Helmets

[Peter Clinch]

Buck wrote:
>
> But it isn't the statisticians head, it's mine.

No it's not, it's the OP's!

Can you /seriously/ not see any even faintly realistic possibility that,
given the facts as we have them (including him not remembering the
incident very well), there is less than effective certainty he would not
have fractured his skull had he not been wearing a helmet?

If you choose to wear a helmet on /your/ head it's your prerogative, and
not one I will argue with. However, if your *reasons* for the decision
are actually questionable, which in the case of the OP's certainty of
events in different circumstances they are IMHO, then I'm not doing
anyone a disservice by questioning them.

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 12:32:01 +0000, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> said:

> Buck wrote:
>>
>> But it isn't the statisticians head, it's mine.
>
> No it's not, it's the OP's!

The one I have here is mine.
>
> Can you /seriously/ not see any even faintly realistic possibility
> that, given the facts as we have them (including him not remembering
> the incident very well), there is less than effective certainty he
> would not have fractured his skull had he not been wearing a helmet?

Based on my experience and knowledge, taking into consideration the
known facts associated with
those experiences and those of my friends? No.
>
> If you choose to wear a helmet on /your/ head it's your prerogative,
> and not one I will argue with. However, if your *reasons* for the
> decision are actually questionable, which in the case of the OP's
> certainty of events in different circumstances they are IMHO, then I'm
> not doing anyone a disservice by questioning them.

Fair enough, but it does no one a disservice to recount your opinions
based on your own experiences
either.


--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Peter Clinch]

Buck wrote:

> The one I have here is mine.

But that's not the one the OP felt sure would have been broken, and you
apparently are similarly sure it would *suerly* have been broken too.

> Based on my experience and knowledge, taking into consideration the
> known facts associated with
> those experiences and those of my friends? No.

Not even a faint possibility? You are, I have to say, not thinking too
clearly on the matter if you really feel a fracture in such a case is a
practical certainty.

> Fair enough, but it does no one a disservice to recount your opinions
> based on your own experiences either.

The experiences may be useful, assumptions about what they mean /may/ be
less so. People have attributed seemingly miraculous escapes to lucky
charm they carried. They were there, they had that opinion. That
doesn't mean the opinion means anything useful.

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]

Joel wrote:
> Every time I see a thread titled Helmets I know without even reading it,
> that it is going to cause a small war. Many of us on both sides of the
> fence stand firm with his or her opinions, and nothing will make either
> change there minds. So maybe for the sake of this and other forums,
> please refrain from this subject. Just kidding this is an open forum and
> we all have our opinions, so enjoy the meeting of minds.

I've seen quite a few flame wars on this too... and while the heat/light
ratio is quite colossal, a few people have changed their mind from
staunch pro-helmet to helmet sceptic. I'm one of those people, I know
of others.

While a typical argument will indeed not get any further than people
rationalising their existing views, sometimes people are prompted to dig
a bit deeper. I've yet to see such a "meeting of minds" persuade a
helmet sceptic of a huge and clear benefit for helmets, but I've seen
several turn the other way just like I did, especially having accepted a
challenge to evaluate the research evidence both ways for themselves.

The evidence either way is far from perfect, but the evidence that they
seriously improve your chances against serious accidents is IMHO fuller
of holes, has failed to be as reproducible and doesn't fit with
real-world population level studies.

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:

> 90+% chance if the impact is enough to crush the side of a cycle helmet,

They're made of expanded polystyrene. I can exert enough force to crush
that quite easily with my hands. I can't break skulls, even the sides
of them, with static pressure from my hands.

> I have already agreed with
> you that gaining 100% certainty is not possible, but you are being
> disingenuous by not using the
> full context.

And I thought /you/ were being disingenuous by on one hand trying to
agree with the OP completely while OTOH agreeing that he's making
dangerous assumptions and one can't actually be as certain as he appears
to be... so we're "even" there ;-/

> I expect to see a picture of you with a rabbits foot taped to your head
> then.

