Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On 4 Aug 2006 12:21:52 -0700, said in
.com:

It is indeed very complex,

You could hardly think otherwise. To do so would be to admit that you
have wasted your time and energy amassing a "library" of "data" on a
*very* trivial issue.

The fundamental weakness in your position is that I originally thought
it *was* simple until I actually studied it, prompted by others on the
cycling newsgroup.



Hee hee! Do you really believe that the fact that you changed your
position helmets has any relevance to me? You, sir, are a rather
simple minded, obsessive compulsive personality type in search of a
"cause". The UK anti-MHL "crusade" ("Danger, danger! Helmets increase
injuries! Danger, danger! Helmets make cycling more dangerous! Danger,
danger! Each helmet worn is a silent vote for compulsion! Etc., etc.,
ad nauseum.) fit the bill perfectly. Get along now, and collect more
"data" for your laughable "library" of helmet "facts". It's very, very
important you know! An audience with the Queen may hang in the
balance!!

For me, the "helmet issue" remains trivially simple: assess, decide and
ride. (IOW, do whatever seems to make sense to you. IMO, a helmet might
help a bit and certainly is harmless in any case. YMMV. Other than
that, who gives a flying f**k?)

Bill Sornson wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On 4 Aug 2006 12:21:52 -0700, said in
.com:

It is indeed very complex,

You could hardly think otherwise. To do so would be to admit that you
have wasted your time and energy amassing a "library" of "data" on a
*very* trivial issue.

The fundamental weakness in your position is that I originally thought
it *was* simple until I actually studied it, prompted by others on the
cycling newsgroup.

IOW, peer pressure caused you to question your own common sense and sound
judgment.


Welcome to rec.bicycles.limey-sheep :-)

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 14:55:29 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On 5 Aug 2006 21:15:36 -0700, wrote:


"If the rates go up even slightly" upon imposition of a mandatory
helmet law, even if you don't blame helmets, you MUST admit the
helmet law has not achieved its stated objective!

No one has to admit anything. Some other guys like Sorni and Ozark
told us they can say whatever they want to as their statements are
only opinions. They can say whatever they want to...and often they
do.

You're a moron and a weasel. FACTS! LOL

(And yes, you can go to your archives and find my decimal error;

It's not the decimal error that makes it so funny, it's that you
repeated it and argued about it that makes it funny. That's the
really moronic part.

So here you go:

"When I divide 180,000 by 300,000,000 I get 0.006. Every time."

shall I
start keeping a list of the words you misspell consistently? {Hint: not
just typos; ignorant-os.})

Hey, I don't argue when I misspell words. Everyone's ignorant of some
things. Smarter people are aware of their ignorance.

JT


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

In uk.rec.cycling Bill Sornson wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On 4 Aug 2006 12:21:52 -0700, said in
.com:

It is indeed very complex,

You could hardly think otherwise. To do so would be to admit that you
have wasted your time and energy amassing a "library" of "data" on a
*very* trivial issue.

The fundamental weakness in your position is that I originally thought
it *was* simple until I actually studied it, prompted by others on the
cycling newsgroup.

IOW, peer pressure caused you to question your own common sense and sound
judgment.

Exactly. That's how science works, and the reason it is so much more
successful than common sense: it's a team effort.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Chris Malcolm wrote:
In uk.rec.cycling Bill Sornson wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On 4 Aug 2006 12:21:52 -0700, said in
.com:

It is indeed very complex,

You could hardly think otherwise. To do so would be to admit that you
have wasted your time and energy amassing a "library" of "data" on a
*very* trivial issue.

The fundamental weakness in your position is that I originally thought
it *was* simple until I actually studied it, prompted by others on the
cycling newsgroup.

IOW, peer pressure caused you to question your own common sense and sound
judgment.

Exactly. That's how science works, and the reason it is so much more
successful than common sense: it's a team effort.


No, not "exactly". The simple decision to wear or not wear a helmet is
not "science". It's really quite simple: "Assess, decide and ride". Why
do you seek to make a very simple decision complex?

Chris Malcolm wrote:

IOW, peer pressure caused you to question your own common sense and sound
judgment.

Exactly. That's how science works, and the reason it is so much more
successful than common sense: it's a team effort.

LOL, in order to be successful it has to be based on real science, not
junk science. There are lots of team efforts that involve using junk
science (or junk history for that matter) to prove something.

I do share the frustration of the AHZs regarding the incessant harping
on the subject of helmets from the media, health care providers, and
government. I was at my son's pediatrician's office yesterday, and she
was going over recommendations by the HMO regarding healthy lifestyles
for kids. On her computer screen it stressed not eating junk food,
avoiding high fructose corn syrup and fruit juice, limiting video games,
exercising, and of course, "always wear a helmet when riding a bicycle."

In article ,
says...

I do share the frustration of the AHZs regarding the incessant harping
on the subject of helmets from the media, health care providers, and
government.

It may actually make helmet laws and helmet wearing in general less
safe/more dangerous because it undoubtedly contributes to risk
compensation behaviour.

Rick

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 03:13:30 GMT, Espressopithecus (Java Man)
wrote:

In article ,
says...

I do share the frustration of the AHZs regarding the incessant harping
on the subject of helmets from the media, health care providers, and
government.

It may actually make helmet laws and helmet wearing in general less
safe/more dangerous because it undoubtedly contributes to risk
compensation behaviour.

Rick

Gee, we haven't heard that one, for a few thousand posts.


Life is Good!
Jeff

SMS wrote:

LOL, in order to be successful it has to be based on real science, not
junk science.

In this case it is based on real science as far as I can tell (as a
science professional). As opposed to Sharf science where figures are
plucked out of the air with no citable source to try and bolster his
junk-science conclusions (like that total mileage unaffected stat,
*still* haven't seen the source, where is it please?).

There are lots of team efforts that involve using junk
science (or junk history for that matter) to prove something.

Case in point being the studies Scharf likes, which have clearly
signposted holes in them a mile wide.

I do share the frustration of the AHZs

Again, exactly who are these people who are zealously trying to prevent
people from wearing helmets?

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

wrote:

No, not "exactly". The simple decision to wear or not wear a helmet is
not "science". It's really quite simple: "Assess, decide and ride". Why
do you seek to make a very simple decision complex?

The decision to wear one isn't, but the "assess" bit really /ought/ to
be if you want the answer with the best chance of being right.

Though you've laughed at the idea of having a library of literature on
the subject, if the same sort of resources aren't available for, say,
choosing padded shorts or not, then that's a good indication that there
are actually quite a lot of people in medicine and accident prevention
work who would disagree with your stance on the simplicity of the issue.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/