Helmets

[Buck]

On 2007-02-08 08:13:31 +0000, Ian Smith <[email protected]> said:

> On Thu, 08 Feb, Buck <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 2007-02-07 18:14:38 +0000, Ian Smith <[email protected]> said:
>>
>>> On Wed, 07 Feb, Buck <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 2007-02-04 22:12:11 +0000, Ian Smith <[email protected]> said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 14:51:55 -0700, Ben Goren <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This past fall, I was clipped by a car that passed me. I have no memory
>>>>>> of the crash itself,
>>>>>
>>>>> Quick recap - you have no idea what actually happened, but you're
>>>>> certain that the helmet saved your life. Is that rational? How do you
>>>>> know what effect the helmet had if you don't even know what happened?
>>>>
>>>> You were there were you Ian? You must have been if you feel more
>>>> qualified than the OP to express an opinion on the event.
>>>
>>> That's not what I said. I did not offer an opinion on the event or
>>> what would have happened in different circumstances.
>>> Kindly take your straw friend elsewhere if you want to argue with him.
>
> ...
>
>>> Do _you_ think it's rational to claim to know what would have happened
>>> in different circumstances when you don't even know what happened in
>>> the actual circumstances?
>>
>> He does know what happened,
>
> So, when he says "I have no memory of the crash", he actually meant "I
> remember exactly what happened"? That's a novel interpretation of the
> words.
>
>> You should modify your tone.
>
> You should read what people actually post and reply to that instead of
> what you've decided they might have said.

Like when you clip my post to suit your needs?
>
> You haven't answered my question - do you think it's rational to claim
> to know what would have happened in different circumstances when you
> don't even know what happened in the actual circumstances?

I think it is rational to make a statement based on knowing you were
clipped by a car, and were
injured as evidenced by your injuries and damage to protective
clothing, blanking out after
hitting your head hardly disqualifies you from recounting the cause and
effects of the incident
which he remembers well. So he does know what happened despite your
insistance otherwise.

I'm not interested in answering your question as it is a question
without merit to the original post.


--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Buck]

On 2007-02-08 08:51:49 +0000, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> said:

> Buck wrote:
>>
>> He does know what happened, he has the cause and effect, read his
>> post.
> Are you saying his opinion is as good as solid fact on the fractured
> skull thing? How much experience does the OP have of seeing what sort
> of impacts actually fracture skulls (we don't know, but you have
> assumed clearly enough, apropos of nothing, while I assume it's not
> known.
>
> Pete.

No, I am saying he has a better idea about what may have happened if he
was not wearing a helmet
than you do, in this particular incident, as he was involved and you were not.

--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Peter Clinch]

Buck wrote:

> No, I am saying he has a better idea about what may have happened if he
> was not wearing a helmet
> than you do, in this particular incident, as he was involved and you
> were not.

You've missed the point. Again.

I am *not* saying what would have happened without a helmet, so please
turn your brain on and stop pretending or imagining that I'm saying any
such thing.

I am saying that with the information presented, assuming a fractured
skull is more or less certain is a rather large assumptive leap.

"There's no reason whatsoever to doubt that I'd have at least
fractured my skull without the helmet."

There *are* reasons to doubt that, is what I'm saying, nothing more, but
nothing less.

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/

 

[Buck]

On 2007-02-08 08:54:58 +0000, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> said:

> Buck wrote:
>> On 2007-02-07 17:04:11 +0000, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> said:
>
>>> Since I wasn't there and he effectively wasn't there, by his own
>>> admission not having any recollection, *neither* of us are at all
>>> usefully qualified, so whichever is "better" is a moot point.
>>
>> Of course he was there, he had the injury and damaged lid to prove it,
>
> He was there, but he has no recollection of exactly what happened.
> Extrapolating from what he has to giving a practically /certain/ chance
> of a fractured skull from the same accident without the lid is a *huge*
> assumptive leap, which is what I pointed out.
>
> The conclusion I am drawing is that any such conclusion is unsafe,
> especially seen in the light of the general quality of anecdotal
> evidence in this matter. Have a google through urc archives back to
> sometime around 2000 and you'll find a guy with an anecdote about a
> crash he was in where he was quite sure, despite not remembering the
> accident, that his demolished helmet very probably saved him a
> fractured skull after being dumped hard in front of a car that took him
> out as it spun out of control from a collision. His name is, errrrrrr,
> Peter Clinch, but subsequent hard thinking about it has led him to the
> position that if he is to retain any serious degree of intellectual
> honesty he cannot possibly make such an assumptive leap, or not until
> there are one hell of a lot more fractured skulls coming in to A&E
> departments than has ever historically been the case. It /might/ have
> saved me a fractured skull, but there's a very finite possibility that
> it didn't and I'm not silly enough to make calls either way that one
> event or the other is as good as certain. So it's not a terribly
> useful piece of evidence, but it bears /remarkable/ similarity to that
> presented here.
>
> Anecdotes are pretty useless as evidence for this sort of efficacy
> reporting at the best of times, and where one can't actually remember
> what happened it's hardly the "best of times". As you are well aware,
> or would be if you bothered to stop and think about.
>
> Pete.

