Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

I'm looking for three data points here:

1) My head struck on object (pavement, vehicle, another cyclist, etc.)
whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and I feel the helmet lessened
the extent of my injuries.

or

2) My head struck on object whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and
I doubt it either lessened or worsened the extent of my injuries (i.e.,
the helmet made no difference).

or

3) My head struck an object whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and
I feel the helmet worsened the extent of my injuries.

Please limit responses to the three scenarios as outlined above. As
simple or as detailed as you like. And, *first hand* accounts only
(i.e., it happened to you). And no responses of "studies show",
"statistics prove", etc.

Beside the obvious and well-known flaw that self-selected responses are an
_extremely_ poor way to gather data, you have omitted a whole class of
instances in which had the cyclist been wearing a helmet, they would have
struck their head on an object - but because they were not, they did not.

You say you wish to exclude such instances - is this bias for helmets by
choice or accident?

And why do you wish to avoid real studies that have been done that already
show what is needed to determine the value of helmets and MHLs?

Which part of "*first hand* accounts only" can't you wrap your mind
around?

Now, do you have a *first hand* experience to contribute, or are you
just taking up space?

Ozark Bicycle said:

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

I'm looking for three data points here:

1) My head struck on object (pavement, vehicle, another cyclist,
etc.) whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and I feel the helmet
lessened the extent of my injuries.

or

2) My head struck on object whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet
and I doubt it either lessened or worsened the extent of my
injuries (i.e., the helmet made no difference).

or

3) My head struck an object whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet
and I feel the helmet worsened the extent of my injuries.

Please limit responses to the three scenarios as outlined above. As
simple or as detailed as you like. And, *first hand* accounts only
(i.e., it happened to you). And no responses of "studies show",
"statistics prove", etc.

<snip>

It's a (1) for me (hit a rock on a trail, at speed)....

I'm in Fort Smith at the moment - any good shops I can visit (need new
shocks)?

cupra said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

jtaylor said:

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...
> I'm looking for three data points here:
>
> 1) My head struck on object (pavement, vehicle, another cyclist,
> etc.) whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and I feel the helmet
> lessened the extent of my injuries.
>
> or
>
> 2) My head struck on object whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet
> and I doubt it either lessened or worsened the extent of my
> injuries (i.e., the helmet made no difference).
>
> or
>
> 3) My head struck an object whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet
> and I feel the helmet worsened the extent of my injuries.
>
> Please limit responses to the three scenarios as outlined above. As
> simple or as detailed as you like. And, *first hand* accounts only
> (i.e., it happened to you). And no responses of "studies show",
> "statistics prove", etc.

<snip>

It's a (1) for me (hit a rock on a trail, at speed)....

I'm in Fort Smith at the moment - any good shops I can visit (need new
shocks)?

Try Champion Cycling in Ft. Smith. 479-484-7500

(No connection whatsoever, etc., etc.)

Hope your head is okay. And enjoy the Ozarks!

Ozark Bicycle said:

cupra said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

jtaylor wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email hidden]> wrote in
> message
> news:[email hidden]...
>> I'm looking for three data points here:
>>
>> 1) My head struck on object (pavement, vehicle, another cyclist,
>> etc.) whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and I feel the helmet
>> lessened the extent of my injuries.
>>
>> or
>>
>> 2) My head struck on object whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet
>> and I doubt it either lessened or worsened the extent of my
>> injuries (i.e., the helmet made no difference).
>>
>> or
>>
>> 3) My head struck an object whilst cycling; I was wearing a
>> helmet and I feel the helmet worsened the extent of my injuries.
>>
>> Please limit responses to the three scenarios as outlined above.
>> As simple or as detailed as you like. And, *first hand* accounts
>> only (i.e., it happened to you). And no responses of "studies
>> show", "statistics prove", etc.

<snip>

It's a (1) for me (hit a rock on a trail, at speed)....

I'm in Fort Smith at the moment - any good shops I can visit (need
new shocks)?

