Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

Out of curiousity, having had a "helmet saved my life"TM moment and a
broken helmet on his head, did he leave the ride to go home or continue
on riding without a helmet or with a broken helmet?

Your "question" is clearly answered in Snortley's post. But you don't
read through the posts carefully, do you? You just focus on some key
points and fly off, once again regurgitating your tired AHZ agenda,
automaton

Well, one of the things that's tiresome is the inconsistency of helmet
wearers' attitudes towards risk.

You, for instance, wear a helmet while cycling, but not while doing more
risky activities such as walking or driving in a motorcar.

But, in Wisconsin, pedal bicycling is more dangerous than hang-gliding,
scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling off curbs.
It's more dangerous than any recreational activity except for getting
hit with an object in a sporting activity. See
http://tinyurl.com/efe6d I would think that New York is twice as
dangerous as Wisconsin, except during the hunting season.-- Jay
Beattie.

P.S. Statistically, I am only 5'10", but I am quite a bit taller in
person.

Jay Beattie said:

Quoted message said:

You, for instance, wear a helmet while cycling, but not while doing more
risky activities such as walking or driving in a motorcar.

But, in Wisconsin, pedal bicycling is more dangerous than hang-gliding,
scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling off curbs.
It's more dangerous than any recreational activity except for getting
hit with an object in a sporting activity. See
http://tinyurl.com/efe6d I would think that New York is twice as
dangerous as Wisconsin, except during the hunting season.-- Jay
Beattie.

But you have totally omitted exposure from the equation. How many
people skydive compared to cycle? A terrible misuse of statistics.

...d

Quoted message said:

P.S. Statistically, I am only 5'10", but I am quite a bit taller in
person.

"Jay Beattie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

But, in Wisconsin, pedal bicycling is more dangerous than hang-gliding,
scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling off curbs.
It's more dangerous than any recreational activity except for getting
hit with an object in a sporting activity. See
http://tinyurl.com/efe6d I would think that New York is twice as
dangerous as Wisconsin, except during the hunting season.-- Jay
Beattie.

Now there's a completely useless paper - they even admit that they don't
have exposure information, without which all the rest of their numbers are
utterly meaningless.

clive

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

Out of curiousity, having had a "helmet saved my life"TM moment and a
broken helmet on his head, did he leave the ride to go home or continue
on riding without a helmet or with a broken helmet?

Your "question" is clearly answered in Snortley's post. But you don't
read through the posts carefully, do you? You just focus on some key
points and fly off, once again regurgitating your tired AHZ agenda,
automaton

Well, one of the things that's tiresome is the inconsistency of helmet
wearers' attitudes towards risk.

And this has exactly what to do with the Raven 'bot's failure to
carefully read the post to which it was replying, Parrot?

Quoted message said:

You, for instance, wear a helmet while cycling, but not while doing more
risky activities such as walking or driving in a motorcar.

See above. Want a cracker. Parrot?

Quoted message said:

"Sortley" believes his helmet was necessary to save his life, but after it
was damaged to the point where it was irrefutably of no value, happily
continued to wear it as a talismanic protection.

Hmm....it was neither Snortley's life nor Snortley's helmet. I guess
your reading comprehension is as poor as the Raven 'bot's, eh, Parrot?

"Jay Beattie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, one of the things that's tiresome is the inconsistency of helmet
wearers' attitudes towards risk.

You, for instance, wear a helmet while cycling, but not while doing more
risky activities such as walking or driving in a motorcar.

But, in Wisconsin, pedal bicycling is more dangerous than hang-gliding,
scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling off curbs.
It's more dangerous than any recreational activity except for getting
hit with an object in a sporting activity. See
http://tinyurl.com/efe6d I

That paper does not show what you claim it does.

The paper states that more injuries per unit population occur as you
describe - but that does not mean that the activities themselves are more
(or less) dangerous, as it does not correct for the relative amount of time
spent by the average (Wisconsion) person while engaged in each of those
activities.

I note that the paper reports zero injuries while participants were playing
russian roulette with a fully-chambered revolver. Presumably you would
claim that this is therefore (in Wisconson) a less dangerous activity than
"...hang-gliding, scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling
off curbs..."

jtaylor said:

"Jay Beattie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, one of the things that's tiresome is the inconsistency of helmet
wearers' attitudes towards risk.

You, for instance, wear a helmet while cycling, but not while doing more
risky activities such as walking or driving in a motorcar.

