Helmets

Just zis Guy said:

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 13:15:33 -0000, "Jeff A" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

But all I'm trying to convey , not very well by the sounds of it, is
that all accidents differ.

I agree entirely.

Quoted message said:

I just feel more comfortable with a helmet

Fairy nuff.

Quoted message said:

and don't take any more risks.

Are you sure of that? I wouldn't put money on it myself

Quoted message said:

I'd never really thought about the potential risks of
helmets until now. Thanks for the info.

Informed choice is the aim, whatever that choice might be :-)

Guy

Cheers :-)

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 22:27:10 -0000, "Jeff A" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

TBH after reading some of the posts in this thread I am beginning to wonder
about the safety of helmets. I'm learning and listening to people who know
better than I do. I will make my own assessment.

Long may you enjoy the freedom to make that decision for yourself.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

David Martin said:

...It is often assumed by the ex-medical students, that becasue you were
wearing a helmet it must have done some good and couldn't have hurt.

Given the large number of MHSML stories, one must presume that somewhere
there is the statistics equivalent of dark matter, tens, if not hundreds
of people having injuries to their head to balance out the statistics so
the population figures match what is actually seen.

Noone ever posts[1] saying 'My helmet made my HI worse', so why are the
stats for whole populations not showing this surely significant effect
on the severity of HI?

...d

Yes, yes, yes! Great analogy David.

For those not au fait with what David is on about, there is, in the subject in astrophysics, discussion about the search for the "missing mass" - there must be some dark matter "out there" that's not able to been captured by telescopes. The Science writer John Gribbin is one of many writers who have written popular science books on this - "The Omega Point: the search for the missing mass and the ultimate fate of the universe" (Gribbin,1987).

So, with the advent of greater helmet wearing, and taking into account the-never-ceasing-to-amaze human capacity for credulity, there seems to be a case of untold "lives saved" and head-injury-hospitalisations-prevented all down to helmets. Problem is the data can't be found that is able to support these credulous claims.

Just saw a quote today: In the 17th century Francis Bacon, tired of hearing the arguments from armchair philosophers about how many teeth a horse had, said "why don't you stop arguing about it and go out and count them instead" (the quote isn't verbatim of course - found in Michael Gazzaniga's book Natures Mind (1992?)

We hear endless stories - testimonials - of how the helmet spared me of/from [___whatever - left up to your imagination and credulity to fill in] - but stories are only stories - what people believe isn't what is actually the case. People seem to dislike and badmouth the evidence of statistics when they present a picture that doesn't agree with their preconceptions and prejudices. If people want to engage in believing all sorts of wonderful things - great, feel free to do so - but let's keep beliefs out of public policy.

Roger

quote='Chris Malcolm'David WE Roberts said:

What I have not seen so far is any proposal to campaign for a better, more
scientific set of standards for cycling helmets.

I guess you must be new round here.

Chris Malcolm [/QUOTE]

Here we go again - either David Roberts was born yesterday or he thinks that we were.

This sort of line is an all-too usual dishonest debating trick - Dimwit David is trying to take us for stupid. Trying to suggest that what we should be pursuing is his proposal for a campaign "for a better, more
scientific set of standards for cycling helmets" - Oh pul-ease - you think we're that stupid that we'll cease finding faults in the helmet hoopla and go on a wild goose chase after something that isnt practicable or possible like improved standards or protective performance? David Roberts - you're a dolt.

How many times have we seen this sort of dimwitted drivel. Some clever dicke pipes up and says we shouldn't be arguing about this-and-that and finding and exposing all the false claims about helmets - no, no,no what we should be doing is listening to the sage advice of the Helmet Nannies and doing what they say we should be doing.

Roger

Ive just ordered a new MET Stradivarius in team colours, yellow and black.!

philhudson said:

Ive just ordered a new MET Stradivarius in team colours, yellow and
black.!

Well at least you have the honesty to focus on what it can do which is
look pretty and not what it can't do which is protect you to any
significant extent ;-)

Tony

in message <[email hidden]>, Jeff A

(') said:

TBH after reading some of the posts in this thread I am beginning to
wonder about the safety of helmets. I'm learning and listening to
people who know better than I do. I will make my own
assessment.Correctly or incorrectly.BUT accidents happen.

Accidents do happen.

The vast majority of on-road accidents involve motor vehicles. Even the
manufacturers don't pretend a helmet will help you in these. There is
some evidence that helmets may make at least some of these
significantly worse.

