Helmets

[Zebee Johnstone]

In alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:06:43 +0000
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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.

I think helmet fanciers would do a lot better to avoid saying "you
will definitely die without it" and instead say "you'll probably be
happier with it than without - if only because gravel rash on the
skull is such a bad look!"

Even "hey, it might help and that's good right?" is better than the
easily disbelieved "it's going to save you, if you don't wear it
you'll die" claims.

No protective kit will save you from all damage. Once you realise that
then it's a matter of how much damage you can avoid with reasonable
certainty and for that all you have is statistics. The statistics seem
to show that helmets aren't sure-fire preventatives, I am unsure as to
where on the range from "don't bother" to "worth the hassle" they are.

The key for me as to how important a person believes a cycle helmet is to
prevent injury is whether or not they wear one when riding in a car. Head
injuries are one of the biggest killers of car passengers in Australia -
a country with mandatory seatbelt laws. But for some reason people who
say helmets are vital on pushbikes refuse to wear them in cars....


Zebee

 

[Dan B.]

On Feb 8, 12:46 pm, Joel <joelw135atcomcast.net> wrote:
> 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Have you used the accessories available for the Metro? The mirror's
decent, and the raincover is really quite nice. I haven't tried the
winterizing kit yet, though.

*Flame war content: I choose to wear my helmet for two reasons. (Well,
three, if you count looking cool and stylish...)
One: in my municipality, cyclists under the age of 12 are required to
wear them; while I am well beyond that age, my son will be riding in a
couple of years, and I wish to encourage him to respect the local law,
as silly as it may seem.
Two: I could not get the glue for the mirror base and the headlamp
mount to adhere properly to my forehead.


Dan

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent on 8 Feb 2007 11:45:40 -0800
Dan B. <[email protected]> wrote:
> Two: I could not get the glue for the mirror base and the headlamp
> mount to adhere properly to my forehead.

Rivets... works every time.

HAve you used a handlebar mirror? If so, what do you see as the pros
and cons of bar vs helmet?

I have a mirror on the Giro that's about 2" in diameter on a long thin
stalk. (Came with the bike, no idea what the maker/model is.) I can
easily see what's behind me although I think I need to find another
one to put on the kerbside.

I haven't tried helmet mirrors, better than bar ones, worse, or just
personal preference?

Zebee

 

[Peter Clinch]

Buck wrote:
> On 2007-02-08 17:03:00 +0000, Peter Clinch
> <[email protected]> said:
>
>> Like Curtis states, you've missed the point.

> I don't think I have

Well you just missed it again, and your monologue about helmet
sceptics requiring 100% certainty of everything was a fine
illustration of that: you're just misrepresenting things, and
whether intentionally or not it's still misrepresentation and it's
still missing the point.

> I just have not agreed with any one point
> of view, which is a different thing altogether.

This is not the point: further evidence you've missed it. It's not
about who you agree with, in this case it's whether statements made
as fact can be backed up with credible evidence to support that
degree of confidence. That the incidence of fractured skulls in
sideways falls onto hard ground is 90-100% has been backed up with
a couple of anecdotes and sides being weaker than tops of skulls
(though not with any quantitative degree of how much). Think you'd
get those numbers published in a medical journal? Even with the
hilariously poor peer reviewing that let the 88% protection from
brain injuries through I say you can't do it. By all means prove
me wrong, and open up your full data to scrutiny and see what a
statistician has to say about it.

That you imply I got to my personal set of opinions by just
choosing a bandwagon to jump on and who I wanted to be seen
agreeing with, rather than by independently assessing evidence
about which I happen to agree on several points with some people,
is frankly something I find rather insulting and disrespectful.

It's one of those irregular verb things...

I assess objectively without bias
His opinions are entirely legitimised by hazily recalled experiences
You jump onto bandwagons

You appear to assume you must be clearly much better at assessing
evidence than me. I actually suspect you're not quite as good at
evidence based argument as you like to think. Your riposte to that
might be it's not fair, or you don't think so, but that does not
make it necessarily so. Argument needs more than "I think so" to
be really convincing (even if it's enough for the person thinking
it), but that's the bulk of what you've really come up with on the
matter of whether the OP was fair to say a fractured skull was near
certainty, or at /least/ 90%.

