Definitive proof ;-)

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:40:18 -0000, "Clive George" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

That's better. Trouble is you present it in almost exactly the same terms as
various pro-helmet people use to justify their promotion. And you did
dismiss the "statistics and stuff" bit out of hand.

Yes, but most of the 'statistics and stuff' I've seen has been on the pro helmet
side and it's been pretty spurious. Baby and bathwater syndrome on my part,
perhaps.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that one day not wearing a helmet could cost me my life.

And that "possibility" is, um, zero (or perhaps negative) -
statistically; at least that's what the best and largest studies show
us.

In the first place, may I suggest that you learn something about statistics?

There is no such thing as a negative probability.

Second, perhaps you could explain *exactly* how anyone managed to carry out a
study that (appeared to have) proved that what I suggested could *never* happen?

I would be fascinated at the methodology, logic and/or statistics involved.

I'm as anti helmet as a lot of people here appear to be but I refuse to deny
that the things can *ever* save someone from death or injury since to do so,
apart from being stupid and dishonest, could seriously detract from the
important message that they almost certainly cause more problems than they
solve.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But I don't let the above two facts blind me to the possibility, however
remote,
that one day not wearing a helmet could cost me my life.

And that "possibility" is, um, zero (or perhaps negative) -
statistically; at least that's what the best and largest studies show
us.

Strictly speaking, that's not true. There is the possibility that wearing a
helmet could save ones life, and there is the possibility that it could cost
ones life.

I agree that considering them individually isn't actually helpful, but that
is what "Ziggy" is doing.

cheers,
clive

"Ziggy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:40:18 -0000, "Clive George"
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

That's better. Trouble is you present it in almost exactly the same terms
as
various pro-helmet people use to justify their promotion. And you did
dismiss the "statistics and stuff" bit out of hand.

Yes, but most of the 'statistics and stuff' I've seen has been on the pro
helmet
side and it's been pretty spurious. Baby and bathwater syndrome on my
part,
perhaps.

There is good stuff not on the pro-helmet side - have a read of
www.cyclehelmets.org.

cheers,
clive

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:29:53 -0000, "Clive George" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But I don't let the above two facts blind me to the possibility, however
remote,
that one day not wearing a helmet could cost me my life.

And that "possibility" is, um, zero (or perhaps negative) -
statistically; at least that's what the best and largest studies show
us.

Strictly speaking, that's not true. There is the possibility that wearing a
helmet could save ones life, and there is the possibility that it could cost
ones life.

I agree that considering them individually isn't actually helpful, but that
is what "Ziggy" is doing.

The trouble is, "Clive", that if someone has the not unreasonable idea that a
helmet may save their life under certain circumstances, trying to lump the other
possibility in with the posited case and refusing to admit that, yes, under
certain circumstances a helmet will save your life makes you sound like a
politician.

Any you know how much people trust politicians.

It is my belief that you should be straightforward and honest in your approach:

Yes, helmets may may save your life.

However:

There are very few accidents of a type where that is likely to be the case.

There are certainly circumstances where they are likely to do more harm than
good.

Forcing people to wear them (or making them fear cycling if not wearing them)
will lead to more people using other forms of transport to cycling which is
almost certainly not conducive to their good health or the good health of the
population in general.

The commonly quoted statistics in favour of helmet wearing are produced by
people who are trying to show that helmet wearing is desirable rather than by
people who are trying to determine whether it is desirable or not. As such these
statistics vary from the unreliable to the downright bogus.

I really believe that you lose credibility with an audience if you are afraid to
admit that some of the arguments that do not appear to support your case have
some small element of validity.

"Ziggy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It is my belief that you should be straightforward and honest in your
approach:

It is my belief that you should also be clear in your approach, which is
something you were most definitely not doing.

BTW no need for the "" around my name - it's real.

cheers,
clive

Ziggy wrote on 19/03/2007 15:34 +0100:

Quoted message said:

But I don't let the above two facts blind me to the possibility,
however remote, that one day not wearing a helmet could cost me my
life.

That's fine but you also need to include that wearing a helmet could
also cost you your life. The best data currently available would
indicate that that is as, or more, likely than your proposition,
otherwise we would see population benefits when helmet wearing increased.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Ziggy wrote on 19/03/2007 15:36 +0100:

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:44:00 +0000, Anthony Jones <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ziggy wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you don't believe me, try banging your head firmly against a brick wall
faced with a polystyrene ceiling tile and then against an unfaced brick
wall. Come back and report your findings 😉

If you think you're advancing the whole helmet debate here, you're very much
mistaken.

OK.

Go away and try it, then come back and tell me what you think.

You need to do another experiment. Swing your head hard towards the
wall but stop your head half an inch short of hitting it. Now do
exactly the same with a one inch thick helmet on. Come back and report
your findings

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Tony Raven said:

You need to do another experiment. Swing your head hard towards the
wall but stop your head half an inch short of hitting it. Now do
exactly the same with a one inch thick helmet on. Come back and report
your findings

What would be the point of that?

