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

[Hadron Quark]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:

> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> Do you have deabilitating disease?
>
> Not that I'm aware of, aside from age gradually wearing me down over time.
>
>> I have never crashed a car but I dont doubt the value of a seatbelt in
>> the *majority* of accident.s
>
> Nor do I, but seatbelts have a proven track record of helping in A
> Random Accident where cycle helmets don't. Furthermore, it is the
> case that outside of individual all -other-things-equal accidents that
> seatbelts alter driver behaviour and make accidents more likely. The
> primary effect of compulsory seatbelt legislation is that drivers keep
> getting hurt just as much but cyclist and pedestrian injuries rise.
>
>> This is so pathetic an argument that its almost laughable.
>
> So why can't you actually come up with a logically consistent answer,
> rather than just dismissing it? Kids running and jumping produce
> many, many ER admissions, and they're more productive of head injuries
> than cycling spills. So why does it make sense for child cyclists but
> not child runners and jumpers to wear protective headgear? Just
> answer, rather than dismiss as "childish" or "pathetic".

Because there is nothing to answer. I am not discussing kids running and
jumping. I am discussing bike accidents caused by unforseen impetus.

And the question is still this : if you have an accident any your head
hits the kerb, are you better off with or without a helmet?

Q: Shoud motorcyclists wear them?

 

[Peter Clinch]

Hadron Quark wrote:

> No Im not : I am not discussing any thing other than cycling. It is who
> who is convinced that you are more likely to get a head injury walking
> down a pavement to the local shop than when cycling in hazardous
> conditions in rush hour traffic.

The simple fact of the matter is it's public record from the (generally
pro-helmet) UK Department for Transport that cycling results in fewer
serious injuries per unit distance travelled than walking. It's also a
matter of public record that pedestrian serious injuries have a greater
proportion of head injuries than cyclists. So that's what I'm convinced
of.

While you like to think you are "only discussing cycling", what the real
issue is is how to deal with risks. It makes no consistent sense at all
to wear a helmet for one mildly risky activity but not another where
risks and consequences are similar (and demonstrably similar through
public records, whatever your intuition may tell you).

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 [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

>
> Conclusion: in my personal experience, I am less likely to be exposed
> to a potential head injury whilst cycling than whilst either showering
> or walking. And, agin in my personal *experience*, if head hits
> pavement, I'm better off helmeted.
>

I meant to write "I am *more* likely to be exposed to a potential head
injury whilst cycling".
This is what happens when a phone call interupts my train of thought.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of
> serious head injuries" as is cycling?

Showering, no, walking, yes.

> Funny thing, I've been walking
> alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have never struck my head in
> a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy winter conditions for over 40
> years. Never hit my head in a fall (or even fell) in the shower,
> either.

Tell that to all the people that make up the records. Oh, hang on, you
don't believe in population statistics because that's just /other
people/. I've never had cancer, so that means I'm immune?

> The bad news for all you URC AHZ data-whores is that personal
> experience trumps statistics and mental masturbation *every time*,
> sorry.

Oh right, so I /am/ immune from cancer. That's nice, I don't ever have
to worry about it any more, ever again.

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 [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Tony Raven]

Sorni wrote:
>
> While this may very well be true and should be of concern and addressed, it
> also throws off those vaunted overall population studies (along with casual
> cyclists, MUP users, DUI cases, etc. etc.) which have no bearing on either
> "serious" road cycling or mountain biking.
>
> BTW, the latter two groups -- which make up the bulk of "serious" injuries
> most likely -- doubtless keep riding their bikes even after MHLs are passed.
> So when others -- in large numbers -- stop or significantly reduce riding
> due to those horribly oppressive and restrictive laws, it should be no
> surprise that the statistics /appear/ to suggest that injury rates go up
> when MHLs are imposed. The number and types of riders likely to get injured
> remain close to the same, while the overall number of bike riders is
> decreased -- often quite dramatically (according to you guys).
>

So let's assume your hypothesis is correct. The number of riders drops
which means those people who stopped are no longer suffering cycling
head injuries. Those "serious" cyclists who continue and make up the
bulk of "serious" injuries now all wear helmets when cycling so should,
if helmets work, have a big (85%?) reduction in their head injuries. So
you would expect a big decrease in the number of head injuries recorded.

But even you could not detect a reduction in the total number of head
injuries when a helmet law was introduced (remember the test?) Which
means your hypothesis has fallen at the first hurdle.