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/

 

[gotbent]

"Zebee Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent on 8 Feb 2007 11:45:40 -0800
> Dan B. <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Two: I could not get the glue for the mirror base and the headlamp
>> mount to adhere properly to my forehead.
>
> Rivets... works every time.
>
> HAve you used a handlebar mirror? If so, what do you see as the pros
> and cons of bar vs helmet?
>
> I have a mirror on the Giro that's about 2" in diameter on a long thin
> stalk. (Came with the bike, no idea what the maker/model is.) I can
> easily see what's behind me although I think I need to find another
> one to put on the kerbside.
>
> I haven't tried helmet mirrors, better than bar ones, worse, or just
> personal preference?
>
> Zebee

Your mirror sounds like a B&M Cyclestar. I have a pair on both of my bents.
They come in two stem lengths and have both around the bar clamps and a plug
style in the handlebar end style mount with each mirror. They are smaller,
but adequate, than the Mirracycle type mirror (bar end plug only mount
IIRC) they haven't suffered the cracked mount issues that I've had with a
couple of the Mirracycles. I gave up on helmet mirrors because as I look for
cars behind I tend to move my head so that I end up looking in the wrong
place. Bar mirrors being stationary are always in the right place as long as
I'm steering straight ahead.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Peter Clinch]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> No protective kit will save you from all damage. Once you realise that
> then it's a matter of how much damage you can avoid with reasonable
> certainty and for that all you have is statistics. The statistics seem
> to show that helmets aren't sure-fire preventatives, I am unsure as to
> where on the range from "don't bother" to "worth the hassle" they are.

Well put.

> The key for me as to how important a person believes a cycle helmet is to
> prevent injury is whether or not they wear one when riding in a car. Head
> injuries are one of the biggest killers of car passengers in Australia -
> a country with mandatory seatbelt laws. But for some reason people who
> say helmets are vital on pushbikes refuse to wear them in cars....

And don't forget walking... UK pedestrians acquire slightly more
serious injuries per unit distance than cyclists, and the rate of
those being head injuries is higher too. As Buck's friend
illustrated with his misfortune, you really /can/ fracture your
skull out for a stroll.

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]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> HAve you used a handlebar mirror? If so, what do you see as the pros
> and cons of bar vs helmet?

Don't wera a helmet so no helmet mirror, but I have compared
glasses mounted mirrors to bar mirrors (a B&M Cyclestar in my case).

> I haven't tried helmet mirrors, better than bar ones, worse, or just
> personal preference?

Personal preference I think. I know another Streetmachine owner
who loves glasses mounted mirros while I found it a bit of a chore,
but not for any reason I can actually pin down.

One thing I will say is that OSS mounted mirrors are easier to get
to work well than USS mounted mirrors, and some very simple mirrors
work perfectly on OSS while USS seems to need something a bit more
contrived. Having said that, that was based on "scorpion" bars
rather than "hamster", and that makes life more mirror friendly
because they stick out to the side more closer to the vision line.

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/

 

[Dan B.]

On Feb 8, 3:31 pm, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:
> In alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent on 8 Feb 2007 11:45:40 -0800
>
> Dan B. <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Two: I could not get the glue for the mirror base and the headlamp
> > mount to adhere properly to my forehead.
>
> Rivets... works every time.
>


Couldn't find ones long enough.


>
> HAve you used a handlebar mirror? If so, what do you see as the pros
> and cons of bar vs helmet?
>
> I have a mirror on the Giro that's about 2" in diameter on a long thin
> stalk. (Came with the bike, no idea what the maker/model is.) I can
> easily see what's behind me although I think I need to find another
> one to put on the kerbside.
>
> I haven't tried helmet mirrors, better than bar ones, worse, or just
> personal preference?
>
> Zebee

I use bar-mounted mirrors on my 'bents; however, the fold-away helmet
mounted mirror with the Metro is very nice for test rides, loaners,
rental bikes, and suchlike.

I prefer bar-mounted mirrors (one on each side), the helmet-mounted
mirrors I've used seem to pick up more road vibration, rendering a
rather psychedelic rear view on any rough bits of road. Although I
haven't used them personally, I'd expect the same principle applies to
the eyeglass-mounted stalked mirror systems as well.

Again, though, if you're riding a bike not your own, it's nice to be
able to flip down a little Borg-looking widget from your visor and
have some rear visibility.