I'm not claiming that wearing a helmet will never have an adverse outcome.

You, on the other hand, do seem to be claiming that NOT wearing one will never
have an adverse outcome.

It seems that neither of us actually think that, overall, wearing a helmet is a
particularly good idea. On the other hand, I'm sufficiently confident about that
to accept that there are occasions when it will lead to a better outcome, and I
believe being honest about that is actually beneficial to the argument since
trying to weasel out of admiting it just makes you sound like one of those
politicians who refuse to state the obvious because it isn't 'on message'.

YMMV.

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:14:52 -0000, "Clive George" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Ziggy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It is my belief that you should be straightforward and honest in your
approach:

It is my belief that you should also be clear in your approach, which is
something you were most definitely not doing.

I don't need to put the case for the demerit points of wearing a helmet. Lots of
people are doing that.

I just don't want them, in their zeal, to try and sweep inconveient facts under
the carpet. I think it reduces the credibility of the 'helmets promote safety'
counter-argument's case.

Quoted message said:

BTW no need for the "" around my name - it's real.

So's mine, but you can call me Mr Stardust if you prefer :-)

Ziggy wrote on 19/03/2007 15:41 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Well, that's all I was saying. (Bearing in mind that in a lot of
cases a fractured skull can lead to nasty complications, including
death.)

With the slight problem that it requires 700-1000J to fracture the skull
and a helmet is only designed to protect up to 90J. So if you want to
avoid a fractured skull, a helmet won't be much help at all.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

"Ziggy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:19:09 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

You need to do another experiment. Swing your head hard towards the
wall but stop your head half an inch short of hitting it. Now do
exactly the same with a one inch thick helmet on. Come back and report
your findings

What would be the point of that?

It demonstrates why the other experiment doesn't provide a good reason for
wearing helmets.

Quoted message said:

I'm not claiming that wearing a helmet will never have an adverse outcome.

Yet the only argument you've provided on the subject so far is to show that
they can have a positive effect. You are apparently unaware of the many
people whose understanding of the subject stops at that one thought
experiment.

Currently your contribution to the debate has been pretty useless to anybody
who thinks they aren't a good thing - whereas a pro-helmet campaigner would
happily use your thought experiment.

You complain about being "on message" - well, unfortunately if you want
people to understand, you do have to be careful what you say.

clive

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Does your training explain how putting something on your head prevents
injuries to your legs?

It doesn't. I'm quite happy to wait for a leg to heal though. The
brain is the most important organ in the body and whether a helmet
protects me when I fall or not, I want to give it every fighting
chance possible. Putting something on your head does not protect
anything but what is inside your head but it must be argued, what is
in your head is quite important.

it is indeed.

Quoted message said:

I am quite happy for people not to wear helemts. Its really up to
them. Having attended so many cycle accedidents as a medic, I can see
first hand the difference between wearing one or not. Seeing head
injurys on cyclists on a daily basis, I know wearing a helmet doesn'
stop head injury, but the 'dampening' effect it has is often the
difference between recovery and perminant injury.

the problem with helmets as it stands is they are, too little effect.
that foam is only going to disapate a marginal amount of force. if you
want to protect your self, then a full face, such as downhill mountain
bikers wear would be a weapon of choice. the standurd bike helmet has
more than the look of choaklate fire guard.

Quoted message said:

I'm fed up of the helmet debate anyway. If you don't want to give what
is in your head a fighting chance, there may not be much in it to
protect anyway. Go ahead an add your statistics and stuff now.

i'm sure you've seen viv reaves comment that 97.8% of statistics are
made up. but this doesn't mean they are bunk they are used for spin,
mostly with chosen samples or just very small.

but given a constant and numbers lots of numbers. stats start to work
well.

roger

Ziggy said:

Tony Raven said:

[email hidden] wrote on 19/03/2007 12:54 +0100:

Quoted message said:

I am quite happy for people not to wear helemts. Its really up to
them. Having attended so many cycle accedidents as a medic, I can see
first hand the difference between wearing one or not. Seeing head
injurys on cyclists on a daily basis, I know wearing a helmet doesn'
stop head injury, but the 'dampening' effect it has is often the
difference between recovery and perminant injury.

As a good friend of mine says, the plural of anecdote is not data. I
may be old school but I prefer my medical advice to be evidence, not
anecdote, based.

Evidence is, that if you bang something rigid(ish) (such as a skull)
against something solid (such as a kerbstone), it takes a greater force to
damage it if you intersperse something that will deform on impact between
the two experimental objects.

It therefore seems likely that helmets will prevent some number of head
injuries each year and reduce the seriousness of some other number.

