james

writes:

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
Sid wrote:

Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit
while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.

Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't
grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda?

I'd describe the point as "simplistic" rather than "simple."

Ozark and Sorni are big fans of reducing complex issues down to levels
they can understand. That seems to preclude actually learning anything
- hence Sorni's mockery of study, and Ozark's refusal to consider that
"common sense" is often wrong.

So we have the above pair, quite content to strenuously defend a device
that is obviously under-designed, because - what? It's better than
nothing, even if it's no good for its advertised purpose?

Read up on Occams Razor.


And to advocate its use only for cycling - why? Because cycling is
responsible for such a tiny number of head injuries, compared to other
sources?

Of course, they haven't assimilated the fact that the best data
indicates these things don't work, and aren't generally needed anyway -
how could they? That would require reading!

But they laugh at the idea of taking any time to read any serious
studies on this issue - why? Because they need all their time to
blather on Usenet?

You seem intent on spouting ridiculous reports which rely on minutae
data to disprove something simple : a helmet protects the head.

Tell me : do gloves protect the hand? Or because they dont protect
against a chain saw they are equally useless when doing manual labour?
Your whole course of argument is fatally flawed.


I'd suggest learning enough about this issue to at _least_ defend your
views logically, based on real-world facts instead of overconfident
daydreams. But I know that won't happen.

Someone is holding a big stick covered in tar and gravel : now, would
you prefer them to hit your bald head or your helemted head with it?

See? Its not so difficult. FWIW, I hate helmets and dont wear one as I
feel that it reduces my overrall awareness - others I know say it doesnt
affect them at all in that way.


- Frank Krygowski


--

GaryG wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

GaryG wrote:

The example you cite, and the paragraph above are anecdotal hearsay...at
best.

I know they are, and I presented them as such. Note the "he claimed"
and "Can't say for sure it was true." I was nowhere near presenting
that as proven fact.

Then why waste bandwidth on them? They seem to do nothing but decrease the
signal to noise ratio.

They relay information that I read which is possibly pertinent. In
some cases, remarks like this have brought either confirming
documentation, or complete rebuttal, from people who happen to be
experts. If that happens either way, we learn.

If the ideas are never mentioned, we have no opportunity to learn.

In an earlier post today, you stated "I'd suggest learning enough about this
issue to at _least_ defend your
views logically, based on real-world facts instead of overconfident
daydreams.", and took others to task because "they need all their time to
blather on Usenet".

That was directed toward people who were arguing vociferously for well
over a week, from a position of almost total ignorance of pertinent
facts.

You need to understand the difference between energetic defense of
ignorance, and deliberately tentative presentation of what may be a
pertinent fact.

- Frank Krygowski

Hadron Quark wrote:
writes:

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
Sid wrote:

Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit
while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.

Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't
grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda?

I'd describe the point as "simplistic" rather than "simple."

Ozark and Sorni are big fans of reducing complex issues down to levels
they can understand.

Read up on Occams Razor.

I've done that long ago, thanks.

I don't believe William of Occam would approve of "If I hit my head a
helmet will help, so everyone should wear helmets." For one thing,
he'd probably want some data.

I believe he'd be more impressed with "They made the whole population
of Australia wear bike helmets, and they observed no improvement in
serious head injuries per rider." Based on that, he'd say "The
simplest explanation is best. The helmets aren't providing significant
protection."

Again, for Sorni and Ozark, the latter cuts no ice. Actual data is too
much trouble. Perhaps you're with them?

Those interested in the latest data, published in the British Medical
Journal, should go to http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/march/ac722.pdf

You seem intent on spouting ridiculous reports which rely on minutae
data to disprove something simple : a helmet protects the head.

??

Helmets are promoted as protecting against serious head injuries. Data
indicates they don't protect against serious head injuries - at least,
data from large populations.

Why is checking to see if they actually work "minutae"?

You seem to be working from faith. I'm an engineer. I prefer data.

- Frank Krygowski

writes:


You seem to be working from faith. I'm an engineer. I prefer data.

- Frank Krygowski


Tell you what : do you have any "data" that shows that helmets cause
more injury when worn as opposed to when they are left at home on the
coat peg?

--

Hadron Quark wrote:
writes:


You seem to be working from faith. I'm an engineer. I prefer data.

- Frank Krygowski


Tell you what : do you have any "data" that shows that helmets cause
more injury when worn as opposed to when they are left at home on the
coat peg?

Don't worry; he'll find something (dubious though it may be).

Hadron Quark wrote:
writes:

You seem to be working from faith. I'm an engineer. I prefer data.

- Frank Krygowski


Tell you what : do you have any "data" that shows that helmets cause
more injury when worn as opposed to when they are left at home on the
coat peg?

Any idea why nobody thought of this before?

Sorni wrote:

Hadron Quark wrote:
writes:


You seem to be working from faith. I'm an engineer. I prefer data.

- Frank Krygowski


Tell you what : do you have any "data" that shows that helmets cause
more injury when worn as opposed to when they are left at home on the
coat peg?

Don't worry; he'll find something (dubious though it may be).

How about the "Helmets cause over confidence" argument. Bicycle helmets
still leave your forehead, nose, and teeth out there to get hit, but mainly
protect the critical back part of your brain, where a hard whack could mean
sudden death. I saw a more protective type of helmet in Mountain Bike
Action magazine but it covers the ears and may not be much good for road
riding.
I guess it depends on how much protection you want versus how much awareness
of surroundings 'hearing' you want to give up.
The stunts on mountain bikes really do want a better helmet, but then again
these guys are not listening for cars either.
Personal choice is up to the rider.
Bill Baka

wrote:

By the way, we have two plastic garbage cans, the large kind we haul to
the curb once a week. Both are roughly the same age. One is cracked
and torn, the other is perfectly intact. I've wondered why.

I think one is designed to be biodegradeable due to the "Save the Earth"
movement. OK for garbage cans which typically get bashed to death anyway,
but not so good for helmets. Most of the plastic stuff I have that is over
10 years old seems to be getting flakey, whether by intent or not is
probably a moot point.
Bill Baka

- Frank Krygowski