Try Champion Cycling in Ft. Smith. 479-484-7500

(No connection whatsoever, etc., etc.)

Hope your head is okay. And enjoy the Ozarks!

Cool - thanks! Only here for work, keep thinking about extending my trips
here and taking in some of the Ozark trails!

(as long as it's nice and dry, without the tornado sirens going off!)

On 9 May 2006, Ozark Bicycle <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

I'm looking for three data points here:

1) My head struck on object (pavement, vehicle, another cyclist, etc.)
whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and I feel the helmet lessened
the extent of my injuries.

or

2) My head struck on object whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and
I doubt it either lessened or worsened the extent of my injuries (i.e.,
the helmet made no difference).

or

3) My head struck an object whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and
I feel the helmet worsened the extent of my injuries.

Please limit responses to the three scenarios as outlined above. As
simple or as detailed as you like. And, *first hand* accounts only
(i.e., it happened to you). And no responses of "studies show",
"statistics prove", etc.

Beside the obvious and well-known flaw that self-selected responses are an
_extremely_ poor way to gather data, you have omitted a whole class of
instances in which had the cyclist been wearing a helmet, they would have
struck their head on an object - but because they were not, they did not.

You say you wish to exclude such instances - is this bias for helmets by
choice or accident?

And why do you wish to avoid real studies that have been done that already
show what is needed to determine the value of helmets and MHLs?

Which part of "*first hand* accounts only" can't you wrap your mind
around?

And are you going to answer the main question? Why do you
particularly and explicitly want to exclude cases in which the helmet
made matters worse?

For what it's worth, I have one 2 and two of the case you're trying to
exclude (presumably to prove your point).

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

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as jtaylor
<[email hidden]> gently breathed:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

I'm looking for three data points here:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1) My head struck on object (pavement, vehicle, another cyclist, etc.)
whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and I feel the helmet lessened
the extent of my injuries.

This isn't going to produce any meaningful data. Most people who are
wearing something "protective" when an accident happens will
assume/believe that the item helped them in some way. This applies to
plastic bike helmets the same way it applies to magical talismans. See
the recent case of the guy hit by a truck where the police are trying to
claim that his helmet saved his live even though it was reduced to small
pieces - i.e. completely destroyed.

Many years ago I knew a member of a small group of teenage motorcyclists
who'd come to regard one particular set of panniers as a talisman,
simply because several of them had crashed while those particular
panniers were mounted on their motorcycle at the time (they swapped gear
about quite a lot), and in each case the rider had survived unharmed. In
reality of course they were all lucky in their crashes, the panniers
being there was just co-incidence. But this lot believed in them with
almost religious fervour. They also smoked rather a lot of pot, which
my have addled their thinking somewhat.

There is a possible case for wearing helmets off-road, but not
elsewhere.

I have a first hand experience where a helmet would have made things
worse had I been wearing one - a skid on loose gravel while taking a
bend, bike went out from under me, I fell sideways to the road while
still moving forward. Managed to avoid bumping my head, just, but had I
worn a helmet it would have hit the road and twisted my neck via the
forward motion.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

Didn't see the OP.

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

I'm looking for three data points here:

3) My head struck an object whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and
I feel the helmet worsened the extent of my injuries.

I'm a 3. OK the injuries were completely trivial, grazed elbow
(permanent scarring) and speck of grit in my eye (that counts as a head
injury) but it only happened because I'd just left the pub on a gravel
road and hadn't remembered to fasten my helmet (because they are
uncomfortable so I took it off and only did it up when I was riding)
and was trying to ride no handed on gravel while doing up my helmet.

Needless to say, I fell off.

No helmet, I wouldn't have been riding no handed and so wouldn't have
been permanently scarred.

I've also been blinded by sweat running into my eyes while cycling.
Fortunately only once has this happened to both eyes at once and on no
occasion did I actually come off or hit anything. Don't know whether
this counts as a head injury too in which case I've got about 3 or 4
more 3s to add to your list.