Why? I don't believe in lucky charms and I don't believe that crash
helmets give a clear improvement in my chances of avoiding serious
injury. And the reason why I don't believe in either is I've never seen
any convincing evidence of useful efficacy of either, just as I haven't
seen good evidence that skulls are so vulnerable to side impact that
they will practically always crack in such a fall to a hard surface.
Your friend, regrettably, demonstrated it /can/ happen, but that's
hardly good enough to assume 90+% instance.

>> But at least they're bright enough to have moved on a /little/ bit.
>
> Have they?

Yes. The Vatican has acknowledged evolution and current cosmological
theories over the start of the universe over creationist parables. Me,
I'm a agnostic humanist, but credit where it's due.

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 15:09:56 +0000, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> said:

> Buck wrote:
>
>> 90+% chance if the impact is enough to crush the side of a cycle helmet,
>
> They're made of expanded polystyrene. I can exert enough force to
> crush that quite easily with my hands. I can't break skulls, even the
> sides of them, with static pressure from my hands.

Have you tried it with a sharp blow rather than slowly applied
pressure, it is a very different effect.
>
>> I have already agreed with
>> you that gaining 100% certainty is not possible, but you are being
>> disingenuous by not using the
>> full context.
>
> And I thought /you/ were being disingenuous by on one hand trying to
> agree with the OP completely while OTOH agreeing that he's making
> dangerous assumptions and one can't actually be as certain as he
> appears to be... so we're "even" there ;-/

I didn't think the assumption was "dangerous" those are your words,
just not 100% certain, but close
to it.

>
>> I expect to see a picture of you with a rabbits foot taped to your head then.
>
> Why? I don't believe in lucky charms and I don't believe that crash
> helmets give a clear improvement in my chances of avoiding serious
> injury. And the reason why I don't believe in either is I've never
> seen any convincing evidence of useful efficacy of either, just as I
> haven't seen good evidence that skulls are so vulnerable to side impact
> that they will practically always crack in such a fall to a hard
> surface. Your friend, regrettably, demonstrated it /can/ happen, but
> that's hardly good enough to assume 90+% instance.

I can either follow my own opinion or be to confused to make any
judgement at all by listening to
the constant meanderings of both sides, I'll stick to my opinion.
>
>>> But at least they're bright enough to have moved on a /little/ bit.
>>
>> Have they?
>
> Yes. The Vatican has acknowledged evolution and current cosmological
> theories over the start of the universe over creationist parables. Me,
> I'm a agnostic humanist, but credit where it's due.

I'm not going there.


--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Peter Clinch]

Buck wrote:

> Have you tried it with a sharp blow rather than slowly applied pressure,
> it is a very different effect.

It is. The polystyrene seems to be more susceptible to brittle fracture
than bone. But you're certainly not comparing like with like, and it's
hardly news to suggest people have cracked helmets with very low energy
bumps or that lots of people fall over sideways onto hard surfaces and
require a couple of ibuprofen, tea and sympathy and nothing more to get
better.

> I can either follow my own opinion or be to confused to make any
> judgement at all by listening to
> the constant meanderings of both sides, I'll stick to my opinion.

FSVO of "meandering". I've always stuck to the same salient facts to
underpin mine, and I've yet to see any credible challenge to them,
despite it being entirely in my own interests to find otherwise.

You accuse me of jumping on bandwagons, in return I suggest you are
rationalising a gut feeling, another thing that is very common across
the population and one we *all* engage in from time to time. That you
state above you prefer not to listen to anyone else because it's too
confusing does rather support the charge.

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 15:59:20 +0000, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> said:

> Buck wrote:
>
>> Have you tried it with a sharp blow rather than slowly applied
>> pressure, it is a very different effect.
>
> It is. The polystyrene seems to be more susceptible to brittle
> fracture than bone. But you're certainly not comparing like with like,
> and it's hardly news to suggest people have cracked helmets with very
> low energy bumps or that lots of people fall over sideways onto hard
> surfaces and require a couple of ibuprofen, tea and sympathy and
> nothing more to get better.
>
>> I can either follow my own opinion or be to confused to make any
>> judgement at all by listening to
>> the constant meanderings of both sides, I'll stick to my opinion.
>
> FSVO of "meandering". I've always stuck to the same salient facts to
> underpin mine, and I've yet to see any credible challenge to them,
> despite it being entirely in my own interests to find otherwise.
>
> You accuse me of jumping on bandwagons, in return I suggest you are
> rationalising a gut feeling, another thing that is very common across
> the population and one we *all* engage in from time to time. That you
> state above you prefer not to listen to anyone else because it's too
> confusing does rather support the charge.