The argument is so open that one can poo poo any "evidence" produced as
part of a surviving
victims account, a woman in London was mugged this week, she was on her
bicycle and hit her
head when she was assaulted, she wasn't wearing a helmet and is now in
a critical condition.

Would a helmet have meant she was now ok? Maybe, maybe not, but without
an identical incident
using the same person in exactly the same condition as she was pre
incident we can never
know one hundred percent.

But the anecdotal eveidence as you put it, and lets face it there can
only ever be anecdotal evidence
suggests that in yours and Ben's case, niether of you ended up in
critical condition and therefore
it is very possible you were saved this fate by your helmets.

It is as dangerous to assume the helmet had little or no effect as it
is to assume it had a huge or
totally life saving effect.

However in both yours and Ben's cases we have first hand accounts of
cause and effect and that
is worth something.

I have no doubt that my life was saved by a motorcycle helmet in an
accident once, and I remember
the entire event, but I have been shouted down for saying this by
people who suprise suprise were not there and will not prove to me I am
wrong by head butting a transit van at 40mph without a helmet
to prove how wrong I am.

The arguments on both sides are flawed but you cannot derise the
experiences of those involved,
it is perverse to do so, and whilst I do not condsider that you do
this, there are others like Ian Smith
who do.

--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Buck]

On 2007-02-08 09:31:10 +0000, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> said:

> Buck wrote:
>
>> No, I am saying he has a better idea about what may have happened if he
>> was not wearing a helmet
>> than you do, in this particular incident, as he was involved and you were not.
>
> You've missed the point. Again.
>
> I am *not* saying what would have happened without a helmet, so please
> turn your brain on and stop pretending or imagining that I'm saying any
> such thing.

Please turn your manners on, what happens if we meet one day, will you
insult me to my face? No
you won't, people don't.
>
> I am saying that with the information presented, assuming a fractured
> skull is more or less certain is a rather large assumptive leap.
>
> "There's no reason whatsoever to doubt that I'd have at least
> fractured my skull without the helmet."
>
> There *are* reasons to doubt that, is what I'm saying, nothing more,
> but nothing less.
>
> Pete.

But HE does not doubt it and he has the right to say what he believes
based on his experience, not
based on yours, he said that the side of the helmet was damaged, the
side of the skull is much weaker than the dome, a fall on pavement can
result in a fracture to the side of the skull, a friend
suffered exactly this fate a few weeks ago, if he was wearing
protective head gear he may well have
not had a fractured skull.

I note that none of the arguments against mention differing impact
strengths on different parts of the
skull, why is that, you should be able to check this info out from your
betters in the institute you work
in, so you have less excuse for generalisation than most.


--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Peter Clinch]

Buck wrote:
>
> Please turn your manners on, what happens if we meet one day, will you
> insult me to my face? No you won't, people don't.

But it hasn't stopped you insulting numerous people on urc, so if you're
going to play that card then stick by its rules yourself.

> But HE does not doubt it and he has the right to say what he believes
> based on his experience

He does, much as the JWs have the right to tell people they call on that
the Bible is true word for word because they sincerely believe that, and
they can see no reason whatsoever to doubt that. But that's not the
same as there being no reason whatsoever to doubt what they say. You
see the disparity?

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/

 

[Buck]

On 2007-02-08 09:56:06 +0000, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> said:

> Buck wrote:
>>
>> Please turn your manners on, what happens if we meet one day, will you
>> insult me to my face? No you won't, people don't.
>
> But it hasn't stopped you insulting numerous people on urc, so if
> you're going to play that card then stick by its rules yourself.