No 1s or 2s at all.

Tim.

"Ozark Bicycle" [email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

news:[email hidden]...

I'm looking for three data points here:
1) My head struck on object (pavement, vehicle, another cyclist, etc.)
whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and I feel the helmet lessened
the extent of my injuries.
or

2) My head struck on object whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and
I doubt it either lessened or worsened the extent of my injuries (i.e.,
the helmet made no difference).

or

3) My head struck an object whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and
I feel the helmet worsened the extent of my injuries.

Please limit responses to the three scenarios as outlined above. As
simple or as detailed as you like. And, *first hand* accounts only
(i.e., it happened to you). And no responses of "studies show",
"statistics prove", etc.

Ozark Bicycle: You are Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, and ICMFP

If you knew anything about helmet research, you would withdraw the above
"research" as being completely invalid. If you really were TRT, you will do
even more "research" to prove the conclusions you had already reached before
you even did the first "research"

Never forget: if the facts get in the way of your perceptions, there must be
something wrong with the facts.

Ian Smith said:

On 9 May 2006, Ozark Bicycle <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

jtaylor said:

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> I'm looking for three data points here:
>
> 1) My head struck on object (pavement, vehicle, another cyclist, etc.)
> whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and I feel the helmet lessened
> the extent of my injuries.
>
> or
>
> 2) My head struck on object whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and
> I doubt it either lessened or worsened the extent of my injuries (i.e.,
> the helmet made no difference).
>
> or
>
> 3) My head struck an object whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and
> I feel the helmet worsened the extent of my injuries.
>
> Please limit responses to the three scenarios as outlined above. As
> simple or as detailed as you like. And, *first hand* accounts only
> (i.e., it happened to you). And no responses of "studies show",
> "statistics prove", etc.

Beside the obvious and well-known flaw that self-selected responses are an
_extremely_ poor way to gather data, you have omitted a whole class of
instances in which had the cyclist been wearing a helmet, they would have
struck their head on an object - but because they were not, they did not.

You say you wish to exclude such instances - is this bias for helmets by
choice or accident?

And why do you wish to avoid real studies that have been done that already
show what is needed to determine the value of helmets and MHLs?

Which part of "*first hand* accounts only" can't you wrap your mind
around?

And are you going to answer the main question? Why do you
particularly and explicitly want to exclude cases in which the helmet
made matters worse?

I do not want to exclude those events: see category 3. I do, however,
want first hand accounts only. Clear enough?

Quoted message said:

For what it's worth, I have one 2 and two of the case you're trying to
exclude (presumably to prove your point).

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

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >
> > 3) My head struck an object whilst cycling; I was wearing a

helmet and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > I feel the helmet worsened the extent of my injuries.
> >
> > Please limit responses to the three scenarios as outlined above.

As

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > simple or as detailed as you like. And, *first hand* accounts only
> > (i.e., it happened to you). And no responses of "studies show",
> > "statistics prove", etc.
>
> Beside the obvious and well-known flaw that self-selected responses

are an

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> _extremely_ poor way to gather data, you have omitted a whole class

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> instances in which had the cyclist been wearing a helmet, they would

have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> struck their head on an object - but because they were not, they did

not.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
> You say you wish to exclude such instances - is this bias for

helmets by

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> choice or accident?
>
> And why do you wish to avoid real studies that have been done that

already

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> show what is needed to determine the value of helmets and MHLs?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And are you going to answer the main question? Why do you
particularly and explicitly want to exclude cases in which the helmet
made matters worse?

I do not want to exclude those events: see category 3. I do, however,
want first hand accounts only. Clear enough?

Your #3 specifically states that the head must have struck an object. You
were asked (twice) why you wish to exclude insances where an unhelmeted head
did _not_ strike an object, but would have so done had a helmet been worn.

Again: Why do you wish to exclude such instances; is this bias for helmets
by choice or accident?