Except I have already stated that my opinion is based on my
understanding from my own experience
and that of others, therefore I obviously do listen to others, but I
choose not to be overly swayed
by the groups that are overly pro or con, they can argue each other
blue in the faces and achieve
nothing for anyone, so called "scientific" rhetoric desperately
requiring 100% certainties from
people who believe they were saved by a helmet is better served if the
people needing to disprove any hypothesis go ahead and disprove it, I
have no issue with that. But it has not happened, all that
continues is this bleating about 100% certainties, hence the pro helmet
people get more and more
credibility as their "evidence", a dead kid with no helmet, a live one
with is more tangible. Or maybe
a dead kid means nothing, unfortunately the bleatings of the anti
helmet or anti compulsory helmet
brigade often sounds, in it's constant regurgitation of that one point
to discount the cost of such things.


--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:16:15 GMT, Buck
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Except I have already stated that my opinion is based on my
>understanding from my own experience
>and that of others, therefore I obviously do listen to others, but I
>choose not to be overly swayed
>by the groups that are overly pro or con, they can argue each other
>blue in the faces and achieve
>nothing for anyone, so called "scientific" rhetoric desperately
>requiring 100% certainties from
>people who believe they were saved by a helmet is better served if the
>people needing to disprove any hypothesis go ahead and disprove it, I
>have no issue with that. But it has not happened, all that
>continues is this bleating about 100% certainties, hence the pro helmet
>people get more and more
>credibility as their "evidence", a dead kid with no helmet, a live one
>with is more tangible. Or maybe
>a dead kid means nothing, unfortunately the bleatings of the anti
>helmet or anti compulsory helmet
>brigade often sounds, in it's constant regurgitation of that one point
>to discount the cost of such things.

I've been following this thread and your final comments pretty much
prove that you've missed the entire issue. It isn't whether or not
there are 100% provable arguments on either side of the helmet debate
- it is that you can't extrapolate with high levels of certainty what
would or could happen from what did happen, unless you are running a
controlled expirement, over and over.

It takes a trained reconstructionist at an accident scene with good
remaining evidence to determine what probably happened. The level of
certainty is usually qualified and presented as 'professional
opinion'. Yet you have repeatedly suggested that we should take as
'evidence' what is clearly opinion, with few qualifications or caveats
and projecting what might have been with greater certainty than a
professional on a stand can say what DID take place.

And if using dead kids isn't one of the last refuges of bad arguments,
it is very close. It is certainly beyond the point the real evidence
would suffice.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 08 Feb, Buck <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Granted it is not 100% certain, but 90+% in my opinion.

Hold on - you were claiming it was practically certain. I think 90%
is probably wrong, but even if it isn't, 90% is far from practically
certain.

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

 

[Buck]

On 2007-02-08 16:31:27 +0000, Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> said:

> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:16:15 GMT, Buck
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Except I have already stated that my opinion is based on my
>> understanding from my own experience
>> and that of others, therefore I obviously do listen to others, but I
>> choose not to be overly swayed
>> by the groups that are overly pro or con, they can argue each other
>> blue in the faces and achieve
>> nothing for anyone, so called "scientific" rhetoric desperately
>> requiring 100% certainties from
>> people who believe they were saved by a helmet is better served if the
>> people needing to disprove any hypothesis go ahead and disprove it, I
>> have no issue with that. But it has not happened, all that
>> continues is this bleating about 100% certainties, hence the pro helmet
>> people get more and more
>> credibility as their "evidence", a dead kid with no helmet, a live one
>> with is more tangible. Or maybe
>> a dead kid means nothing, unfortunately the bleatings of the anti
>> helmet or anti compulsory helmet
>> brigade often sounds, in it's constant regurgitation of that one point
>> to discount the cost of such things.
>
> I've been following this thread and your final comments pretty much
> prove that you've missed the entire issue. It isn't whether or not
> there are 100% provable arguments on either side of the helmet debate
> - it is that you can't extrapolate with high levels of certainty what
> would or could happen from what did happen, unless you are running a
> controlled expirement, over and over.
>
> It takes a trained reconstructionist at an accident scene with good
> remaining evidence to determine what probably happened. The level of
> certainty is usually qualified and presented as 'professional
> opinion'. Yet you have repeatedly suggested that we should take as
> 'evidence' what is clearly opinion, with few qualifications or caveats
> and projecting what might have been with greater certainty than a
> professional on a stand can say what DID take place.
>
> And if using dead kids isn't one of the last refuges of bad arguments,
> it is very close. It is certainly beyond the point the real evidence
> would suffice.