Dan

 

[Joel]

Dan B. wrote:
> On Feb 8, 12:46 pm, Joel <joelw135atcomcast.net> wrote:
>> 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- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Have you used the accessories available for the Metro? The mirror's
> decent, and the raincover is really quite nice. I haven't tried the
> winterizing kit yet, though.
>
> *Flame war content: I choose to wear my helmet for two reasons. (Well,
> three, if you count looking cool and stylish...)
> One: in my municipality, cyclists under the age of 12 are required to
> wear them; while I am well beyond that age, my son will be riding in a
> couple of years, and I wish to encourage him to respect the local law,
> as silly as it may seem.
> Two: I could not get the glue for the mirror base and the headlamp
> mount to adhere properly to my forehead.
>
>
> Dan
>
I have used the rain cover, but I plan to get the winter kit for next
year.I have two mirrors on my trike so the helmet mount is not necessary.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:54:27 +0000
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> One thing I will say is that OSS mounted mirrors are easier to get
> to work well than USS mounted mirrors, and some very simple mirrors
> work perfectly on OSS while USS seems to need something a bit more
> contrived. Having said that, that was based on "scorpion" bars
> rather than "hamster", and that makes life more mirror friendly
> because they stick out to the side more closer to the vision line.
>

I can see that!

The Giro has tweener bars, and the mirror I have has a long stalk, so
getting a view of the road instead of my elbows is easy.

Now, if only I could manage that on the motorcycle....

Zebee

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent on 8 Feb 2007 12:57:14 -0800
Dan B. <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Again, though, if you're riding a bike not your own, it's nice to be
> able to flip down a little Borg-looking widget from your visor and
> have some rear visibility.

Dunno why more don't use them.

Was on a group ride a while back and only the "odd bikes" were using
mirrors. My bent and a bunch of people on folders.

Then a bod on a hybrid turned up and he had one, blowing my theory out
of the water He said he'd only recently added it and wondered why
he hadn't done so earlier.

Most of the others on the ride were using some variety of flat bar
rather than drops so mirrors wouldn't have been too hard. I seldom
see any on my commute, maybe one helmet mirror every couple of months.

Never occurred to me to use one when I was commuting on an upright so
perhaps it's just exposure.

Zebee

 

[Buck]

On 2007-02-08 20:40:48 +0000, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> said:
>
>
> You appear to assume you must be clearly much better at assessing
> evidence than me. I actually suspect you're not quite as good at
> evidence based argument as you like to think. Your riposte to that
> might be it's not fair, or you don't think so, but that does not make
> it necessarily so. Argument needs more than "I think so" to be really
> convincing (even if it's enough for the person thinking it), but that's
> the bulk of what you've really come up with on the matter of whether
> the OP was fair to say a fractured skull was near certainty, or at
> /least/ 90%.
>
> Pete.

I think you have completely missed my main point, in that I make my own
decissions based on my
own criteria to take my own responsibility, I have no interest in
getting published in medical
journals.

I will continue to do so until such times as cohesive research is
actually carried out, until then
both sides can use emotive issues or say things like "your assesment is
rubbish until you go and do the same without a helmet to prove you will
die/crack your skull/be crippled, yada yada".

And I still tend on the side of the OP.
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Peter Clinch]

Buck wrote:

> I think you have completely missed my main point, in that I make my
> own decissions based on my own criteria to take my own
> responsibility, I have no interest in getting published in medical
> journals.

So your "choosing not to accept bias" is, really, just choosing your own
bias (and don't pretend you don't have any, everyone does, it's a
natural part of the human condition).
Whether or not you have any interest in getting published is less
important than are your particular criteria good enough for anyone
except you. If they're not, and in particular not good enough for the
general and wider science community, then that actually might tell you
something about how good your criteria are in a wider and more objective
sense.

Taking responsibility for your own opinions is fine, but don't go about
characterising people who happen to agree with other things as people
that don't take responsibility for theirs. I make *my* own decisions
based on *my* own criteria, and those lead me to *my* conclusions which
*I* take responsibility for. If I share them with other people who've
gone through the same process that doesn't make me a bandwagon jumper,
any more than a kid counting out 2+2 on the fingers and getting 4 is
"just jumping on the well known 2+2=4 bandwagon".

