Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

Note that the first-hand experiences, to date, have been very "pro"
helmet.

Would this have anything to do with the fact that you deliberately excluded
instances where the result would have been negative?

Do you mean the "I wasn't wearing a helmet and I didn't hit my head,
but if I had been wearing a helmet, I would have hit my head" claptrap?

BTW, I friend in NYC is selling shares in a bridge. Investors are paid
handsomely via toll revenues. Would you like to invest?

Ozark Bicycle said:

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

Note that the first-hand experiences, to date, have been very "pro"
helmet.

Would this have anything to do with the fact that you deliberately
excluded instances where the result would have been negative?

No, the "I hit my head and was uninjured instances"

--
Ambrose

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

Quoted message said:

jtaylor said:

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

message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Note that the first-hand experiences, to date, have been very "pro"
helmet.

Would this have anything to do with the fact that you deliberately

excluded

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

instances where the result would have been negative?

Do you mean the "I wasn't wearing a helmet and I didn't hit my head,
but if I had been wearing a helmet, I would have hit my head" claptrap?

Why do you call instances like those "claptrap"?

Are you denying that they occur?

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

jtaylor said:

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

> Note that the first-hand experiences, to date, have been very "pro"
> helmet.

Would this have anything to do with the fact that you deliberately
excluded instances where the result would have been negative?

No, the "I hit my head and was uninjured instances"

I thought that was covered by the "first" option.

OTOH, if you are talking about something along the lines of "I wasn't
wearing a helmet, I hit my head and I wasn't hurt", you're right. This
is about helmet use. If you want to gather informtion about non-use of
helmets, what keeps you from starting a thread and doing just that?

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

jtaylor said:

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

message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

news:[email hidden]...

> Note that the first-hand experiences, to date, have been very "pro"
> helmet.

Would this have anything to do with the fact that you deliberately

excluded

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

instances where the result would have been negative?

Do you mean the "I wasn't wearing a helmet and I didn't hit my head,
but if I had been wearing a helmet, I would have hit my head" claptrap?

Why do you call instances like those "claptrap"?

Take a guess.....

Quoted message said:

Are you denying that they occur?

Okay, your turn: tell everyone how you would determine that while you
didn't hit your head while not wearing a helmet, you know you would
have hit your head, in the same incident, if you were wearing a helmet.
And, please, be precise.

Ozark Bicycle said:

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

jtaylor wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email hidden]> wrote in
> message
> news:[email hidden]...
>
>> Note that the first-hand experiences, to date, have been very
>> "pro" helmet.
>
> Would this have anything to do with the fact that you deliberately
> excluded instances where the result would have been negative?

No, the "I hit my head and was uninjured instances"

I thought that was covered by the "first" option.

OTOH, if you are talking about something along the lines of "I wasn't
wearing a helmet, I hit my head and I wasn't hurt", you're right. This
is about helmet use. If you want to gather informtion about non-use of
helmets, what keeps you from starting a thread and doing just that?

What's the null hypothesis in your study?

--
Ambrose

Ozark Bicycle said:

jtaylor wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Would this have anything to do with the fact that you deliberately

excluded

Quoted message said:

> instances where the result would have been negative?

Do you mean the "I wasn't wearing a helmet and I didn't hit my head,
but if I had been wearing a helmet, I would ha ve hit my head" claptrap?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why do you call instances like those "claptrap"?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are you denying that they occur?

Okay, your turn: tell everyone how you would determine that while you
didn't hit your head while not wearing a helmet, you know you would
have hit your head, in the same incident, if you were wearing a helmet.
And, please, be precise.

I already did just that in earlier threads. I described a high speed,
hard fall where I did not hit my head at all, but where the mark on the
top of my shoulder (which I still have, almost two years later) proves
that I hit the pavement almost exactly adjacent to my skull. Had I been
wearing a helmet, which projects out what- you tell me how much,
anything would have been enough- from the surface of my skull, I would
have suffered an impact, and at a bad angle which would have swung my
head around like a tether ball. No thanks.

g

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > Note that the first-hand experiences, to date, have been very

"pro"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > helmet.
>
> Would this have anything to do with the fact that you deliberately

excluded

Quoted message said:

> instances where the result would have been negative?

Do you mean the "I wasn't wearing a helmet and I didn't hit my head,
but if I had been wearing a helmet, I would have hit my head"

claptrap?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why do you call instances like those "claptrap"?