But, in Wisconsin, pedal bicycling is more dangerous than hang-gliding,
scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling off curbs.
It's more dangerous than any recreational activity except for getting
hit with an object in a sporting activity. See
http://tinyurl.com/efe6d I

That paper does not show what you claim it does.

The paper states that more injuries per unit population occur as you
describe - but that does not mean that the activities themselves are more
(or less) dangerous, as it does not correct for the relative amount of time
spent by the average (Wisconsion) person while engaged in each of those
activities.

I note that the paper reports zero injuries while participants were playing
russian roulette with a fully-chambered revolver. Presumably you would
claim that this is therefore (in Wisconson) a less dangerous activity than
"...hang-gliding, scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling
off curbs..."

WHOOOOSH! (that's the sound of the intent of Jay Beattie's post flying
high over the taylor 'bot's "head".)

On 6 Jun 2006 08:47:04 -0700, "Jay Beattie" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

I would think that New York is twice as
dangerous as Wisconsin, except during the hunting season.-- Jay
Beattie.

Dear Jay,

How many Wisconsin and New York hunters do you think were killed
accidentally in 2005?

The answer illustrates Frank's point about how we often exaggerate
danger--I try to keep in mind the Colorado hunting statistics while
walking my dog in the state park and picking up live shotgun shells.

(And yes, anyone looking into the matter will realize that the murders
of six Wisconsin citizens who happened to be hunting are irrelevant.)

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

David Martin said:

Jay Beattie said:

Quoted message said:

You, for instance, wear a helmet while cycling, but not while doing more
risky activities such as walking or driving in a motorcar.

But, in Wisconsin, pedal bicycling is more dangerous than hang-gliding,
scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling off curbs.
It's more dangerous than any recreational activity except for getting
hit with an object in a sporting activity. See
http://tinyurl.com/efe6d I would think that New York is twice as
dangerous as Wisconsin, except during the hunting season.-- Jay
Beattie.

But you have totally omitted exposure from the equation. How many
people skydive compared to cycle? A terrible misuse of statistics.

No duh? It was exemplary of the terrible use of statistics throughout
this thread -- "20 times more head injuries walking than riding a bike"
being a prime example -- all based on gross numbers without any
correction for populution differences, including total population
numbers, ages, infirmity, etc., etc. Any time someone says that a
helmet protected them from any injury, we get this chorus of "oh no!
that is statistically impossible; just read the following ten papers.
You are more likely to die of head injury while petting your cat on the
sofa! And moreover, the helmet actually made your injuries worse!" I
would like to see, just once, a concession that the poster probably
avoided a nasty scalp injury. But then we will get the ten harpies
crying that they rode their bikes into brick walls at 100kph with
nothing but paper Burger King crowns and nothing happened to them. This
will be followed by ten more arguing that the 3cm bulk added to their
heads could make the difference between hitting a tree branch and not,
and could result in mortal rotational injury. And then ten more will
argue that people do crazy things when they wear helmets -- like riding
under low-hanging tree branches, etc., etc. The whole thing turns into
this breathless rant against helmets when, for many, helmets have clear
benefits, albeit not life saving benefits. -- Jay Beattie.

Jay Beattie said:

David Martin said:

Jay Beattie said:

> You, for instance, wear a helmet while cycling, but not while doing more
> risky activities such as walking or driving in a motorcar.

But, in Wisconsin, pedal bicycling is more dangerous than hang-gliding,
scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling off curbs.
It's more dangerous than any recreational activity except for getting
hit with an object in a sporting activity. See
http://tinyurl.com/efe6d I would think that New York is twice as
dangerous as Wisconsin, except during the hunting season.-- Jay
Beattie.

But you have totally omitted exposure from the equation. How many
people skydive compared to cycle? A terrible misuse of statistics.

No duh? It was exemplary of the terrible use of statistics throughout
this thread -- "20 times more head injuries walking than riding a bike"
being a prime example -- all based on gross numbers without any
correction for populution differences, including total population
numbers, ages, infirmity, etc., etc. Any time someone says that a
helmet protected them from any injury, we get this chorus of "oh no!
that is statistically impossible; just read the following ten papers.
You are more likely to die of head injury while petting your cat on the
sofa! And moreover, the helmet actually made your injuries worse!" I
would like to see, just once, a concession that the poster probably
avoided a nasty scalp injury. But then we will get the ten harpies
crying that they rode their bikes into brick walls at 100kph with
nothing but paper Burger King crowns and nothing happened to them. This
will be followed by ten more arguing that the 3cm bulk added to their
heads could make the difference between hitting a tree branch and not,
and could result in mortal rotational injury. And then ten more will
argue that people do crazy things when they wear helmets -- like riding
under low-hanging tree branches, etc., etc. The whole thing turns into
this breathless rant against helmets when, for many, helmets have clear
benefits, albeit not life saving benefits. -- Jay Beattie.

