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

[jtaylor]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Secondly, no one takes that 85% thing seriously.

Um, yes they do.

The helmet lobby routinely quotes it; members of parliament quote it, and
police "public-service" announcements quote it.

These people are serious about helmet compulsion, and because they have one
study that is essentially a set of anecdotes with no controls that says that
helmets prevent 85% of head injuries, we have MHLs.

Oh wait, you are the fellow who would _rather_ use anecdote than
statistics - you "don't need data to make simple decisions".

 

[Tony Raven]

Hadron Quark wrote:
> 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.

And as is sometimes the case, common sense in this case is wrong.

--
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]

"Hadron Quark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:

> >
> > So why not wear one for other activities that also involve risk. You
> > wear a seatbelt in the car, why not a helmet too? Try banging your
>
> This is so pathetic an argument that its almost laughable.

So turn it around then:

"Yes, helmets won't prevent any kind of serious head injury, but in the
vanishingly small chance that you fall off you bike and get only a small
scrape, this foam hat will prevent you needing a sticking-plaster.
Nevermind that the chance that you will suffer a serious injury is actually
greater because you are wearing one, those plasters are expensive! And
think of the children!"

 

[Chris Malcolm]

In uk.rec.cycling Ozark Bicycle <[email protected]> wrote:

> Peter Clinch wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>
>> > Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the
>> > Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts
>> > such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you
>> > wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc.
>>
>> If it's so childish it should be easy to answer. You still haven't said
>> why you think cycling makes head protection sensible where other
>> activities that are at least as productive as serious head injuries
>> don't merit any such interventions.

> 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.

> OTOH, I have had head hit pavement twice whilst cycling, once with and
> once without a helmet. The hit with the helmet was harder, as evidenced
> by other bodily damage, yet the damage to my head was worse unhelmeted.

On the other hand in fifty years of cycling I've never even so much as
bumped my head once, whereas I've suffered minor head or brain
injuries fron slipping in the bath, falling down stairs, being
walloped by a handbag, tripping on a creased carpet in my parents'
sitting room, falling out of a tree, and falling off a cliff.

> 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.

On a bicycle. Whereas in my personal experience I'd have suffered a
lot less head and brain injury if I'd worn a helmet every time I
wasn't on a bicycle.

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

No need to apologise. We all recognise that a person's personal
experience is very relevant to that person's personal decisions,
whereas it is of no relevance to scientific conclusions and general
advice to the general population. All that puzzles us is why you think
you're so special that your personal experience trumps the general
statistics and science that are generally recognised as relevant to
general advice to the general population.

>> Your position and logic on head protection for different activities are
>> inconsistent.

> No, it is not. Guess again.

It's not a question of guessing, it's a question of logic. You have
repeatedly and persistently contradicted yourself in the same way. Do
you have the same kind of learning difficulties in other topics?

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[jtaylor]

"Hadron Quark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> >
> > 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 as you have so much time to spend on this, do you not think your service
to humanity would be greater by re-directing you efforts where they would do
more good?

Think of the Children!

 

[jtaylor]

"Hadron Quark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Hadron Quark wrote:
> >> If a 4 year old was to be knocked of his/her bike by (say) a dog and
> >> hit
> >> his/her head on the kerb would that child
> >> 1) Have it coming and only has him/herself to blame
> >> 2) Come out injury free
> >> 3) Bounce the maleable head off the stone kerb and walk away whistling
> >> 4) Be better off with a helmet
> >> 5) Some or all of the above?
> >
> > The evidence is in favour of 2 or 3.
> >
>
> Should that kid wear a seatbelt too when eating his dinner?

That's avoiding the question. Lets give you another go:

"If a 4 year old were to run and trip over a shoelace and hit his head on
a kerb would that child

1) Have it coming and only has him/herself to blame
2) Come out injury free
3) Bounce the maleable head off the stone kerb and walk away whistling
4) Be better off with a helmet
5) Some or all of the above?"

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Tony Raven wrote:
> 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.
>

You need to distinguish between personal, first hand experience and
statistical mental maturbation (1).

My personal experience in walking v. cycling tell *me* all I need to
know regarding which activitity benefits from helmet use.

(1)You can go get excited with some population statistics now. ;-)

 

[jtaylor]

"Hadron Quark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> 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.

Well, actually, it is a great many researchers who have looked at the
numbers and found out that this is, indeed, true.

Now, what about making those Children wear helmets?

 

[John B]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

> 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.
>
> OTOH, I have had head hit pavement twice whilst cycling

It seems you need some cycle-training.
You'll find it will help you to keep control of your bike.

John B

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting foots <[email protected]>:
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>Quoting foots <[email protected]>:
>>>out to be my wrist watch in pieces scooting along in front of me. I
>>>know my head would have been hurt, maybe a concussion or worse, had I
>>>not been wearing my helmut. Not sure if it saved my life, but I know
>>>it reduced my injuries considerably.
>>Really? Repeating the experiment with a control unhelmeted head must have
>>been rather unpleasant. I wouldn't have bothered, myself.
>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.

So because the rest of your body - which, incidentally, you are not as
equipped by evolution to protect as the head - got scrapes and burns, you
conclude that your head would have got "maybe a concussion", and you think
there's a possibility it saved your life?

See, I would conclude that the helmet maybe saved me scrapes. Which is nice,
but if you're worried about scrapes, why don't you wear BMX knee and elbow
guards?