The vast majority of off road accidents do not involve motor vehicles.
The closing speeds are lower and the things you hit generally softer.
On the whole I'm inclined to believe that helmets may help in these
situations - but these sort of accidents are very rarely very serious,
anyway.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Wannabe a Web designer?
<URL:http://userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/97dec/19971206.html>

Tony Raven said:

philhudson said:

Ive just ordered a new MET Stradivarius in team colours, yellow and
black.!

Well at least you have the honesty to focus on what it can do which is
look pretty and not what it can't do which is protect you to any
significant extent ;-)

Wouldn't yellow and black protect from buzzard attack?

...d

David Martin said:

Wouldn't yellow and black protect from buzzard attack?

Only if the buzzard is spheksophobic.

R.

Simon Brooke said:

The vast majority of on-road accidents involve motor vehicles.

Not sure about that as it stands, though if you preface the word
"serious" then I'd be surer of 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 [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

David Martin said:

Tony Raven said:

philhudson said:

Ive just ordered a new MET Stradivarius in team colours, yellow and
black.!

Well at least you have the honesty to focus on what it can do which is
look pretty and not what it can't do which is protect you to any
significant extent ;-)

Wouldn't yellow and black protect from buzzard attack?

...d

Yebbut you should see the size of the bees it attracts ;-)

Tony

Jeff A said:

Ian Smith said:

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 13:15:33 -0000, Jeff A <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I just feel more comfortable with a helmet and don't
take any more risks.

So you're saying your helmet makes you feel safer, but it doesn't
affect how you assess teh safety of an activity?

I know all about COSHH, HACCP blah blah.If I spent all my time
assessing the safety of activities I wouldn't get of bed.

Nonsense. You assess teh safety of activities over and again, many
times through teh day. If you don't, you are probably genuinely
medically certifiable, and ought to get yourself restrained as soon as
possible, for your own safety. (I believe there are syndromes where
people do lose teh ability to recognise hazards or danger, I seem to
recall brain tumours can trigger such things).

Quoted message said:

TBH after reading some of the posts in this thread I am beginning to
wonder about the safety of helmets.

I was commenting on teh fact that you asserted that wearing a helmet
alters your perception of the hazards of cycling. Then you asserted
that it doesn't affect your behaviour. I think you don't know what
you think - how can it do one and not teh other?

Are you really claiming that when you recognise that doing something
one particular way is apparently more dangerous, you ignore that and
go ahead and do it just teh same anyway? If so, I'm once more led to
teh conclusion that you could be suffering from some sort of mental
disability and ought to get yourself restrained for your own safety.

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

Ian Smith said:

Are you really claiming that when you recognise that doing something
one particular way is apparently more dangerous, you ignore that and
go ahead and do it just teh same anyway? If so, I'm once more led to
teh conclusion that you could be suffering from some sort of mental
disability and ought to get yourself restrained for your own safety.

Steady on. I recognise that many of the things that I do are more
dangerous than alternatives, but I do them anyway. Drinking three
pints of beer is more dangerous than not drinking three pints of beer -
am I suffering from some sort of mental disability because I choose to
drink?

(Those who have to ask "what sort of beer?", ssssh now. :-)

R.

Richard wrote:
which Ian Smith followed up with:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are you really claiming that when you recognise that doing something
one particular way is apparently more dangerous, you ignore that and
go ahead and do it just teh same anyway?

No. I can also spell "the"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If so, I'm once more led to
teh conclusion that you could be suffering from some sort of mental
disability and ought to get yourself restrained for your own safety.

Go on, expand.

I am actually sothering from a type of of mental disability, which is why I
see councellors and GPs on a fortnightly basis. That doesn't affect my
ability to cycle. It's different in individual cases. Don't sweep us us all
in one corner. Due to patient confidentiality I will not expand on that
here. BUT you can see from my posting properties and the the fact I use the
Berlin server I am using a correct email addy. Please fell feel free to
contact me directly via email or here to expandiate. I would never criticise
someone who is blind, deaf etc. To accuse someome you don't know to "get
yourself restrained for your own safety" is ignorant.

Ignorant:
1.. Lacking education or knowledge.
2.. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant
mistake.
3.. Unaware or uninformed.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ignorant

I'm ignorant on the use of cycle helmets. I admit it. I learn from my
mistakes. What's wrong with that?

Quoted message said:

Steady on. I recognise that many of the things that I do are more
dangerous than alternatives, but I do them anyway. Drinking three
pints of beer is more dangerous than not drinking three pints of beer
- am I suffering from some sort of mental disability because I choose
to drink?

(Those who have to ask "what sort of beer?", ssssh now. :-)

R.