Accurate, succinct and to the point. The best post of this very long
thread!

Quoting Jay Beattie <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

jtaylor said:

You, for instance, wear a helmet while cycling, but not while doing more
risky activities such as walking or driving in a motorcar.

But, in Wisconsin, pedal bicycling is more dangerous than hang-gliding,
scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling off curbs.
It's more dangerous than any recreational activity except for getting
hit with an object in a sporting activity. See
http://tinyurl.com/efe6d

"Lack of exposure information is an important limitation of this
study. As the denominators for this study are from population
statistics, our rate estimates do not provide information about
relative risks per participant-time for different activities, nor can
we separate the effect of higher participation rates from other
factors which potentially increase risk among groups with higher
sports and recreation related injury hospitalization rates."

In other words, it shows nothing of the kind.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:okonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

Quoted message said:

jtaylor said:

"Jay Beattie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

>
> Well, one of the things that's tiresome is the inconsistency of helmet
> wearers' attitudes towards risk.
>
> You, for instance, wear a helmet while cycling, but not while doing more
> risky activities such as walking or driving in a motorcar.

But, in Wisconsin, pedal bicycling is more dangerous than hang-gliding,
scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling off curbs.
It's more dangerous than any recreational activity except for getting
hit with an object in a sporting activity. See
http://tinyurl.com/efe6d I

That paper does not show what you claim it does.

The paper states that more injuries per unit population occur as you
describe - but that does not mean that the activities themselves are more
(or less) dangerous, as it does not correct for the relative amount of time
spent by the average (Wisconsion) person while engaged in each of those
activities.

I note that the paper reports zero injuries while participants were playing
russian roulette with a fully-chambered revolver. Presumably you would
claim that this is therefore (in Wisconson) a less dangerous activity than
"...hang-gliding, scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling
off curbs..."

WHOOOOSH! (that's the sound of the intent of Jay Beattie's post flying
high over the taylor 'bot's "head".)

I'm glad someone got it. It's kind of like poking a stick into an ant
hill. -- Jay Beattie.

Quoted message said:

On 6 Jun 2006 08:47:04 -0700, "Jay Beattie" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

I would think that New York is twice as
dangerous as Wisconsin, except during the hunting season.-- Jay
Beattie.

Dear Jay,

How many Wisconsin and New York hunters do you think were killed
accidentally in 2005?

The answer illustrates Frank's point about how we often exaggerate
danger--I try to keep in mind the Colorado hunting statistics while
walking my dog in the state park and picking up live shotgun shells.

(And yes, anyone looking into the matter will realize that the murders
of six Wisconsin citizens who happened to be hunting are irrelevant.)

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Whooosh! (there goes the intent of Jay Beattie's post again, right over
Smarmy Carl's head.)

David Damerell said:

Quoting Jay Beattie <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

jtaylor said:

You, for instance, wear a helmet while cycling, but not while doing more
risky activities such as walking or driving in a motorcar.

But, in Wisconsin, pedal bicycling is more dangerous than hang-gliding,
scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling off curbs.
It's more dangerous than any recreational activity except for getting
hit with an object in a sporting activity. See
http://tinyurl.com/efe6d

"Lack of exposure information is an important limitation of this
study. As the denominators for this study are from population
statistics, our rate estimates do not provide information about
relative risks per participant-time for different activities, nor can
we separate the effect of higher participation rates from other
factors which potentially increase risk among groups with higher
sports and recreation related injury hospitalization rates."

In other words, it shows nothing of the kind.

I'm getting tired of typing "Whoosh!" ;-)

You URC AHZs really are a sad, unperceptive, humourless lot, eh?

"Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto."

David Damerell said:

"Lack of exposure information is an important limitation of this
study. As the denominators for this study are from population
statistics, our rate estimates do not provide information about
relative risks per participant-time for different activities, nor can
we separate the effect of higher participation rates from other
factors which potentially increase risk among groups with higher
sports and recreation related injury hospitalization rates."

In other words, it shows nothing of the kind.

Gee, a worthless population study. Who'd've thunk it?