You jumped on one point to condemn me, even though I have agreed with the basis
that you cannot be100% certain without such experiments, but you have
missed the
point I am making in that those experiments are not being run by either side.

So the pro helmet lobby gets to use imotive means while the anti helmet
side merely
go on and on with the same old stuff without seeking to prove their point.

So I will stick with my opinion based on my experience and the experiences of
others as I may consider relevant, yes it is flawed, but no more so
than any of the
other arguments and at least I take responsibility for my own
decisions, I will wear a
helmet but I do not expect you to.
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Buck]

On 2007-02-08 16:36:15 +0000, Ian Smith <[email protected]> said:

> On Thu, 08 Feb, Buck <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Granted it is not 100% certain, but 90+% in my opinion.
>
> Hold on - you were claiming it was practically certain. I think 90% is
> probably wrong, but even if it isn't, 90% is far from practically
> certain.
>
> regards, Ian SMith

You are miss quoting again, I said 90+% the give away is in the + sign.
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Peter Clinch]

Buck wrote:

> Except I have already stated that my opinion is based on my
> understanding from my own experience and that of others, therefore I
> obviously do listen to others

Well so is mine! /All/ the collected evidence is experience.

> but I choose not to be overly swayed
> by the groups that are overly pro or con

Do you think I (or anyone else) actually "chose to be overly swayed"?
Deary me. I was challenged to read the data for myself and challenge my
POV. I took the challenge, found my POV wanting and changed it.

> they can argue each other
> blue in the faces and achieve nothing for anyone, so called
> "scientific" rhetoric desperately requiring 100% certainties from
> people who believe they were saved by a helmet is better served if
> the people needing to disprove any hypothesis go ahead and disprove
> it, I have no issue with that. But it has not happened

I'm not requiring 100% certainties, you're putting words into my mouth
again. What I say is that if a claim of ~100% certainty is made then it
has to be backed up with pretty watertight arguments if it is to hold
any validity, and in this case it hasn't been. Numbers have been
plucked out of the air and said to be good, but I've seen no evidence
that they are.

> continues is this bleating about 100% certainties, hence the pro
> helmet people get more and more credibility as their "evidence", a
> dead kid with no helmet, a live one with is more tangible. Or maybe a
> dead kid means nothing, unfortunately the bleatings of the anti
> helmet or anti compulsory helmet brigade often sounds, in it's
> constant regurgitation of that one point to discount the cost of such
> things.

Well if you think that's the only point ever made then you haven't been
paying any degree of attention.

To recap, the points that are made centre on:

increases in wearing rates appear to have no effect on serious injury rates;

pro-helmet case control studies have been shown to have wide
methodological flaws and a lack of reproducibility;

the lowest serious head injury rates are coincident with the lowest
wearing rates, despite the accidents they are designed to cope with
being the sort of accident that is quite possible in those places (e.g.,
NL and Denmark);

the specifications do no suggest any expectation of preventing serious
injury and no manufacturer claims it will (AFAICT). Added to this,
there are active reasons to build /down/ to a specification (cost,
ventilation and light weight) rather than up from it. Also, the
manufacturers have helped to drive specifications down.

So, where in the above is "bleating about 100% certainties"? Like
Curtis states, you've missed the point.