--
Tony

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

 

[MSeries]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

>
> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of
> serious head injuries" as is cycling? Funny thing, I've been walking
> alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have never struck my head in
> a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy winter conditions for over 40
> years. Never hit my head in a fall (or even fell) in the shower,
> either.
>

What is your point ?

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of
> > serious head injuries" as is cycling?
>
> Showering, no, walking, yes.
>
> > Funny thing, I've been walking
> > alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have never struck my head in
> > a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy winter conditions for over 40
> > years. Never hit my head in a fall (or even fell) in the shower,
> > either.
>
> Tell that to all the people that make up the records. Oh, hang on, you
> don't believe in population statistics because that's just /other
> people/.

I believe in personal experience quite a bit more than I do in
"population statistics".

You remind me of someone who has never seen a given film or visited a
given restaurant, yet blows hard and hot about the quality of said film
or restaurant because he has "read the reviews". Sad.

<remaining blather snipped>

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

MSeries wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> >
> > Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of
> > serious head injuries" as is cycling? Funny thing, I've been walking
> > alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have never struck my head in
> > a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy winter conditions for over 40
> > years. Never hit my head in a fall (or even fell) in the shower,
> > either.
> >
>
> What is your point ?

If you have to ask, you won't understand the answer.

Which, BTW, was contained in the part of my post that you so cleverly
snipped out.

 

[MSeries]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> MSeries wrote:
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of
> > > serious head injuries" as is cycling? Funny thing, I've been walking
> > > alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have never struck my head in
> > > a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy winter conditions for over 40
> > > years. Never hit my head in a fall (or even fell) in the shower,
> > > either.
> > >
> >
> > What is your point ?
>
> If you have to ask, you won't understand the answer.
>
> Which, BTW, was contained in the part of my post that you so cleverly
> snipped out.

Oooh, having a bad day ?

 

[Sorni]

Tony Raven wrote: (why no reply to the other stuff?)
> Sorni wrote:

>> While this may very well be true and should be of concern and
>> addressed, it also throws off those vaunted overall population
>> studies (along with casual cyclists, MUP users, DUI cases, etc.
>> etc.) which have no bearing on either "serious" road cycling or
>> mountain biking. BTW, the latter two groups -- which make up the bulk of
>> "serious"
>> injuries most likely -- doubtless keep riding their bikes even after
>> MHLs are passed. So when others -- in large numbers -- stop or
>> significantly reduce riding due to those horribly oppressive and
>> restrictive laws, it should be no surprise that the statistics
>> /appear/ to suggest that injury rates go up when MHLs are imposed. The
>> number and types of riders likely to get injured remain close to
>> the same, while the overall number of bike riders is decreased --
>> often quite dramatically (according to you guys).
>
> So let's assume your hypothesis is correct. The number of riders
> drops which means those people who stopped are no longer suffering
> cycling head injuries. Those "serious" cyclists who continue and
> make up the bulk of "serious" injuries now all wear helmets when
> cycling so should, if helmets work, have a big (85%?) reduction in
> their head injuries. So you would expect a big decrease in the
> number of head injuries recorded.

First of all, I only said "injury rates". Secondly, no one takes that 85%
thing seriously. And thirdly, I concede that a helmet usually can not
prevent a traumatic (fatal or near-fatal) head injury, so those numbers
won't decrease very much if at all.

> But even you could not detect a reduction in the total number of head
> injuries when a helmet law was introduced (remember the test?) Which
> means your hypothesis has fallen at the first hurdle.

I already told you. I see two squiggly lines with no identifying values
given.

And now I'm late to go take a stress test! (I think I'll pass, as I'm
stressed!)

BS

 

[Hadron Quark]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:

> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
>> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of
>> serious head injuries" as is cycling?
>
> Showering, no, walking, yes.


Common sense says this is rubbish.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

MSeries wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > MSeries wrote:
> > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of
> > > > serious head injuries" as is cycling? Funny thing, I've been walking
> > > > alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have never struck my head in
> > > > a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy winter conditions for over 40
> > > > years. Never hit my head in a fall (or even fell) in the shower,
> > > > either.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What is your point ?
> >
> > If you have to ask, you won't understand the answer.
> >
> > Which, BTW, was contained in the part of my post that you so cleverly
> > snipped out.
>
> Oooh, having a bad day ?


Only when having to deal with deceptive and/or ignorant clots.