BS (really)

Jay Beattie said:

Quoted message said:

jtaylor said:

"Jay Beattie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

> >
> > Well, one of the things that's tiresome is the inconsistency of helmet
> > wearers' attitudes towards risk.
> >
> > You, for instance, wear a helmet while cycling, but not while doing more
> > risky activities such as walking or driving in a motorcar.
>
> But, in Wisconsin, pedal bicycling is more dangerous than hang-gliding,
> scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling off curbs.
> It's more dangerous than any recreational activity except for getting
> hit with an object in a sporting activity. See
> http://tinyurl.com/efe6d I

That paper does not show what you claim it does.

The paper states that more injuries per unit population occur as you
describe - but that does not mean that the activities themselves are more
(or less) dangerous, as it does not correct for the relative amount of time
spent by the average (Wisconsion) person while engaged in each of those
activities.

I note that the paper reports zero injuries while participants were playing
russian roulette with a fully-chambered revolver. Presumably you would
claim that this is therefore (in Wisconson) a less dangerous activity than
"...hang-gliding, scuba diving, ATV riding, off-road motorcycling, falling
off curbs..."

WHOOOOSH! (that's the sound of the intent of Jay Beattie's post flying
high over the taylor 'bot's "head".)

I'm glad someone got it. It's kind of like poking a stick into an ant
hill. -- Jay Beattie.

It's easier to "get it" if you're not blindered by an agenda.....

Sorni said:

David Damerell said:

"Lack of exposure information is an important limitation of this
study. As the denominators for this study are from population
statistics, our rate estimates do not provide information about
relative risks per participant-time for different activities, nor can
we separate the effect of higher participation rates from other
factors which potentially increase risk among groups with higher
sports and recreation related injury hospitalization rates."

In other words, it shows nothing of the kind.

Gee, a worthless population study. Who'd've thunk it?

BS (really)

Isn't it a hoot to see the Sanctimonious Stiffs (tm) take seriously
something so obviously posted with tongue firmly in cheek? :-)

Sorni wrote:

(snip)

I'm not contributing per se.

I just wanna be 1666 on 06/06/06.

Hope I timed it right.

Whatever.

Guess I could tell about having an armchair view of a T-bone accident a
couple of weeks ago tomorrow. Jerk in an old Caddy so intent on
hitting/running two of us off the road as he entered our right-of-way
from our left at a tee intersection, guess what? he didn't see the big
ol' 3/4 ton work truck bearing down on him @ 60mph. PU driver didn't
yank it over and run into us (time limitations? risk to self from ditch
where I endo-d safely as convergence neared?). Impressive impact. PU
driver (pity the innocent) got a hurt arm. Didn't see if the jackass in
the Caddy had to give breath, blood, urine. Doubt either vehicle rolls
under own power again. Well, we were lucky and also paying a bunch of
attention before the Caddy driver screwed up.

Ummm...

(taps foot, shifts in chair).

The speed limit on certain Texas highways has been raised to 80mph.
Meaning, the safety Nazis lost one in their drive to control behavior
universally...

tap, tap.

OK, we're going swimming. I'm pushing Post. Wish me luck...
--D-y

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No duh? It was exemplary of the terrible use of statistics throughout
this thread --

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The whole thing turns into
this breathless rant against helmets when, for many, helmets have clear
benefits, albeit not life saving benefits. -- Jay Beattie.

Accurate, succinct and to the point. The best post of this very long
thread!

An inaccurate parody, attempting to belittle that which he does not
understand in a populist rant.
It might go down well at a union meeting but in a technical discussion
rates you as a

It is prima facie evicence that leftpondians cannot do sarcasm or
irony.

...d

David Martin wrote (messing up the attributions, of course):

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:

{MYSTERY WRITER:}

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No duh? It was exemplary of the terrible use of statistics
throughout this thread --

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The whole thing turns into
this breathless rant against helmets when, for many, helmets have
clear benefits, albeit not life saving benefits. -- Jay Beattie.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Accurate, succinct and to the point. The best post of this very long
thread!

Quoted message said:

An inaccurate parody, attempting to belittle that which he does not
understand in a populist rant.
It might go down well at a union meeting but in a technical discussion
rates you as a

It is prima facie evicence that leftpondians cannot do sarcasm or
irony.

Boy, you love to make blanket statements & conclusions extrapolated from
singular opinions. However, when someone lumps all the anti-helmet zeal---
err, posters together, then it's bloody watch out!

At least you're consistent with your double standards and contradictory
arguments.

Bill "sorry, Sandy" S.