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 17:03:00 +0000, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> said:

> Like Curtis states, you've missed the point.
>
> Pete.

I don't think I have, I just have not agreed with any one point of
view, which is a different thing
altogether.
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Joel]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> I recently had a completely new (at least for me) experience: I wore
> out a helmet. Or at least I think I wore it out: there's a crack in
> the front of my trusty white Giro Atmos that I can't account for. The
> helmet's four years old, so I'm just putting this crack down to
> accumulated wear and tear.
>
> So how is this new? Well, it's the first time I've ever replaced a
> helmet before catastrophically destroying it through the medium of an
> epic crash. In other words, I've finally had a helmet die of old age.
>
> Who would have even thought such a thing possible?
>
> So lately I've been doing some helmet shopping, during which I have
> thought a lot-too much, perhaps-about helmets.
>
> Chose a Bell; what the Hell?
>
I am one of those pro helmet users, I hate having it on my head, but I
know for fact in my case it works. I was riding my trike on a bike
path/trail when i cam to a area of heavy brush and I was moving along at
around 15-18 Mph. As I came around a turn directly in front of me was a
car that I later found out was stolen. I tried my best to steer away,
but I forgot in panic to lean into the turn. The trike and I flipped
over and my head hit the ground real hard. After I regained my composure
I got up and looked around, (to see if anyone saw this embarrassing
moment) and felt my helmet was very loose. I took it off and found that
the thin outer shell was scratched, but the inner foam shell was cracked
all the way through. I had some nasty black and blues on my forehead
where the helmet dug in, but everything including my trike was
undamaged. But I guess I was just lucky. So no matter how much I hate
the helmet I will continue to wear it.

Joel

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:46:31 GMT, Buck
<[email protected]> wrote:

>So I will stick with my opinion based on my experience and the experiences of
>others as I may consider relevant, yes it is flawed, but no more so
>than any of the
>other arguments and at least I take responsibility for my own
>decisions

That has what to do with what? BTW, you don't know my opinion on
wearing helmets - you know my opinion on bad logic. And your turning
this in the end to an issue of wearing a helmet or not has nothing to
do with the thread. The thread was about bad suppositions, regardless
of what side of the helmet argument one may be on.

I wouldn't agree with an antihelmet zealot that extrapolated from one
data point of survival to the supposition that he or she would
automatically have survived a situation unsupported by the facts.
Could be, but supposition is supposition, not evidence and not very
good opinion.

And the dead kids thing still sucks IMO.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Buck]

On 2007-02-08 17:19:39 +0000, Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> said:

> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:46:31 GMT, Buck
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So I will stick with my opinion based on my experience and the experiences of
>> others as I may consider relevant, yes it is flawed, but no more so
>> than any of the
>> other arguments and at least I take responsibility for my own decisions
>
> That has what to do with what? BTW, you don't know my opinion on
> wearing helmets - you know my opinion on bad logic. And your turning
> this in the end to an issue of wearing a helmet or not has nothing to
> do with the thread. The thread was about bad suppositions, regardless
> of what side of the helmet argument one may be on.
>
> I wouldn't agree with an antihelmet zealot that extrapolated from one
> data point of survival to the supposition that he or she would
> automatically have survived a situation unsupported by the facts.
> Could be, but supposition is supposition, not evidence and not very
> good opinion.
>
> And the dead kids thing still sucks IMO.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

Look, you're right and I am wrong ok? Feel better? It makes not the
slightest bit
of difference to me.
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Buck]

On 2007-02-08 17:18:59 +0000, Joel <joelw135atcomcast.net> said:

> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> I recently had a completely new (at least for me) experience: I wore
>> out a helmet. Or at least I think I wore it out: there's a crack in
>> the front of my trusty white Giro Atmos that I can't account for. The
>> helmet's four years old, so I'm just putting this crack down to
>> accumulated wear and tear.
>>
>> So how is this new? Well, it's the first time I've ever replaced a
>> helmet before catastrophically destroying it through the medium of an
>> epic crash. In other words, I've finally had a helmet die of old age.
>>
>> Who would have even thought such a thing possible?
>>
>> So lately I've been doing some helmet shopping, during which I have
>> thought a lot-too much, perhaps-about helmets.
>>
>> Chose a Bell; what the Hell?
>>
> I am one of those pro helmet users, I hate having it on my head, but I
> know for fact in my case it works. I was riding my trike on a bike
> path/trail when i cam to a area of heavy brush and I was moving along
> at around 15-18 Mph. As I came around a turn directly in front of me
> was a car that I later found out was stolen. I tried my best to steer
> away, but I forgot in panic to lean into the turn. The trike and I
> flipped over and my head hit the ground real hard. After I regained my
> composure I got up and looked around, (to see if anyone saw this
> embarrassing moment) and felt my helmet was very loose. I took it off
> and found that the thin outer shell was scratched, but the inner foam
> shell was cracked all the way through. I had some nasty black and blues
> on my forehead where the helmet dug in, but everything including my
> trike was undamaged. But I guess I was just lucky. So no matter how
> much I hate the helmet I will continue to wear it.
>
> Joel

I got myself a Briko Twinner, which is pretty comfortable, luckily I
have not had to rely upon
it in an accident thus far.
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Joel]

Buck wrote:
> On 2007-02-08 17:18:59 +0000, Joel <joelw135atcomcast.net> said:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> I recently had a completely new (at least for me) experience: I wore
>>> out a helmet. Or at least I think I wore it out: there's a crack in
>>> the front of my trusty white Giro Atmos that I can't account for. The
>>> helmet's four years old, so I'm just putting this crack down to
>>> accumulated wear and tear.
>>>
>>> So how is this new? Well, it's the first time I've ever replaced a
>>> helmet before catastrophically destroying it through the medium of an
>>> epic crash. In other words, I've finally had a helmet die of old age.
>>>
>>> Who would have even thought such a thing possible?
>>>
>>> So lately I've been doing some helmet shopping, during which I have
>>> thought a lot-too much, perhaps-about helmets.
>>>
>>> Chose a Bell; what the Hell?
>>>
>> I am one of those pro helmet users, I hate having it on my head, but I
>> know for fact in my case it works. I was riding my trike on a bike
>> path/trail when i cam to a area of heavy brush and I was moving along
>> at around 15-18 Mph. As I came around a turn directly in front of me
>> was a car that I later found out was stolen. I tried my best to steer
>> away, but I forgot in panic to lean into the turn. The trike and I
>> flipped over and my head hit the ground real hard. After I regained my
>> composure I got up and looked around, (to see if anyone saw this
>> embarrassing moment) and felt my helmet was very loose. I took it off
>> and found that the thin outer shell was scratched, but the inner foam
>> shell was cracked all the way through. I had some nasty black and
>> blues on my forehead where the helmet dug in, but everything including
>> my trike was undamaged. But I guess I was just lucky. So no matter how
>> much I hate the helmet I will continue to wear it.
>>
>> Joel
>
> I got myself a Briko Twinner, which is pretty comfortable, luckily I
> have not had to rely upon
> it in an accident thus far.

I found that he most comfortable helmet is the Bell Metropolis with the
quick knob adjustment. I put it on and turn a knob which tightens around
my head. Great when I wear a cap under the helmet.

Joel

 

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 08 Feb, Buck <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2007-02-08 16:36:15 +0000, Ian Smith <[email protected]> said:
>
> > On Thu, 08 Feb, Buck <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Granted it is not 100% certain, but 90+% in my opinion.
> >
> > Hold on - you were claiming it was practically certain. I think 90% is
> > probably wrong, but even if it isn't, 90% is far from practically
> > certain.
> >
> > regards, Ian SMith
>
> You are miss quoting again, I said 90+% the give away is in the + sign.

No, I quoted exactly what you wrote.

"90+%" implies a range from 90% upwards. If that's what you mean,
then there remains the possibility of a 90% chance (otherwise, why did
you not say 95%+ or 99%+), and a range of possibility that extends
down to maybe 90% is not equivalent to practically certain.

There remain plenty of reasons why it is wrong to say it is
practically certain that he would have fractured his skull in
slightly different circumstances. It simply isn't practically
certain.

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