I am, I have reacted in the past but choose not to now, anyway I have
pointed out something for your
benefit, what you do with it is upto you, but keep it in mind if we do
ever meet.
>
>> But HE does not doubt it and he has the right to say what he believes
>> based on his experience
>
> He does, much as the JWs have the right to tell people they call on
> that the Bible is true word for word because they sincerely believe
> that, and they can see no reason whatsoever to doubt that. But that's
> not the same as there being no reason whatsoever to doubt what they
> say. You see the disparity?
>
> Pete.

I see the disparity when you cut the post.
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Peter Clinch]

Buck wrote:

> The argument is so open that one can poo poo any "evidence" produced as
> part of a surviving
> victims account, a woman in London was mugged this week, she was on her
> bicycle and hit her
> head when she was assaulted, she wasn't wearing a helmet and is now in a
> critical condition.
>
> Would a helmet have meant she was now ok? Maybe, maybe not, but without
> an identical incident
> using the same person in exactly the same condition as she was pre
> incident we can never
> know one hundred percent.

*Exactly*! So one cannot /reasonably/ say that without any shadow of a
doubt there are no possible reasons not to assume one certain outcome.

> But the anecdotal eveidence as you put it, and lets face it there can
> only ever be anecdotal evidence
> suggests that in yours and Ben's case, niether of you ended up in
> critical condition and therefore
> it is very possible you were saved this fate by your helmets.

But there *are reasons* to doubt this is a certainty. Fort a start,
there are far too many unknowns.

> It is as dangerous to assume the helmet had little or no effect as it is
> to assume it had a huge or totally life saving effect.

Exactly, and what I'm saying is it's dangerous to make assumptions. The
OP made a big assumption. You state above that it is dangerous to
assume a big effect, but when the OP makes just such an assumption and I
say it's dangerous you have a big moan at me for pointing out exactly
what you point out yourself in the previous paragraph. Which is
somewhat paradoxical.

> However in both yours and Ben's cases we have first hand accounts of
> cause and effect and that is worth something.

But not enough to draw a certain conclusion. He drew a certain
conclusion, I said it was dangerous to do so.

> The arguments on both sides are flawed but you cannot derise the
> experiences of those involved,
> it is perverse to do so, and whilst I do not condsider that you do this,
> there are others like Ian Smith
> who do.

By my reading, Ian isn't saying anything more radical than I am.
Simply, that sure conclusions like "there's no reason whatsoever to
doubt that I'd have at least fractured my skull without the helmet" are
not safe assumptions to make. As you appear to admit yourself a couple
of paras up.

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/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Buck wrote:

> I am, I have reacted in the past but choose not to now, anyway I have
> pointed out something for your
> benefit, what you do with it is upto you, but keep it in mind if we do
> ever meet.

I am not dumb enough to bear grudges from internet arguments. But I'll
say to people I think they're talking rubbish when I believe they're
talking rubbish. And I believe you are on this one, and though you say
you choose not to react I suspect that's exactly what you're doing,
because you're continually missing the actual point I make and trying to
substitute an agenda where I'm apparently saying the OP's helmet didn't
help him.

> I see the disparity when you cut the post.

Okay, so put back the bit that suddenly makes my point irrelevant.

You still seem to be clutching at straws to show I'm trying to make an
opposite conclusion to the OP, when all I'm doing is saying his
conclusion is unsafe in itself.

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/

 

[Buck]

On 2007-02-08 10:05:49 +0000, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> said:

> Buck wrote:
>
>> The argument is so open that one can poo poo any "evidence" produced as
>> part of a surviving
>> victims account, a woman in London was mugged this week, she was on her
>> bicycle and hit her
>> head when she was assaulted, she wasn't wearing a helmet and is now in
>> a critical condition.
>>
>> Would a helmet have meant she was now ok? Maybe, maybe not, but without
>> an identical incident
>> using the same person in exactly the same condition as she was pre
>> incident we can never
>> know one hundred percent.
>
> *Exactly*! So one cannot /reasonably/ say that without any shadow of a
> doubt there are no possible reasons not to assume one certain outcome.
>
>> But the anecdotal eveidence as you put it, and lets face it there can
>> only ever be anecdotal evidence
>> suggests that in yours and Ben's case, niether of you ended up in
>> critical condition and therefore
>> it is very possible you were saved this fate by your helmets.
>
> But there *are reasons* to doubt this is a certainty. Fort a start,
> there are far too many unknowns.
>
>> It is as dangerous to assume the helmet had little or no effect as it
>> is to assume it had a huge or totally life saving effect.
>
> Exactly, and what I'm saying is it's dangerous to make assumptions.
> The OP made a big assumption. You state above that it is dangerous to
> assume a big effect, but when the OP makes just such an assumption and
> I say it's dangerous you have a big moan at me for pointing out exactly
> what you point out yourself in the previous paragraph. Which is
> somewhat paradoxical.
>
>> However in both yours and Ben's cases we have first hand accounts of
>> cause and effect and that is worth something.
>
> But not enough to draw a certain conclusion. He drew a certain
> conclusion, I said it was dangerous to do so.
>
>> The arguments on both sides are flawed but you cannot derise the
>> experiences of those involved,
>> it is perverse to do so, and whilst I do not condsider that you do
>> this, there are others like Ian Smith
>> who do.
>
> By my reading, Ian isn't saying anything more radical than I am.
> Simply, that sure conclusions like "there's no reason whatsoever to
> doubt that I'd have at least fractured my skull without the helmet" are
> not safe assumptions to make. As you appear to admit yourself a couple
> of paras up.
>
> Pete.