> I will continue to do so until such times as cohesive research is
> actually carried out, until then both sides can use emotive issues or
> say things like "your assesment is rubbish until you go and do the
> same without a helmet to prove you will die/crack your skull/be
> crippled, yada yada".

So who actually, really says anything like your quote there? I recapped
the basic arguments for you a few posts ago and there was nothing like
that there, and I don't recall seeing anything like that on
cyclehelmets.org, so you appear to have taken a bit of usenet based
shooting down of spurious logic as the main thrust of an argument, which
it isn't. Once again, therefore, your reasoning is flawed, because
you're using a false impression of the arguments to colour your opinion
of them.

Furthermore, you're are evidently subject to emotive reasoning yourself.
Your friend who fell over walking and fractured his skull is used as an
argument for wearing a helmet on a bike, but not walking; you put a few
anecdotes above mass statistical evidence; whether you like it or
not that's emotive based thinking.

> And I still tend on the side of the OP.

And I point out the simple fact that the reasoning you used won't stand
up in the general arena of science. So ask yourself is that because
science is wrong in how it goes about its business, or perhaps your
reasoning has a large dose of justification of gut feeling (I recognise
justification of gut feeling, I've often run along on it myself).

Independence is not /necessarily/ a virtue, and one reason why is it
removes the checks and balances of peer review. Those are used in wider
science for a very good reason.

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 2007-02-09 09:05:24 +0000, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> said:

> Buck wrote:
>
>> I think you have completely missed my main point, in that I make my own
>> decissions based on my own criteria to take my own responsibility, I
>> have no interest in getting published in medical journals.
>
> So your "choosing not to accept bias" is, really, just choosing your own
> bias (and don't pretend you don't have any, everyone does, it's a
> natural part of the human condition).

I have never pretended I don't have any, where have I said that my
opinion is based on objective
view, my whole premise is subjective.
> Whether or not you have any interest in getting published is less
> important than are your particular criteria good enough for anyone
> except you. If they're not, and in particular not good enough for the
> general and wider science community, then that actually might tell you
> something about how good your criteria are in a wider and more objective
> sense.

Er see above and try re reading my posts.
>
> Taking responsibility for your own opinions is fine, but don't go about
> characterising people who happen to agree with other things as people
> that don't take responsibility for theirs.

Where did I say that? Oh yes nowhere, that is one you are making up.
> I make *my* own decisions
> based on *my* own criteria, and those lead me to *my* conclusions which
> *I* take responsibility for. If I share them with other people who've
> gone through the same process that doesn't make me a bandwagon jumper,
> any more than a kid counting out 2+2 on the fingers and getting 4 is
> "just jumping on the well known 2+2=4 bandwagon".

You are really upset about this "bandwagon" bit aren't you? Reread what
I said, did I say
you always jump on the bandwagon?

I tell you what I did allude to, people regurgitating the same point
over and over which you seem
to be doing on this one transient point.
>
>> I will continue to do so until such times as cohesive research is
>> actually carried out, until then both sides can use emotive issues or
>> say things like "your assesment is rubbish until you go and do the
>> same without a helmet to prove you will die/crack your skull/be
>> crippled, yada yada".
>
> So who actually, really says anything like your quote there? I recapped
> the basic arguments for you a few posts ago and there was nothing like
> that there, and I don't recall seeing anything like that on
> cyclehelmets.org, so you appear to have taken a bit of usenet based
> shooting down of spurious logic as the main thrust of an argument,
> which it isn't. Once again, therefore, your reasoning is flawed,
> because you're using a false impression of the arguments to colour your
> opinion of them.
>
> Furthermore, you're are evidently subject to emotive reasoning yourself.
> Your friend who fell over walking and fractured his skull is used as an
> argument for wearing a helmet on a bike, but not walking; you put a few
> anecdotes above mass statistical evidence; whether you like it or
> not that's emotive based thinking.

Yes it is and I do not try to hide it.
>
>> And I still tend on the side of the OP.
>
> And I point out the simple fact that the reasoning you used won't stand
> up in the general arena of science.

I don't expect it to.

> So ask yourself is that because
> science is wrong in how it goes about its business, or perhaps your
> reasoning has a large dose of justification of gut feeling (I recognise
> justification of gut feeling, I've often run along on it myself).

