I crash into religion

Richard wrote:
Sorni wrote:

Take a hi-speed skididng fall.

Have done, thanks.

The helmet will help lessen or prevent
cetrain types of injuries.

I wasn't wearing a helmet. I didn't suffer any head injury at all; my
head didn't hit the ground. I've no doubt that if I had been wearing
a helmet, it would've struck the ground; I was staring ants in the
eye as I slide past them. Now, you were telling me about how vital
a helmet is in this situation...

Only when one /does/ hit one's head.

HTH, BS

Sorni wrote:

The helmet will help lessen or prevent
cetrain types of injuries.

I wasn't wearing a helmet. I didn't suffer any head injury at all; my
head didn't hit the ground. I've no doubt that if I had been wearing
a helmet, it would've struck the ground; I was staring ants in the
eye as I slide past them. Now, you were telling me about how vital
a helmet is in this situation...

Only when one /does/ hit one's head.

Ah, I see. If I hit my head *because* I'm wearing a helmet, I should
therefore wear a helmet in case I hit my head... perfectly clear.

R.

Richard wrote:
Sorni wrote:

Take a hi-speed skididng fall.

Have done, thanks.

The helmet will help lessen or prevent
cetrain types of injuries.

I wasn't wearing a helmet. I didn't suffer any head injury at all; my
head didn't hit the ground. I've no doubt that if I had been wearing
a helmet, it would've struck the ground; I was staring ants in the
eye as I slide past them. Now, you were telling me about how vital
a helmet is in this situation...

I have done the same.
--
Ambrose

On Mon, 15 May 2006 17:49:26 +0100, Richard
.address.uk wrote:

Jay Beattie wrote:
Your conclusions are based on population studies, which I think you
would agree do not necessarily reflect the risks encountered by
particular individuals.

I agree.

Helmets have considerable value for many
riders who race, ride off road or who are exposed to increased risks
due to weather conditions or road hazards.

Helmets appear to have /some/ value for some of the above. However, if
your racing speed is 30 mph+,

It's quite possible to fall at that speed and not hit your head hard.
I fell going about 28mph once and just scuffed my helmet while
rolling.

Er, no, I don't. Scalp lacerations and bruising, yes.

Yeah, probably saved me from that.

Not all crashes are head-on at the speed the rider is going.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On 15 May 2006 09:09:02 -0700, "Jay Beattie"
wrote:


I watched the process here in Oregon that resulted in our MHL (which
applies to children 16 years old and younger), and can safely say that
those in favor of the law were not crusading helmet wearers. They were
Kaiser Hospital doctors and nurses and soccer moms, one of whom was a
former legislative assistant and knew how to toss a bill in the hopper.
Indeed, some helmet wearers were against the the law because it took
attention away from other safety issues. I know this because I was on
the board of the State's largest bicycle advocacy group, and we were
asked to testify in favor of the bill, which we declined to do for a
number of reasons. One of our members opposed the bill formally on
behalf of another organization. Everyone on the board wore a helmet.

Interesting.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Mon, 15 May 2006 19:50:08 GMT, "Sorni"
wrote:


Take a hi-speed skididng fall. The helmet will help lessen or prevent
cetrain types of injuries. I know because I've seen it. I know because
others have reported it right here in this little newsgroup.

Yeah. I *think* helmets help prevent cuts and bruises in those sorts
of accidents too.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

p.k. wrote:

It is perfectly possible to have a collision with car travelling at 30mph
plus and for the head impact with the ground to be at a far lower speed
within the design range of the helmet thus your statement "the impacts are
so far outside the design spec for helmets that they can safely be said to
have no useful value at all. " is an overstatement.

On the one hand, yes, but on the other it is probably no longer a
collision where a helmet will make significant differences to the
survival chances, so we're back to bumps and grazes.

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/

in message , Sorni
') wrote:

How do you know?

Take a hi-speed skididng fall. The helmet will help lessen or prevent
cetrain types of injuries. I know because I've seen it. I know
because others have reported it right here in this little newsgroup.

You've seen a guy wearing a helmet land and be uninjured or
insignificantly injured. You are hypothesizing that he would have been
(more) injured had he not been wearing a helmet. You don't know this.

Last October I crashed at 46mph into a pile of granite boulders, having
failed to take a bend on a downhill. I suffered lacerations to my legs,
a broken back, and a small graze on my forehead. From which you may
conclude that my helmet worked.

It was one of these:
http://www.probikekit.com/display.php?code=C7379

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GP/CS s++: a++ C+++ ULBVCS*++++$ L+++ P--- E+++ W+++ N++ K w--(---)
M- !d- PS++ PE-- Y+ PGP !t 5? X+ !R b++ !DI D G- e++ h*(-) r++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Peter Clinch wrote:
p.k. wrote:

It is perfectly possible to have a collision with car travelling at
30mph plus and for the head impact with the ground to be at a far
lower speed within the design range of the helmet thus your
statement "the impacts are so far outside the design spec for
helmets that they can safely be said to have no useful value at all.
" is an overstatement.

On the one hand, yes, but on the other it is probably no longer a
collision where a helmet will make significant differences to the
survival chances, so we're back to bumps and grazes.

Pete.

Do you begin to see how overstating a case weakens an argument by giving a
shot at an open goal & making one backtrack?

I've got a lot of experience organising campaigns to change LEA decisions or
obtain LEA action - I've no experience of ever losing a campaign.

Why? Well partly, we were always right! But mainly, because we always
subjected our arguments (verbal and written) to rigorous test in-house
before taking them public. Anyone in-house attacking an argument was not
criticised but the argument dropped/changed/modified accordingly to ensure
that when presenting the case WE retained the initiative and put the
opposition (LEA or other resident pressure group) on the back foot.

pk

p.k. wrote:

Do you begin to see how overstating a case weakens an argument by giving a
shot at an open goal & making one backtrack?

Certainly. You gave us a lovely example with the smoke detector analogy
a few days ago.

Why? Well partly, we were always right! But mainly, because we always
subjected our arguments (verbal and written) to rigorous test in-house
before taking them public. Anyone in-house attacking an argument was not
criticised but the argument dropped/changed/modified accordingly to ensure
that when presenting the case WE retained the initiative and put the
opposition (LEA or other resident pressure group) on the back foot.

Which is what gets done here, as with the smoke detectors. You may be
convinced that everyone except you is towing an unthinking party line
(and there /is/ undoubtedly a degree of dumb repetition), but many
people learn and grow with respect to this subject by the simple matter
of openly discussing it.

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/