Take a guess.....

Bias.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are you denying that they occur?

Okay, your turn: tell everyone how you would determine that while you
didn't hit your head while not wearing a helmet, you know you would
have hit your head, in the same incident, if you were wearing a helmet.
And, please, be precise.

Again: are you denying that they occur?

Ozark Bicycle said:

jtaylor wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Would this have anything to do with the fact that you deliberately

excluded

Quoted message said:

> instances where the result would have been negative?

Do you mean the "I wasn't wearing a helmet and I didn't hit my head,
but if I had been wearing a helmet, I would ha ve hit my head" claptrap?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why do you call instances like those "claptrap"?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are you denying that they occur?

Okay, your turn: tell everyone how you would determine that while you
didn't hit your head while not wearing a helmet, you know you would
have hit your head, in the same incident, if you were wearing a helmet.
And, please, be precise.

I already did just that in earlier threads. I described a high speed,
hard fall where I did not hit my head at all, but where the mark on the
top of my shoulder (which I still have, almost two years later) proves
that I hit the pavement almost exactly adjacent to my skull. Had I been
wearing a helmet, which projects out what- you tell me how much,
anything would have been enough- from the surface of my skull, I would
have suffered an impact, and at a bad angle which would have swung my
head around like a tether ball. No thanks.

g

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

Note that the first-hand experiences, to date, have been very "pro"
helmet.

Would this have anything to do with the fact that you deliberately excluded
instances where the result would have been negative?

You could start such a thread, of course.

in message <[email hidden]>, Ozark

Bicycle (') said:

Okay, your turn: tell everyone how you would determine that while you
didn't hit your head while not wearing a helmet, you know you would
have hit your head, in the same incident, if you were wearing a helmet.
And, please, be precise.

"My head came within an inch of the ground, a rock, a tree or other
obstruction, but did not actually hit it".

And yes, I personally can give you probably hundreds of instances of
that. You have millions of years of development of the software designed
to control your body in a fall and prevent critical bits of it getting
damaged. Your reflexes are extremely good. But they depend on an
inherent model of the size of your body, including your head; and if you
surround your head with an inch and a half of polystyrene foam, the
model does not match the reality and you end up with bruises - or worse
injuries - where otherwise you would have had none.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; L'etat c'est moi -- Louis XVI
;; I... we... the Government -- Tony Blair

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > Note that the first-hand experiences, to date, have been very

"pro"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > helmet.
> >
> > Would this have anything to do with the fact that you deliberately
excluded
> > instances where the result would have been negative?
>
>
> Do you mean the "I wasn't wearing a helmet and I didn't hit my head,
> but if I had been wearing a helmet, I would have hit my head"

claptrap?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>
>

Why do you call instances like those "claptrap"?

Take a guess.....

Bias.

Want to see "bias"? Try a mirror. I have no vested interest in a helmet
debate. You. OTOH, do have a vested interest: you are desperately
seeking to avoid a UK MHL, and you will use any tactics to do so.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are you denying that they occur?

Okay, your turn: tell everyone how you would determine that while you
didn't hit your head while not wearing a helmet, you know you would
have hit your head, in the same incident, if you were wearing a helmet.
And, please, be precise.

Again: are you denying that they occur?

IOW, you can not provide an example, can you? You are pulling this
stuff out of your ass.

Ozark Bicycle said:

I have no vested interest in a helmet
debate.

Yet you claim to run a bike repair business. Promotion of helmets leads
to reduced numbers cycling, which leads to reduced business for you.
So, unless you are completely disinterested in the viability or
otherwise of your business, I suggest you do in fact have a vested
interest. I just find it peculiar as to why you should wish to run
your own business into the ground by promoting helmets.

R.

Ozark Bicycle said:

Want to see "bias"? Try a mirror. I have no vested interest in a helmet
debate. You. OTOH, do have a vested interest: you are desperately
seeking to avoid a UK MHL,

True, though I'd avoid the 'desperate' bit. Are you not seeking to
avoid having an MHL as well? Or do you not fancy your liberty? Maybe
you just don't ride a bike, so it doesn't matter to you anyay.

Quoted message said:

and you will use any tactics to do so.