Of course, both numbers might be quite small but I doubt that they are
actually zero.

the amount of protection a lightweight polystyrene helmet will give is
going to be rather low, and can only help if the helmet takes the full
brunt of the impact. to protect ones self you'll have to use armor such
as motorbikers use. they face simular problems of being exposed. and not
seen.

roger

Ziggy wrote on 19/03/2007 17:34 +0100:

Quoted message said:

It seems that neither of us actually think that, overall, wearing a
helmet is a particularly good idea. On the other hand, I'm
sufficiently confident about that to accept that there are occasions
when it will lead to a better outcome, and I believe being honest
about that is actually beneficial to the argument since trying to
weasel out of admiting it just makes you sound like one of those
politicians who refuse to state the obvious because it isn't 'on
message'.

There are occasions when it will lead to a better outcome but there are
as many or more occasions when it will lead to a worse outcome. The
problem is your presentation only put forward the first part and ignored
the second which is why you are getting so much push back.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Quoting Ziggy <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Second, perhaps you could explain *exactly* how anyone managed to carry out a
study that (appeared to have) proved that what I suggested could *never*
happen?

If you spent more time reading the replies, you'd already have seen some
possible explanations as to how they can exacerbate some injuries, which
could produce a net zero overall result.

Quoted message said:

I'm as anti helmet as a lot of people here appear to be but I refuse to deny
that the things can *ever* save someone from death or injury

But you carefully ignore that they might _cause_ deaths or make injuries
more serious under some circumstances.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!
Today is First Stilday, March - a weekend.

Ziggy said:

Well, that's all I was saying. (Bearing in mind that in a lot of cases a
fractured skull can lead to nasty complications, including death.)

Statistics show that birthdays increase the chance of death too.

Quoted message said:

So there was no really no need for a panic team to dive rush in to
discredit the notion that helmets are generally 'a good thing'. That was
not what I was saying.

But this is Usenet. And you said the h***** word on uk.r.c.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:47:27 -0000, "Clive George" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Ziggy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:19:09 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

You need to do another experiment. Swing your head hard towards the
wall but stop your head half an inch short of hitting it. Now do
exactly the same with a one inch thick helmet on. Come back and report
your findings

What would be the point of that?

It demonstrates why the other experiment doesn't provide a good reason for
wearing helmets.

Actually, it does no such thing.

Without knowing the relative number of accidents that are represented by the two
experiments it demonstrates precisily nothing. (Other than wearing a helmet
*can* lead to a worse outcome, but we all knew that, didn't we?)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not claiming that wearing a helmet will never have an adverse outcome.

Yet the only argument you've provided on the subject so far is to show that
they can have a positive effect.

Yes, because some zealots were, indeed still appear to be, stating that was not
the case.

That is patent nonsense and is likely to detract from the very real arguments
against helmet wearing.

Tony Raven said:

Ziggy wrote on 19/03/2007 15:41 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Well, that's all I was saying. (Bearing in mind that in a lot of
cases a fractured skull can lead to nasty complications, including
death.)

With the slight problem that it requires 700-1000J to fracture the skull
and a helmet is only designed to protect up to 90J. So if you want to
avoid a fractured skull, a helmet won't be much help at all.

A very poor attempt at an argument.

An uncharitable person might even claim that you were trying to pull the wool
over the eyee.

The error in what you have written above is that it is NOT the energy that is
the problem, it is the accelerative force.

It doesn't matter how much energy your head has when it hits something if the
something is able to absorb enough of that energy (and thus lower the
accelerative force) so that the result will not be fatal (or cripling).

The helmet, as it is crushed, WILL absorb some of the energy, so there will
always be a range of energies that would have been fatal without the helmet and
survivable with it.

How often that sort of accident takes place is another matter entirely.

"Ziggy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:47:27 -0000, "Clive George"
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Ziggy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:19:09 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>
wrote:

>You need to do another experiment. Swing your head hard towards the
>wall but stop your head half an inch short of hitting it. Now do
>exactly the same with a one inch thick helmet on. Come back and report
>your findings

What would be the point of that?

It demonstrates why the other experiment doesn't provide a good reason for
wearing helmets.

Actually, it does no such thing.

Without knowing the relative number of accidents that are represented by
the two
experiments it demonstrates precisily nothing. (Other than wearing a
helmet
*can* lead to a worse outcome, but we all knew that, didn't we?)

"Wearing a helmet can lead to a worse outcome" is precisely what it is
demonstrating - just as your preferred experiment demonstrates that wearing
a helmet can lead to a better outcome.

You, I and several other people on this group know that. However there are a
lot of people out there who don't.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not claiming that wearing a helmet will never have an adverse
outcome.

Yet the only argument you've provided on the subject so far is to show
that
they can have a positive effect.

Yes, because some zealots were, indeed still appear to be, stating that
was not
the case.

That is patent nonsense and is likely to detract from the very real
arguments
against helmet wearing.

A very real argument against helmet wearing was brought in and referred to
above, yet you dismissed it out of hand. It appears that you're the one
who's been distracted from the real arguments by concentrating on a single
point.

clive