PS: helm_e_t.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Monday, June.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> In uk.rec.cycling Ozark Bicycle <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Peter Clinch wrote:
> >> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >>
> >> > Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the
> >> > Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts
> >> > such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you
> >> > wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc.
> >>
> >> If it's so childish it should be easy to answer. You still haven't said
> >> why you think cycling makes head protection sensible where other
> >> activities that are at least as productive as serious head injuries
> >> don't merit any such interventions.
>
> > 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.
>
> > OTOH, I have had head hit pavement twice whilst cycling, once with and
> > once without a helmet. The hit with the helmet was harder, as evidenced
> > by other bodily damage, yet the damage to my head was worse unhelmeted.
>
> On the other hand in fifty years of cycling I've never even so much as
> bumped my head once, whereas I've suffered minor head or brain
> injuries fron slipping in the bath, falling down stairs, being
> walloped by a handbag, tripping on a creased carpet in my parents'
> sitting room, falling out of a tree, and falling off a cliff.
>
> > 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.
>
> On a bicycle. Whereas in my personal experience I'd have suffered a
> lot less head and brain injury if I'd worn a helmet every time I
> wasn't on a bicycle.
>

Your personal experience is different than mine. I suggest you follow
your own personal experience. Is that a problem for you?

> > The bad news for all you URC AHZ data-whores is that personal
> > experience trumps statistics and mental masturbation *every time*,
> > sorry.
>
> No need to apologise. We all recognise that a person's personal
> experience is very relevant to that person's personal decisions,
> whereas it is of no relevance to scientific conclusions and general
> advice to the general population. All that puzzles us is why you think
> you're so special that your personal experience trumps the general
> statistics and science that are generally recognised as relevant to
> general advice to the general population.
>

Ah, to the heart of the matter! I'm not trying to convince anyone to
wear a helmet. Or not to wear a helmet. You, and you fellow AHZs, OTOH,
have a very discernable anti-helmet agenda.

I place a good deal of weight in my personal experiences when making
personal decisions. This tends to make me intolerant of the "why don't
you wear a helmet whilst walking" type of drivel the comes from the AHZ
corner of the world.


<drivel snipped>

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

John B wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > OTOH, I have had head hit pavement twice whilst cycling
>
> It seems you need some cycle-training.
> You'll find it will help you to keep control of your bike.
>


If ever stateside, ring me up; we'll go down some hills together....at
least at the beginning.

 

[Ian Smith]

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On Tue, 30 May 2006 18:10:25 +0200, Hadron Quark <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

Your 'common sense' is wrong then. (But don't be troubled, 'common
sense' is frequently wrong, especially in matters of risk, probability
and statistics.)

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[John B]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

> John B wrote:
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > OTOH, I have had head hit pavement twice whilst cycling
> >
> > It seems you need some cycle-training.
> > You'll find it will help you to keep control of your bike.
> >
>
> If ever stateside, ring me up; we'll go down some hills together....at
> least at the beginning.

Fine. I'd be very careful though, as your present tendency to fall off may be
your ultimate undoing.
i'll call the ambulance when I reach the bottom.

John B

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, GaryG wrote:
>
> Given that they do mitigate risk, why not wear one?

Given that you clearly haven't been paying attention, why join in now?
If it wasn't for the evidence that they don't mitigate risk, this thread
would be very different.

 

[Hadron Quark]

Ian Smith <[email protected]> writes:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
> On Tue, 30 May 2006 18:10:25 +0200, Hadron Quark <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Your 'common sense' is wrong then. (But don't be troubled, 'common
> sense' is frequently wrong, especially in matters of risk, probability
> and statistics.)

I dont believe the stats then.

Is anyone really going to tell me that walking down a pavement is more
dangerous than being in a slippery shower unit?

Ive slipped a few times in the shower : sometimes soap, sometimes shower
mat, sometimes reaching for something with soap in my eyes - but have
never clanged my head walking to the local spar.

Again : I dont believe these statistics as being truly representational.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting GaryG <[email protected]>:
>"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>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?

Why don't you wear BMX knee and elbow guards? They can prevent scrapes.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Monday, June.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Hadron Quark <[email protected]>:
>Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:
>>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?
>Because there is nothing to answer. I am not discussing kids running and
>jumping. I am discussing bike accidents caused by unforseen impetus.

Try to weasel away from the point with at least a modicum of subtlety, I
suggest.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Monday, June.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Cathy Kearns <[email protected]>:
>"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_WarrenRogersAssociates.com> wrote in message
>>Simple: tell them they can't ride without one.
>Worked for me for my children. One continues to ride a bike. The other
>decided it wasn't worth it, and gave up bike riding when she entered junior
>high. Prefered to walk the 1.5 miles each way.

So, given the health effects, you had a large negative effect on that
child's life expectancy. Well done! Perhaps you should suggest she
takes up smoking, too?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Monday, June.

 

[Hadron Quark]

David Damerell <[email protected]> writes:

> Quoting Hadron Quark <[email protected]>:
>>Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:
>>>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?
>>Because there is nothing to answer. I am not discussing kids running and
>>jumping. I am discussing bike accidents caused by unforseen impetus.
>
> Try to weasel away from the point with at least a modicum of subtlety, I
> suggest.

What point? I dont wish to discuss wearing a helmet for anything other
than cycling. What is so hard for you to understsnd?

Why is this slippery goal post moving the only argument you seem to
have?

"Why dont people wear a helmet to pop concerts" is not linked to whether
a helmet would provide some protection in the event of an unforseen
tumble *from a bike* resulting in the head striking a solid object.