But I say it in respect of the OP and not with disrespect, Mr. Smith is
very disrespectful of the OP in the attitude of his post, also I cannot
in all concience discount the anecdotal evidence quite so easily as
some others seem able to.

Peter, you are obviously an educated man and I often look forward to
your posts, I think at times
you jump on the band wagon, and indeed I have been guilty of getting
highly stressed about
newsgroup politic in the past, but I am making an effort to change and
gain positive things from
these groups.

There needs to be a level of etiquette observed by all users here else
it goes down the route of
trolls and the "morally superior" types who are not as they seem.

So I ask you one more time to not use childish insults in your posts to
me, you may tell me I am wrong
and state why you think so, but be a good chap and don't try to bait me
with insults. Ok?

Thankyou.

Ian
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 08 Feb, Buck <[email protected]> wrote:

> But I say it in respect of the OP and not with disrespect, Mr.
> Smith is very disrespectful of the OP in the attitude of his post,

No, I am not.

His statement was complete rubbish, but if you can't distinguish
between pointing out that the statement is unsafe and attacking the
person, I think you'd be better of not venturing onto newsgroups.

I respectfully assert that the statement he made _is_ absolute rubbish
- there are plenty of reasons for doubting the certainty that he'd
have a cracked skull had he not been wearing a helmet.

Chief among them are that helmets are generally weaker than skulls,
and he doesn't actually know what happened (that's his testimony, not
my interpretation), so can't possibly know what would have happened
had something different happened.

I note that actually you agree with this latter point, or rather, have
refused to disagree with it. If you don't disagree with what I said,
I find it strange that you argue against it so vociferously.

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

 

[Buck]

On 2007-02-08 09:31:10 +0000, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> said:

> Buck wrote:
>
>> No, I am saying he has a better idea about what may have happened if he
>> was not wearing a helmet
>> than you do, in this particular incident, as he was involved and you were not.
>
> You've missed the point. Again.
>
> I am *not* saying what would have happened without a helmet, so please
> turn your brain on and stop pretending or imagining that I'm saying any
> such thing.
>
> I am saying that with the information presented, assuming a fractured
> skull is more or less certain is a rather large assumptive leap.

I do not think it is that large a leap, the evidence presented says the
SIDE of his helmet was crushed,
The side of the skull is the weakest part, I think it is highly likely
that the OP is correct, I think it is a
small leap to assume that the OP is 100% correct, but not a large leap,
so I do disagree with you,
and this is what I am arguing with you about in that context, not that
you say that helmets are
worthless or some such.

--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Buck]

On 2007-02-08 10:27:01 +0000, Ian Smith <[email protected]> said:

> On Thu, 08 Feb, Buck <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> But I say it in respect of the OP and not with disrespect, Mr. Smith is
>> very disrespectful of the OP in the attitude of his post,
>
> No, I am not.
>
> His statement was complete rubbish, but if you can't distinguish
> between pointing out that the statement is unsafe and attacking the
> person, I think you'd be better of not venturing onto newsgroups.
>
> I respectfully assert that the statement he made _is_ absolute rubbish -

This is respect? You don't want me in newsgroups because why? Oh yes I see.

--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Peter Clinch]

Buck wrote:

> But I say it in respect of the OP and not with disrespect, Mr. Smith
> is very disrespectful of the OP in the attitude of his post

But whatever the tone of it, in terms of actual, factual content he
isn't saying anything different from me. If you don't like his tone
then it's absolutely reasonable to say so, but you appear to be
confusing his tone with the actual content and meaning, and then saying
the content is out of order.