That's exactly what it is.
>
> Independence is not /necessarily/ a virtue, and one reason why is it
> removes the checks and balances of peer review. Those are used in wider
> science for a very good reason.

Unfortunately the science just isn't there on this subject.

You seem to be desperately crusading to prove how stupid I am but not
getting anywhere
and making claims about my posts that do not exist, it is a wild ride
Peter, you just carry on
don't let the facts blind you.


--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Peter Clinch]

Buck wrote:
> On 2007-02-09 09:05:24 +0000, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> said:

>> Taking responsibility for your own opinions is fine, but don't go about
>> characterising people who happen to agree with other things as people
>> that don't take responsibility for theirs.
>
> Where did I say that? Oh yes nowhere, that is one you are making up.

You said that I jump onto bandwagons, strongly implying I didn't make up
my own mind.

> You are really upset about this "bandwagon" bit aren't you?

Yes, I am, I'd much sooner be called an arrogant shithead than be
accused of just farming out my decision making processes to other
people, yet that has been clearly implied.

> Reread what I said, did I say you always jump on the bandwagon?

That you didn't specifically say I /always/ do is rather a lame attempt
at a get-out: you very clearly implied that on this subject that's
exactly what I've done.
You have very strongly implied, here and elsewhere, that my opinions on
helmets are a result of me choosing who to jump into bed with. That I
choose to place a qualified degree of trust in information which you
openly dismiss as clearly dross suggests strongly that you think I am
jumping onto a bandwagon.

>> So ask yourself is that because
>> science is wrong in how it goes about its business, or perhaps your
>> reasoning has a large dose of justification of gut feeling (I recognise
>> justification of gut feeling, I've often run along on it myself).
>
> That's exactly what it is.

Higher up this thread when I stated that you did this, your meandering
reply began with "Except I have already stated..."
I read the "Except..." as saying it is exceptional (i.e., different) to
what I had said. If you don't mean that, and don't want me to think
that, don't say it!

> Unfortunately the science just isn't there on this subject.

There's a lot of dross and there's some good work. You just sweep it
all into one basket of dross.

> You seem to be desperately crusading to prove how stupid I am but not
> getting anywhere and making claims about my posts that do not exist, it is a wild ride
> Peter, you just carry on don't let the facts blind you.

Curtis has pointed out holes in your argumentative logic, I've pointed
out holes in your argumentative logic, Ian has pointed out holes in your
argumentative logic, you deny all of them. You don't seem to
acknowledge the possibility that the reason at least 3 people are
shooting holes in your logic might be that there are holes in your logic...
I'm not trying to make you out to be stupid, though when it comes to
getting blinded I do think you're indulging yourself in deliberate
selective blindness on this subject, and that's tripping you up. You're
trying so hard not to let the facts blind you that you're not actually
looking at them, shown by your repeated rants showing helmet sceptics
demanding things they're not demanding and arguing in ways most of them
don't argue, and conjuring up solid figures based on "I think so".

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 2007-02-09 10:59:48 +0000, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> said:

>
> Higher up this thread when I stated that you did this, your meandering
> reply began with "Except I have already stated..."
> I read the "Except..." as saying it is exceptional (i.e., different) to
> what I had said. If you don't mean that, and don't want me to think
> that, don't say it!

You are reading it in a way you want to read it not in the way it was written.
>
>> Unfortunately the science just isn't there on this subject.
>
> There's a lot of dross and there's some good work. You just sweep it
> all into one basket of dross.

I'm saying that the science does not exist in any cohesive fashion, and
yes there is a huge amount
of dross.
> Curtis has pointed out holes in your argumentative logic, I've pointed
> out holes in your argumentative logic, Ian has pointed out holes in
> your argumentative logic, you deny all of them. You don't seem to
> acknowledge the possibility that the reason at least 3 people are
> shooting holes in your logic might be that there are holes in your
> logic...

My logic? Three people versus how many, three? More? You are the one
being entirely subjective
now, you love to argue Peter, I can see that, I'm not commenting on
this matter further, my opinions
work for me, Bens opinions work for him, yours work for you.

By the way, saying that people don't use the argument about reproducing
the accident as a way of
discounting peoples experiences is **** and you know it. It is trotted
out on a regular basis by various
usenet regulars, it is inane.

--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Peter Clinch]

Buck wrote:
>
> You are reading it in a way you want to read it not in the way it was
> written.