 

[Tony Raven]

Sorni wrote:
>
> First of all, I only said "injury rates". Secondly, no one takes that 85%
> thing seriously. And thirdly, I concede that a helmet usually can not
> prevent a traumatic (fatal or near-fatal) head injury, so those numbers
> won't decrease very much if at all.

I know you said injury rates but that has the complication of changes
with the number of people cycling obscuring the underlying number of
injuries. If you take absolute numbers of injuries it is difficult to
see how your hypothesis could not lead to a reduction in the absolute
number unless helmets didn't work.

So we now have that you don't believe helmets prevent fatal or near
fatal injuries and that the 85% reduction figure for the rest cannot be
taken seriously. So which parts of your starting position are we left
with and what reduction figure would you take seriously?

>
>> But even you could not detect a reduction in the total number of head
>> injuries when a helmet law was introduced (remember the test?) Which
>> means your hypothesis has fallen at the first hurdle.
>
> I already told you. I see two squiggly lines with no identifying values
> given.
>

And I've given you the identifying values ^, but if you are incapable of
reading a simple graph I can see why you would avoid reading research
papers.


--
Tony

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

 

[Tony Raven]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> I believe in personal experience quite a bit more than I do in
> "population statistics".
>
> You remind me of someone who has never seen a given film or visited a
> given restaurant, yet blows hard and hot about the quality of said film
> or restaurant because he has "read the reviews". Sad.
>

You need to distinguish between subjective and objective data. Food and
films reviews are definitely in the subjective category.

--
Tony

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

 

[jtaylor]

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> MSeries wrote:
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > MSeries wrote:
> > > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive
of
> > > > > serious head injuries" as is cycling? Funny thing, I've been
walking
> > > > > alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have never struck my
head in
> > > > > a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy winter conditions for over
40
> > > > > years. Never hit my head in a fall (or even fell) in the shower,
> > > > > either.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > What is your point ?
> > >
> > > If you have to ask, you won't understand the answer.
> > >
> > > Which, BTW, was contained in the part of my post that you so cleverly
> > > snipped out.
> >
> > Oooh, having a bad day ?
>
>
> Only when having to deal with deceptive and/or ignorant clots.
>

Aha, there's that argument-ending dialectical tactic again - the insult.
Give him a double one, that'll convince _everybody_ that you are correct.

 

[jtaylor]

"GaryG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Tue, 30 May 2006 03:27:43 GMT, foots <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >Well, slamming my head against asphalt at 15 mph with a helmut on and
> > >not having one scratch (on the head) vs slamming my leg and butt and
> > >shoulder against the same asphalt at the same velocity at the same
> > >time resulting in scrapes and burns, at every contact point, that went
> > >thru both layers of skin and one layer of expensive bib shorts is
> > >enough evidence for me.
> >
> > It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such.
>
> They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone?
>

Gloves also mitigate against scrapes and such, as do kneepads, elbow guards,
and so on; but you don't see them required by law.

At least not yet.

Wearing a helmet is a vote for compulsion - and perhaps for creeping
compulsion. Beware.

 

[davek]

jtaylor wrote:
> Aha, there's that argument-ending dialectical tactic again - the insult.
> Give him a double one, that'll convince _everybody_ that you are correct.

No-one asked him to cross-post his drivel to URC, but when he does he
gets upset if anyone responds...

Funny thing is, he'd be even more upset if no-one responded.

d.

 

[jtaylor]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >
> > I believe in personal experience quite a bit more than I do in
> > "population statistics".
> >
> > You remind me of someone who has never seen a given film or visited a
> > given restaurant, yet blows hard and hot about the quality of said film
> > or restaurant because he has "read the reviews". Sad.
> >
>
> You need to distinguish between subjective and objective data. Food and
> films reviews are definitely in the subjective category.
>

Well it seems he does know that they are different - it's just that he
believes that fear trumps fact.

I had a friend who used to say that lotteries were a tax on people who
failed maths.

 

[David Hansen]

On 30 May 2006 08:53:51 -0700 someone who may be "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I believe in personal experience quite a bit more than I do in
>"population statistics".

That tells us quite a bit about you.

><remaining blather snipped>

In other words you were unwilling or unable to answer it.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 30 May 2006 18:10:25 +0200 someone who may be Hadron Quark
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>> Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of
>>> serious head injuries" as is cycling?
>>
>> Showering, no, walking, yes.
>
>Common sense says this is rubbish.

Common sense may say this. However, what matters are the cold hard
numbers and they say otherwise.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54