Burt said:

3) My head struck an object whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and
I feel the helmet worsened the extent of my injuries.

From the days when I used to wear a helmet:

I was cycling through a wood, a branch caught in the vent on my helmet
and wrenched me backwards off the bike, hurting my neck and lower spine
in the process.

I was getting ready to go out cycling, put my helmet on, remembered I
had left my gloves in the kitchen and went back to get them. My helmet
hit the top of the kitchen door frame giving me quite a severe jolt that
took a couple of minutes to recover from. I have never hit my head on a
door frame at home when not wearing a helmet.

I believe CSPC has documented cases where children have been strangled
by bike helmets.

But its all anecdote and does not change the population statistics
conclusions.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

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

Quoted message said:

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

I'm looking for three data points here:

1) My head struck on object (pavement, vehicle, another cyclist, etc.)
whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and I feel the helmet lessened
the extent of my injuries.

or

2) My head struck on object whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and
I doubt it either lessened or worsened the extent of my injuries (i.e.,
the helmet made no difference).

or

3) My head struck an object whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and
I feel the helmet worsened the extent of my injuries.

Please limit responses to the three scenarios as outlined above. As
simple or as detailed as you like. And, *first hand* accounts only
(i.e., it happened to you). And no responses of "studies show",
"statistics prove", etc.

Beside the obvious and well-known flaw that self-selected responses are
an
_extremely_ poor way to gather data, you have omitted a whole class of
instances in which had the cyclist been wearing a helmet, they would have
struck their head on an object - but because they were not, they did not.

You say you wish to exclude such instances - is this bias for helmets by
choice or accident?

And why do you wish to avoid real studies that have been done that
already
show what is needed to determine the value of helmets and MHLs?

Which part of "*first hand* accounts only" can't you wrap your mind
around?

Now, do you have a *first hand* experience to contribute, or are you
just taking up space?

Is this just a cultural difference, or do Americans find your response to
this reasonable point as rude as I do?

And when did the purpose of these _open forums_ become limited to what
serves your ends, or meets with your approval. If you can't take
constructive criticism of what you're doing, then best if you don't parade
it in public.

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > >
> > > 3) My head struck an object whilst cycling; I was wearing a

helmet and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > I feel the helmet worsened the extent of my injuries.
> > >
> > > Please limit responses to the three scenarios as outlined above.

As

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > simple or as detailed as you like. And, *first hand* accounts only
> > > (i.e., it happened to you). And no responses of "studies show",
> > > "statistics prove", etc.
> >
> > Beside the obvious and well-known flaw that self-selected responses

are an

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > _extremely_ poor way to gather data, you have omitted a whole class

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > instances in which had the cyclist been wearing a helmet, they would

have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > struck their head on an object - but because they were not, they did

not.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >
> > You say you wish to exclude such instances - is this bias for

helmets by

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > choice or accident?
> >
> > And why do you wish to avoid real studies that have been done that

already

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > show what is needed to determine the value of helmets and MHLs?
>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And are you going to answer the main question? Why do you
particularly and explicitly want to exclude cases in which the helmet
made matters worse?

I do not want to exclude those events: see category 3. I do, however,
want first hand accounts only. Clear enough?

Your #3 specifically states that the head must have struck an object. You
were asked (twice) why you wish to exclude insances where an unhelmeted head
did _not_ strike an object, but would have so done had a helmet been worn.

How would you ever know this to be the case?

Quoted message said:

Again: Why do you wish to exclude such instances; is this bias for helmets
by choice or accident?

You're right! The poll is biased against unhelmeted pinheads, whose
small heads have the least chance of hitting an object. Sorry

Ozark Bicycle said:

Quoted message said:

Your #3 specifically states that the head must have struck an object. You
were asked (twice) why you wish to exclude insances where an unhelmeted head
did _not_ strike an object, but would have so done had a helmet been worn.

How would you ever know this to be the case?