Jeff A said:

I am actually sothering from a type of of mental disability, which is why I
see councellors and GPs on a fortnightly basis. That doesn't affect my
ability to cycle. It's different in individual cases. Don't sweep us us all
in one corner. Due to patient confidentiality I will not expand on that
here.

I think you're confused about patient confidentiality. That stops your
doctor telling us what he knows about you. It doesn't stop you telling
us anything you like. Of course you may not wish to tell us, which is
another matter.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +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/]

Chris Malcolm said:

Jeff A said:

I am actually sothering from a type of of mental disability, which
is why I see councellors and GPs on a fortnightly basis. That
doesn't affect my ability to cycle. It's different in individual
cases. Don't sweep us us all in one corner. Due to patient
confidentiality I will not expand on that here.

I think you're confused about patient confidentiality. That stops your
doctor telling us what he knows about you. It doesn't stop you telling
us anything you like. Of course you may not wish to tell us, which is
another matter.

Fair enough, I may be confused, but as I've written before, I listen and
learn. What is said between my GP and concellor is my matter. If any one
wants to know, it's my decision to discuss it further, but I won't discuss
it on Usenet. It's archived on google. I've got nothing to hide which is why
I'm posting with a real email addy.

Chris, Regards

Jeff

Jeff A said:

Richard wrote:
which Ian Smith followed up with:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are you really claiming that when you recognise that doing something
one particular way is apparently more dangerous, you ignore that and
go ahead and do it just teh same anyway?

No. I can also spell "the"

But not sothering, councellors or expandiate (it's rarely worth
picking on spelling / typo errors on newsgroups)

Anyway, if it's not true, why did you say
Message-ID: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I just feel more comfortable with a helmet and don't
> take any more risks.

Quoted message said:

To accuse someome you don't know to "get
yourself restrained for your own safety" is ignorant.

No, it might be impolite, or even offensive, but I don't think it's
ignorant.

Based on your assertion that you recognise sources of danger, then
ignore them completely and behave exactly the same, regardless of teh
danger you have identified, I concluded that you may well be at risk
of suffering a serious injury. As such, I made the comment I did.

Of course, if your assertion that you recognise a hazard then ignore
it is not correct, my conclusion will not be correct.

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

Ian Smith said:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:29:18 -0000, Jeff A <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Richard wrote:
which Ian Smith followed up with:

Quoted message said:

> Are you really claiming that when you recognise that doing
> something one particular way is apparently more dangerous, you
> ignore that and go ahead and do it just teh same anyway?

No. I can also spell "the"

But not sothering, councellors or expandiate (it's rarely worth
picking on spelling / typo errors on newsgroups)

Yup, fair point, slapping my wrists for posting that correction.

50 lines

If only I could do it Bart Simpsom style.

Regards

Jeff

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:29:18 -0000, "Jeff A" <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

I am actually sothering from a type of of mental disability, which is why I
see councellors and GPs on a fortnightly basis. That doesn't affect my
ability to cycle. It's different in individual cases. Don't sweep us us all
in one corner.

Mental disability or mental illness? Just curious. Having been
treated for depression in the past I can sympathise.

Quoted message said:

Due to patient confidentiality I will not expand on that
here. BUT you can see from my posting properties and the the fact I use the
Berlin server I am using a correct email addy.

Patient confidentiality is to do with what others say about you; you
can say what you like. Good reasons for not doing so include: it's
none of our business :-)

However...

I use the Berlin server and an invalid address. Yes, I know I
shouldn't. There is a valid address associated with my account in
their records, and if I'm ever reported I will doubtless recant and
reform, but the addy I used before - which was valid - led to my
domain being spammed with random [censored]. Given that I use a valid
reply-to and an easily traceable .sig I'm guessing they don't care.

Sometimes I use a valid-but-not-mine address ([email hidden]). None of
this would be necessary without that lowest form of pond-life,
spammers.

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

Richard said:

Ian Smith said:

Are you really claiming that when you recognise that doing

something

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

one particular way is apparently more dangerous, you ignore that

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

go ahead and do it just teh same anyway? If so, I'm once more led

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

teh conclusion that you could be suffering from some sort of mental
disability and ought to get yourself restrained for your own

safety.

Quoted message said:

Steady on. I recognise that many of the things that I do are more
dangerous than alternatives, but I do them anyway. Drinking three
pints of beer is more dangerous than not drinking three pints of beer

-

Quoted message said:

am I suffering from some sort of mental disability because I choose

to

Quoted message said:

drink?

lets say there was a pill to make you invulnerable to the ill-effects
of alcohol consumption (and the risk from being drunk). You have
plenty of these pills. Is the likelihood of you going out for three
pints greate, less or exactly the same?

best wishes
james