#41
|
|||
|
|||
helmet
On 10-27-2012 00:07, SMS wrote:
The biggest reason to believe that helmets are effective is that those against them have such weak, scientifically faulty and statistically faulty, reasons for their opposition. When an argument is so fallacious that it proves nothing, taking it as evidence for the opposing view is equally fallacious. -- Wes Groleau He that complies against his will is of the same opinion still. — Samuel Butler, 1612-1680 |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
helmet
On Oct 26, 10:19 pm, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 10-27-2012 00:07, SMS wrote: The biggest reason to believe that helmets are effective is that those against them have such weak, scientifically faulty and statistically faulty, reasons for their opposition. When an argument is so fallacious that it proves nothing, taking it as evidence for the opposing view is equally fallacious. Refreshing logic. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
helmet
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 07:16:02 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote: James considered Sat, 27 Oct 2012 10:56:27 +1100 the perfect time to write: On 27/10/12 08:18, Phil W Lee wrote: James considered Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:26:01 +1100 the perfect time to write: On 26/10/12 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote: (Helmets do nothing against rotational acceleration, and may even exacerbate it.) Got data? I've heard helmets are supposed to offer more grip of the road surface than hair/skin/flesh/bone, but never seen the test results. Also greater leverage, due to the increased diameter. And increased risk of contacting the road in the first place - human reflexes are actually quite good at protecting the head, but do get beaten by increases in effective size. It's a bit like running the hurdles with clown shoes on - even the best hurdler would expect to clatter a few with that kind of handicap. As I said in a previous reply, I've never damaged a helmet in any bicycling accident, though I've always worn one and been in numerous racing accidents and a few training accidents - some of which involved cars. Nobody said you were guaranteed to bash your foam, just that the larger size increases the likelihood. Maybe if they went out and got a job doing something that required a "hard hat" they'd understand that you do bump your bead/hat more with the enlarged head/hat. So common it is not even a matter for discussion in those circles :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
helmet
On Saturday, October 27, 2012 6:40:01 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 07:16:02 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote: James considered Sat, 27 Oct 2012 10:56:27 +1100 the perfect time to write: On 27/10/12 08:18, Phil W Lee wrote: James considered Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:26:01 +1100 the perfect time to write: On 26/10/12 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote: (Helmets do nothing against rotational acceleration, and may even exacerbate it.) Got data? I've heard helmets are supposed to offer more grip of the road surface than hair/skin/flesh/bone, but never seen the test results. Also greater leverage, due to the increased diameter. And increased risk of contacting the road in the first place - human reflexes are actually quite good at protecting the head, but do get beaten by increases in effective size. It's a bit like running the hurdles with clown shoes on - even the best hurdler would expect to clatter a few with that kind of handicap. As I said in a previous reply, I've never damaged a helmet in any bicycling accident, though I've always worn one and been in numerous racing accidents and a few training accidents - some of which involved cars. Nobody said you were guaranteed to bash your foam, just that the larger size increases the likelihood. Maybe if they went out and got a job doing something that required a "hard hat" they'd understand that you do bump your bead/hat more with the enlarged head/hat. So common it is not even a matter for discussion in those circles :-) -- Cheers, John B. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ an arguement at the core ! BTW, hemets are mandatory in Australia ? WTH cawsed that spasm ? itslike flouride and water |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
helmet
On 10/26/2012 10:19 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 10-27-2012 00:07, SMS wrote: The biggest reason to believe that helmets are effective is that those against them have such weak, scientifically faulty and statistically faulty, reasons for their opposition. When an argument is so fallacious that it proves nothing, taking it as evidence for the opposing view is equally fallacious. If the entity putting forth the fallacious argument actually had any evidence to support their position then they would use it. Therefore the use of a fallacious argument is pretty good indication that the opposite of what they are arguing for is true. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
helmet
On 10-27-2012 09:56, SMS wrote:
On 10/26/2012 10:19 PM, Wes Groleau wrote: On 10-27-2012 00:07, SMS wrote: The biggest reason to believe that helmets are effective is that those against them have such weak, scientifically faulty and statistically faulty, reasons for their opposition. When an argument is so fallacious that it proves nothing, taking it as evidence for the opposing view is equally fallacious. If the entity putting forth the fallacious argument actually had any evidence to support their position then they would use it. Therefore the use of a fallacious argument is pretty good indication that the opposite of what they are arguing for is true. Unless they don't realize the fallacies. If a fallacy were evidence that the other side is right, then I'd have to conclude in most arguments that both sides are wrong and the other side is right. -- Wes Groleau I've noticed lately that the paranoid fear of computers becoming intelligent and taking over the world has almost entirely disappeared from the common culture. Near as I can tell, this coincides with the release of MS-DOS. — Larry DeLuca |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
helmet
On Oct 26, 11:35*pm, SMS wrote:
As I pointed out, the fraudulent cyclehelmets.org site simply omitted the fact that adult cycling rates increased by 44% following the MHL in Victoria, and only talked about a decrease in youth cycling rates. Of course neither of those changes could be attributed to the MHL. Adults didn't start riding more because they thought that now that they were forced to wear a helmet that they were magnitudes safer, and minors didn't start cycling less because they were so upset over the law. So where can we find your evidence that the above nonsense is true? (44% _increase_ in cycling after telling people it's so dangerous that it's now illegal to ride without a foam hat???) And why do you suppose that astonishing fact has somehow slipped by so many cycling advocacy organizations? It could be that you're inventing the +44% entirely on your own. More likely, you've found one bit of data that's actually inapplicable (such as, a 20 year increase that's smaller than the population increase and doesn't factor in the original sharp drop in cycling), i.e. one bit of data that contradicts the dozens of data sources that everyone else has deemed much more reliable. But given your habit of citing nothing, just slinging anonymous numbers, you should understand why people here discount your claims. More concisely (for the TLDR crowd): Put up or shut up, Stephen. - Frank Krygowski |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
helmet
On Oct 27, 7:42*am, datakoll wrote:
BTW, hemets are mandatory in Australia ? WTH cawsed that spasm ? Here's some history to skim: http://crag.asn.au/?p=2046 More interesting to me is the influence of Bell Sports and the rabidly- pro-MHL Thompson & Rivara team in the U.S. I think this bears more careful reading: http://crag.asn.au/?p=1121 - Frank Krygowski |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
helmet
On Oct 27, 9:56*am, SMS wrote:
If the entity putting forth the fallacious argument actually had any evidence to support their position then they would use it. :-) Says the poster so notorious for alluding to phantom or irrelevant numbers, but almost never providing proper citations or links! SMS, you're a treasure! - Frank Krygowski |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
helmet
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:05:01 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
If anyone here has an argument which we didn't thoroughly beat to death in 1998, please start a new helmet thread and enlighten me. Andrew. This topic is out of season. The dead of winter is the traditional period for helmet wars, although minor skirmishes can emerge without warning. The best piece of helmet research I know of was done at MIT, and I found it extremely convincing - On the Effectiveness of Aluminium Foil Helmets: An Empirical Study. http://tinyurl.com/35skqmm Best Regards, Larry |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bicycle helmet vs Skate helmet | dangerlaef | Unicycling | 31 | December 19th 08 12:57 AM |
Wife & Whether to Helmet or not to Helmet | Bestest Handsander | Techniques | 182 | May 13th 06 04:21 AM |
FS: Giro Pneumo Lone Star Edition helmet w/ helmet pod | Robbie Brown | Marketplace | 0 | November 18th 04 03:44 PM |
published helmet research - is helmet good thing or bad? | Just zis Guy, you know? | Racing | 0 | July 30th 04 08:51 AM |
published helmet research - is helmet good thing or bad? | Just zis Guy, you know? | Social Issues | 0 | July 30th 04 08:51 AM |