> also I cannot in all concience discount the anecdotal evidence quite
> so easily as some others seem able to.

One has to realise the levels to which it can be taken. IMO "there's no
reason whatsoever to doubt that I'd have at least fractured my skull
without the helmet" is a far, far greater level than is reasonable,
which is what I've been saying, and what Ian was saying to by my reading.
You won't find a statistician *anywhere* worthy of the name who will
count this anecdote as a certain fractured skull if a helmet wasn't
worn. It just isn't a safe conclusion.

> Peter, you are obviously an educated man and I often look forward to
> your posts, I think at times you jump on the band wagon

Most of us do that to some degree, /but/ if I have jumped on a
helmet-sceptic bandwagon it took me an awful lot of time and bother,
required me to jump off the "it's daft not to!" bandwagon first (which
I'd been riding happily for over a decade, and arguing in favour of in
public), and it seems odd that I'm still happy to poke holes in
arguments from the same bandwagon I'm allegedly on when I can see holes
in them. There certainly is a bandwagon involved to some degree, but
that doesn't mean that people sharing the opinions are all necessarily
guilty of uncritical "groupthink".

> There needs to be a level of etiquette observed by all users here
> else it goes down the route of trolls and the "morally superior"
> types who are not as they seem.
>
> So I ask you one more time to not use childish insults in your posts
> to me, you may tell me I am wrong and state why you think so, but be
> a good chap and don't try to bait me with insults. Ok?

Fair enough. I hope you'll do the same in reverse, and to Ian Smith as
well.

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/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Buck wrote:

> I do not think it is that large a leap, the evidence presented says the
> SIDE of his helmet was crushed,
> The side of the skull is the weakest part, I think it is highly likely
> that the OP is correct, I think it is a
> small leap to assume that the OP is 100% correct

That there are "no reasons whatsoever to doubt" (at least) a fractured
skull. Oh come on. How about the number of people that ever bang their
heads in a sideways fall and don't fracture their skulls? Don't any of
them count as reasons?

> but not a large leap,

It's *huge*. Think of the consequence of /any/ hard sideways fall onto
the head being a sure-fire fractured skull. We'd all be wearing helmets
all the time if we were that vulnerable.

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/

 

[Buck]

On 2007-02-08 10:42:51 +0000, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> said:

> Buck wrote:
>
>> I do not think it is that large a leap, the evidence presented says the
>> SIDE of his helmet was crushed,
>> The side of the skull is the weakest part, I think it is highly likely
>> that the OP is correct, I think it is a
>> small leap to assume that the OP is 100% correct
>
> That there are "no reasons whatsoever to doubt" (at least) a fractured
> skull. Oh come on. How about the number of people that ever bang
> their heads in a sideways fall and don't fracture their skulls? Don't
> any of them count as reasons?
>
>> but not a large leap,
>
> It's *huge*. Think of the consequence of /any/ hard sideways fall onto
> the head being a sure-fire fractured skull. We'd all be wearing
> helmets all the time if we were that vulnerable.
>
> Pete.

But it is down to perception based on experience, as I said earlier, a
friend did just this recently,
he fell on pavement and hit the side of his head, result was a
fractured skull, and he was not even
propelled to the pavement by the impact of a vehicle, so my perception
suggests to me that Ben
could easily have fractured his skull had he not been wearing a helmet
that was damaged as a
result of being between the side of his skull and the road/pavement.
Therefore I am inclined to
consider the statement to have a high degree of merit.
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Peter Clinch]

Buck wrote:

> But it is down to perception based on experience, as I said earlier,

Whether you break your head or not is not down to "perception based on
experience", it's based on whether you're unlucky enough to strike the
ground in such a way that you will or won't break your head. Your
perception has nothing to do with it.

And while your friend was one of the unlucky ones, and demonstrated it
certainly /is/ possible to break your head in such a fall, other people
strike their heads sideways and don't. If someone who didn't break
their head falls again then their perception based on their experience
means nothing in determining whether they'll be lucky or unlucky this
time around, they might even die (roughly one person a day in the UK is
killed in a trip or fall, after all, and that's excluding the especially
elderly).

> a friend did just this recently, he fell on pavement and hit the side
> of his head, result was a fractured skull, and he was not even
> propelled to the pavement by the impact of a vehicle, so my
> perception suggests to me that Ben could easily have fractured his
> skull had he not been wearing a helmet that was damaged as a result
> of being between the side of his skull and the road/pavement.