Not true. To make such a statement when you know little of those
involved is sheer arrogance. To suggest that we would deliberately
mislead, misrepresent or otherwise present false evidence is slanderous
and an accusation for which you have no evidence.

So far you have completely failed to engage in any kind of debate on
scientific grounds, instead resorting to populist pseudo science and
name calling.

I used to think wearing a helmet was prudent, sensible and an obvious
thing to do. Then I read the research, not only the epidemeology on
helmets but also on mechanisms of head injury. I perfomed my own
calculations and assessments. I looked at pretty much all aspects of
the issue. I also have kids in the 'just learning to ride' phase of
life. I'll be posting kitchen photos soon on behalf of my oldest son. I
am keen that they are as safe as they can be when riding, and that they
enjoy using the bike as a practical method of transport.

That means taking a realistic view of what benefit helmets bring and
whether they are necessary. I do not force the kids to wear helmets,
nor do I try to dissuade them. I do try to ensure they make a reasoned
decision about what they wear when and why.

So I am far from being the kind of irrational ranting libertarian you
seem to insist I am, who will twist and misrepresent. I am a
professional scientist with a reputation to maintain for being able to
acccurately and fairly interpret the quality of scientific research.

I'm not holding my breath for an apology. At least the name calling has
moved up a degree in sophistication from the trite 'Those who dont wear
a helmet have nothing to protect' countered by 'Oh, so you leave your
brain at home when you walk then?' exchanges..

...d

Richard said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

I have no vested interest in a helmet
debate.

Yet you claim to run a bike repair business. Promotion of helmets leads
to reduced numbers cycling, which leads to reduced business for you.
So, unless you are completely disinterested in the viability or
otherwise of your business, I suggest you do in fact have a vested
interest. I just find it peculiar as to why you should wish to run
your own business into the ground by promoting helmets.

What kinda weed you been smoking, Gunga Din? IMO, helmets are
inexpensive (unless one is a sucker), unobtrusive and offer a positive,
if small, degree of added protection. The number of cyclists has risen
dramatically in this area over the past 3-4 years, and almost everyone
uses a helmet. Go figure!

Ozark Bicycle said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Okay, your turn: tell everyone how you would determine that while you
didn't hit your head while not wearing a helmet, you know you would
have hit your head, in the same incident, if you were wearing a helmet.
And, please, be precise.

IOW, you can not provide an example, can you? You are pulling this
stuff out of your ass.

I told you and provided exactly this precise example, but you chose to
ignore it.

8

Ozark Bicycle said:

Richard said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

I have no vested interest in a helmet
debate.

Yet you claim to run a bike repair business. Promotion of helmets leads
to reduced numbers cycling, which leads to reduced business for you.
So, unless you are completely disinterested in the viability or
otherwise of your business, I suggest you do in fact have a vested
interest. I just find it peculiar as to why you should wish to run
your own business into the ground by promoting helmets.

What kinda weed you been smoking, Gunga Din? IMO, helmets are
inexpensive (unless one is a sucker),

but non free

Quoted message said:

unobtrusive

Hardly - helmet hair, sweat, heatstroke, somewhere to put the
*&*&^&^$%£$%^*ing thing when you get to your destination.

Quoted message said:

and offer a positive,
if small, degree of added protection.

Not according to whole population studies they don't.

Quoted message said:

The number of cyclists has risen
dramatically in this area over the past 3-4 years, and almost everyone
uses a helmet. Go figure!

And how many are utility cyclists or are they just follwoing the latest
sporting trends for recreation?
How many kids cycle to school or the shops?
The utility cyclists are the ones hit hardest by helmet overpromotion.
It makes little odds if you are already getting changed to go cycling,
a helmet is part of the dressing up routine. Bit different if you are
just wanting to nip down to the shops, or go out for the evening, where
'special clothing' is not really the done thing, just get on and go.

In the sport culture, helmets are part of the uniform. In utility
cycling, they are an inconvenience.

...d

Ozark Bicycle said:

The number of cyclists has risen
dramatically in this area over the past 3-4 years,
and almost everyone
uses a helmet. Go figure!

It's marketing. They're Lance Armstrong wannabes.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

The number of cyclists has risen
dramatically in this area over the past 3-4 years,
and almost everyone
uses a helmet. Go figure!

Quoted message said:

It's marketing. They're Lance Armstrong wannabes.

So getting lots of new people* into cycling is a bad thing?

*no matter what they wear