Precisely. You have just noticed what people have been trying to point
out to you for some time; your "study" is flawed from the very beginning.

R.

Richard said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

Quoted message said:

Your #3 specifically states that the head must have struck an object. You
were asked (twice) why you wish to exclude insances where an unhelmeted head
did _not_ strike an object, but would have so done had a helmet been worn.

How would you ever know this to be the case?

Precisely.

Then the input would be specious, would it not?

Quoted message said:

You have just noticed what people have been trying to point
out to you for some time; your "study" is flawed from the very beginning.

"I wasn't wearing a helmet and I didn't hit my head, but if I were
wearing a helmet, I would have hit my head". Wow.....

Budstaff said:

Is this just a cultural difference, or do Americans find your
response to this reasonable point as rude as I do?

Yes, Ozark was rude to the delicate flower jtaylor. What you apparently
don't know is the recent history of jtaylor and many others attacking him --
more often than not in very personal, insulting terms -- for his daring to
express an OPINION that's counter to theirs.

BTW, there's a lot of that going on...

Tony Raven said:

Burt said:

3) My head struck an object whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and
I feel the helmet worsened the extent of my injuries.

From the days when I used to wear a helmet:

I was cycling through a wood, a branch caught in the vent on my helmet
and wrenched me backwards off the bike, hurting my neck and lower spine
in the process.

I was getting ready to go out cycling, put my helmet on, remembered I
had left my gloves in the kitchen and went back to get them. My helmet
hit the top of the kitchen door frame giving me quite a severe jolt that
took a couple of minutes to recover from. I have never hit my head on a
door frame at home when not wearing a helmet.

I believe CSPC has documented cases where children have been strangled
by bike helmets.

But its all anecdote and does not change the population statistics
conclusions.

Dear Tony,

Come to think of it . . .

If, as statistics indicate, helmets offer protection against
comparatively minor injuries, but slightly increase the
chances of serious long-term brain damage or death . . .

Then this amusing thread is asking lots of living bicyclists
who still post to testify against the experiences of a small
number of dead and brain-damaged former bicyclists.

I must find an on-line ouija board and investigate.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Ozark Bicycle said:

jtaylor wrote:

[various people wrote, but someone scambled the attributions]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> And are you going to answer the main question? Why do you
> particularly and explicitly want to exclude cases in which the helmet
> made matters worse?

I do not want to exclude those events: see category 3. I do, however,
want first hand accounts only. Clear enough?

Your #3 specifically states that the head must have struck an object. You
were asked (twice) why you wish to exclude insances where an unhelmeted head
did _not_ strike an object, but would have so done had a helmet been worn.

How would you ever know this to be the case?

Presumably exactly the same way you 'know' that a helmet improved
matters if it did strike. That is, you're very happy to accept wild
speculation about things that didn't happened when it supports the
notion that helmets are a good idea, but when the opositte view is
expressed, it seems it must be cast-iron guaranteed incontrovertible
fact. Strange that.

In fact, of course, it's much easier to be certain of the case 4 you
want to exclude than either case 1 or 2. If my head passes at speed a
stationary object with less clearance than the thickness of a helmet,
then it is pretty much certain that outcomes would have been worse had
a helmet been worn - since there would have been an impact to the head
which did not occur without the helmet.

You missed another option too - case 5 - I was wearing a helmet and
was involved in an incident when my head/helmet did not strike an
object and I believe the helmet made matters worse. I've got one of
them too.

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

Ozark Bicycle said:

Richard said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

>Your #3 specifically states that the head must have struck an object. You
>were asked (twice) why you wish to exclude insances where an unhelmeted head
>did _not_ strike an object, but would have so done had a helmet been worn.

How would you ever know this to be the case?

Precisely.

Then the input would be specious, would it not?

Actually, yes, but rather less specious than all the responses to your
suggested cases - it's easier to be confident of the case you want to
exclude than the cases you want to include.

Why do you want to count those completely specious cases, and ignore
this rather less specious one?

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