Or... I misread your intention because it was ambiguously written. I
don't think I merit /all/ of the blame there!

> I'm saying that the science does not exist in any cohesive fashion, and
> yes there is a huge amount of dross.

What is a "cohesive fashion"? If you want work that reasonably
reproducibly shows the same thing then I think that is there, and the
work showing otherwise has clear and major and identified flaws, as
opposed to limits to which one can have confidence in it.

> My logic? Three people versus how many, three? More?

How many of you are there? I just mean /you/, in this sub-thread. Just
your logical consistency in this particular time and place.

> By the way, saying that people don't use the argument about reproducing
> the accident as a way of discounting peoples experiences is **** and you know it.

The point is that people's experiences are *not* discounted, but they
will only give you a meaningful answer you can use /with confidence/ if
they're taken in large samples, so you use large samples instead of
singular anecdotes. That actually takes *more* actual experience on
board, it doesn't discount it. It's why statistical samples need to be
large before anyone takes real notice of them, because small samples are
prone to give erroneous results. The point about citing reproducibility
is showing that you can't treat a statistical experiment in the same
manner as you treat an incidental controlled experiment, *not* that
someone actually needs to go out and reproduce it.

If you want to see if there's a 90+% chance of a fracture in a sideways
fall without a helmet you look at *lots* of such falls and see if 90+%
of them result in fractures, you don't say "I was there and I say it's
90+% certain", or not if your argument is going to be credible. Small
numbers of incidents with controlled reproducibility *or* large sample
bases. One or the other, and the first doesn't work in this case
because nobody's going to do it. The argument "trotted out" here is
simply illustrating that nobody's going to do it, so therefore you need
a good sample size, *not* as you seem to have taken it that until
someone does the same thing without a hat you won't believe them. You
started off this one accusing me of distorting things for my own ends,
and here you are showing you're certainly not immune to getting a fuzzy
picture yourself...

> It is trotted out on a regular basis by various usenet regulars, it is inane.

If understood as quite deliberately inane and facetious in order to
demonstrate the necessity of a good size sample base beyond single
figures then it isn't nearly as dumb as you're making out.

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 21:35:56 +0000, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> said:

> In alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent on 8 Feb 2007 12:57:14 -0800
> Dan B. <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Again, though, if you're riding a bike not your own, it's nice to be
>> able to flip down a little Borg-looking widget from your visor and
>> have some rear visibility.
>
> Dunno why more don't use them.
>
> Was on a group ride a while back and only the "odd bikes" were using
> mirrors. My bent and a bunch of people on folders.
>
> Then a bod on a hybrid turned up and he had one, blowing my theory out
> of the water He said he'd only recently added it and wondered why
> he hadn't done so earlier.
>
> Most of the others on the ride were using some variety of flat bar
> rather than drops so mirrors wouldn't have been too hard. I seldom
> see any on my commute, maybe one helmet mirror every couple of months.
>
> Never occurred to me to use one when I was commuting on an upright so
> perhaps it's just exposure.
>
> Zebee

I have a bar mounted mirror on the trike but have never tried a helmet
mounted one,
wouldn't it cause a problem in an accident with snagging or applied localised
pressure to a point on the helmet?
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Peter Clinch]

Buck wrote:

> wouldn't it cause a problem in an accident with snagging or applied
> localised pressure to a point on the helmet?

"Unlikely" is my guess: most of them that I've seen would just snap off
in the same manner as a visor: you'd have to be going pretty much
straight down the mount in a straight line as you hit whatever. It
/could/ be a problem, yes, but OTOH so could not seeing what's about to
knock you off...

Helmet/glasses mirrors tend to be more decoupled from vibration than
many bar mounted ones. Whether that's a problem would depend on your
roads, tyres and suspension.

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/

 

[Dan B.]

On Feb 9, 7:23 am, Buck <[email protected]>
wrote:
<snip>
>
> I have a bar mounted mirror on the trike but have never tried a helmet
> mounted one,
> wouldn't it cause a problem in an accident with snagging or applied localised
> pressure to a point on the helmet?
>
<snip>
Possible, if unlikely, IMO. I'll take that potential increased risk,
in exchange for the benefit of being able to better perceive my
surroundings and (hopefully) avoid the accident in the first place.

Best,

Dan