"Easily" and "pretty much certainly" are two very, very different
things. As an illustration, France could easily have won the World Cup
final, yet curiously betting agencies hadn't closed the books on them
because they were a dead cert, and as it turned out they didn't win.

He could "easily" have escaped without a fractured skull too, one just
doesn't know and it is the fact that one really /doesn't/ know compared
to making it a statement of practical fact that I'm on about (and by my
reading Ian is too).
You said yourself it's dangerous to make assumptions about what would or
wouldn't happen in different circumstances, and here you are supporting
just such a dangerous assumption.

> Therefore I am inclined to consider the statement to have a high
> degree of merit.

In which case you'd presumably think it practically /inevitable/ that
anyone falling over hard sideways will fracture their skull? The
possibility exists of a fracture, I agree, but inevitable?

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/

 

[Buck]

On 2007-02-08 11:02:14 +0000, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> said:

> Buck wrote:
>
>> But it is down to perception based on experience, as I said earlier,
>
> Whether you break your head or not is not down to "perception based on
> experience", it's based on whether you're unlucky enough to strike the
> ground in such a way that you will or won't break your head. Your
> perception has nothing to do with it.
>
> And while your friend was one of the unlucky ones, and demonstrated it
> certainly /is/ possible to break your head in such a fall, other people
> strike their heads sideways and don't. If someone who didn't break
> their head falls again then their perception based on their experience
> means nothing in determining whether they'll be lucky or unlucky this
> time around, they might even die (roughly one person a day in the UK is
> killed in a trip or fall, after all, and that's excluding the
> especially elderly).
>
>> a friend did just this recently, he fell on pavement and hit the side
>> of his head, result was a fractured skull, and he was not even
>> propelled to the pavement by the impact of a vehicle, so my
>> perception suggests to me that Ben could easily have fractured his
>> skull had he not been wearing a helmet that was damaged as a result
>> of being between the side of his skull and the road/pavement.
>
> "Easily" and "pretty much certainly" are two very, very different
> things. As an illustration, France could easily have won the World Cup
> final, yet curiously betting agencies hadn't closed the books on them
> because they were a dead cert, and as it turned out they didn't win.
>
> He could "easily" have escaped without a fractured skull too, one just
> doesn't know and it is the fact that one really /doesn't/ know compared
> to making it a statement of practical fact that I'm on about (and by my
> reading Ian is too).
> You said yourself it's dangerous to make assumptions about what would
> or wouldn't happen in different circumstances, and here you are
> supporting just such a dangerous assumption.
>
>> Therefore I am inclined to consider the statement to have a high
>> degree of merit.
>
> In which case you'd presumably think it practically /inevitable/ that
> anyone falling over hard sideways will fracture their skull? The
> possibility exists of a fracture, I agree, but inevitable?
>
> Pete.

Depends how hard "hard" is. If propelled there by a vehicle then I'm
inclined to think so.
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Peter Clinch]

Buck wrote:

> Depends how hard "hard" is. If propelled there by a vehicle then I'm
> inclined to think so.

Propelled by a vehicle will /generally/ be along as much as down, if
it's the case as here that the impact was a clip rather than a direct
strike. Extra speed along will remove skin but quite possibly not
contribute too much to fracture energy.
We need more information, of course. But we don't /have/ that because
the recall isn't there.

Yet you're inclined to assume the worst. I'm inclined to assume we
can't safely make that sort of assumption with the information to hand.
And I still think you'll be very hard pushed to find a statistician
who'll happily include that piece of information in what they consider
to be a hard data set.

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/

 

[Buck]

On 2007-02-08 11:25:20 +0000, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> said:

> Buck wrote:
>
>> Depends how hard "hard" is. If propelled there by a vehicle then I'm
>> inclined to think so.
>
> Propelled by a vehicle will /generally/ be along as much as down, if
> it's the case as here that the impact was a clip rather than a direct
> strike. Extra speed along will remove skin but quite possibly not
> contribute too much to fracture energy.
> We need more information, of course. But we don't /have/ that because
> the recall isn't there.
>
> Yet you're inclined to assume the worst. I'm inclined to assume we
> can't safely make that sort of assumption with the information to hand.
> And I still think you'll be very hard pushed to find a statistician
> who'll happily include that piece of information in what they consider
> to be a hard data set.
>
> Pete.

But it isn't the statisticians head, it's mine.
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk