helmet

On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 08:58:44 -0700, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Smarmy ****head.

Dan, you yell "smarmy" and "mock" and "*****" anytime anyone shows any
more use of brainpower than Saturday Night Live. You have a real
problem. Your anti-intellectualism is out of control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism

I'll be honest.. Frank, it was sounding great. But.. I could've used a
little more cowbell. So.. let's take it again.. and, Frank..

Really explore the posting space this time.
--
Bruce Dickinson

On Oct 28, 8:58 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Oct 28, 2:40 am, Dan O wrote:



On Oct 27, 10:29 pm, wrote:

On Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:24:37 AM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
On Oct 27, 8:08 pm, datakoll wrote:

but fo you, wearing a helmet will not reduce accidents infacto may increase accidents.
?

Hmm... it's possible, but I don't think so. I'm aware of it up there

(use the brim to shield my eyes from headlights and the sun, hear the

rain on it and see it dripping off the brim, other reasons), but never

think of it as protective - just there. I certainly never think of it

as magically or super protective. I absolutely do *not* count it to

prevent head injury; I just know that's its purpose, and believe it

has the potential to do so. I've crashed enough to know that I can't

control the parameters to keep them within the capabilities of the

helmet.

Yet in your post just previous, you said:

"So you know, then, that if you're wearing a (good) helmet you can let
it take some relatively harmless knocks and scrapes that you'd
naturally and instinctively rather not take to the head in the process
of going with the flow as inertia dissipates, without resorting to
unharmonious contortionist tactics.

"(That's one of my favorite responses to "helmets prevent broken legs"
ridicule. It's not so absurd.) "

To me, those two ideas seem completely incompatible. Either you know it's there, or you don't. Either it affects your behavior, or it doesn't.

Says the guy who crashed once.

You know it's there JRA. The brim can block oncoming headlights, rain
pelts the shell and drips off, etc. But do you think, "Ah, the helmet
is there. My head is protected." No. (At least, I don't.)

And you know it's there as you tumble down the road or track or
whatever, and you don't knwo exactly what's goign to happen one
instant to the next, but you try to go with the flow and ride it out
until the inertia is dissipated and you come to rest. With a helmet
on you feel the knocks and scrapes along the way, and you are glad
it's there. That doesn't mean it affected your behavior before, or
caused you to bite it.

*Without* the helmet, the instinctive behavior to protect your head
from the same relatively harmless knocks and scrapes (and worse) that
are no problem whatsoever with a (good) helmet (and you would likely
survive anyway) - the instininctive behavior has you focused more on
protecting your head. I have crashed a jillion times, and it's simply
more awkward (and somewhat more hazardous) without a (good) helmet.

In any case: It sounds like you haven't actually read the information on the "helmets [apparently] preventing broken legs." That odd conclusion came from a highly qualified PhD statistician examining Thompson & Rivara's data set from their most (in)famous 1989 paper, the one that claimed 85% effectiveness. The statistician, Dr. Dorothy Robinson, noted the total lack of control for self-selection, and noted that the same kids whom the T&R team claimed were protected by their helmets (so few head injuries when they were taken to ER) also had so few _other_ injuries when taken to ER. Using precisely the same (faulty) math techniques that T&R used, she "proved" that the helmets also prevented about 75% of broken legs.

Yeah, yeah, yeah - whatever. So what. How does that change my semi-
tongue-in-cheek theory?

She was using the broken legs as a humorous...

... smarmy, mocking...

... way of showing how wrong T&R were. It was a way to show that T&R's experiment was out of control, generating ludicrous results. But that's not stopped helmeteers from trumpeting its never-corroborated results to the high heavens.

Independent critical thinking is in woefully short supply everywhere.

For more details (although this doesn't specifically mention broken legs) tryhttp://www.cyclehelmets.org/1131.html.

Look, I'm about done here, but I *might* give my analysis (later...
SNL is starting). I can and do look at data and think critically
about its relevence.

Warning, there's some math involved.

Smarmy ****head.

Dan, you yell "smarmy" and "mock" and "*****" anytime anyone shows any
more use of brainpower than Saturday Night Live. You have a real
problem. Your anti-intellectualism is out of control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism


"... allegations of anti-intellectualism can constitute... an appeal
to ridicule that attempts to discredit an opponent rather than
specifically addressing his or her arguments."

On Oct 28, 9:21 am, Dan O wrote:
On Oct 28, 8:58 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Oct 28, 2:40 am, Dan O wrote:

On Oct 27, 10:29 pm, wrote:

On Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:24:37 AM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
On Oct 27, 8:08 pm, datakoll wrote:

but fo you, wearing a helmet will not reduce accidents infacto may increase accidents.
?

Hmm... it's possible, but I don't think so. I'm aware of it up there

(use the brim to shield my eyes from headlights and the sun, hear the

rain on it and see it dripping off the brim, other reasons), but never

think of it as protective - just there. I certainly never think of it

as magically or super protective. I absolutely do *not* count it to

prevent head injury; I just know that's its purpose, and believe it

has the potential to do so. I've crashed enough to know that I can't

control the parameters to keep them within the capabilities of the

helmet.

Yet in your post just previous, you said:

"So you know, then, that if you're wearing a (good) helmet you can let
it take some relatively harmless knocks and scrapes that you'd
naturally and instinctively rather not take to the head in the process
of going with the flow as inertia dissipates, without resorting to
unharmonious contortionist tactics.

"(That's one of my favorite responses to "helmets prevent broken legs"
ridicule. It's not so absurd.) "

To me, those two ideas seem completely incompatible. Either you know it's there, or you don't. Either it affects your behavior, or it doesn't.

On 10/28/2012 1:40 AM, Dan O wrote:

Smarmy ****head.


Sounds like a drink special, something with Slivovitz and
Jaegermeister maybe.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 10-28-2012 02:40, Dan O wrote:
Independent critical thinking is in woefully short supply everywhere.

http://tinyurl.com/9bvso2x

--
Wes Groleau

ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI

AMuzi wrote:
On 10/28/2012 1:40 AM, Dan O wrote:

Smarmy ****head.


Sounds like a drink special, something with Slivovitz and Jaegermeister
maybe.

Did Dan inhale this through his nose?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9637...er-ordeal.html

On 10/26/2012 7:02 AM, � wrote:
On 10/25/2012 08:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/25/2012 6:12 PM, datakoll wrote:
Brandt was not wearing a helmet for his fatal accident. I have a fine
Nbar Bell and not worn.

I wonder what the stats are for serious head injuries with helmets
left on the rack ?


Which caused his broken femur or caused the anaesthesiologist's error
resulting in stroke?


Didn't know that he died. Sorry to hear that.

Composer Jobst Brandt died on January 22, 1570.

It has been more than 442 years people - get over it.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

On 5/11/2012 4:05 PM, Tom $herman (-_-) wrote:
On 10/26/2012 7:02 AM, � wrote:
On 10/25/2012 08:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/25/2012 6:12 PM, datakoll wrote:
Brandt was not wearing a helmet for his fatal accident. I have a fine
Nbar Bell and not worn.

I wonder what the stats are for serious head injuries with helmets
left on the rack ?


Which caused his broken femur or caused the anaesthesiologist's error
resulting in stroke?


Didn't know that he died. Sorry to hear that.

Composer Jobst Brandt died on January 22, 1570.

It has been more than 442 years people - get over it.


Ah, the decomposing composer. There's less of him every year. You can
still hear Jobst Brandt, but Jobst Brandt can not hear you.

(That is the Jobst Brandt that died all those years ago.)

--
JS.

On 10/25/2012 7:37 PM, SMS wrote:
On 10/25/2012 4:04 PM, 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.

Actually a lot has changed since 1998.
[...]

Scharf no longer posting FUD is not one of them.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

On 10/26/2012 3:57 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Sir Ridesalot considered Thu, 25 Oct 2012
20:04:43 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:37:46 PM UTC-4, SMS wrote:
On 10/25/2012 4:04 PM, 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.



Actually a lot has changed since 1998.



Snipped
14 years ago, some people still believed that cycling rates fell if

helmets were either promoted or mandated, now we have solid evidence

that this is not the case.
Snipped

Pray tell us; where in the world has bicycle usage remained the same or risen AFTER MANDATORY HELMET LAWS were introduced? Not Australia or New Zealand.

Studies showed that mandatory helmet laws DO cause cycling rates to DROP. Frank has posted data and links to those studies many times.

;) Are you visiting from another galaxy? ;)

Scharf comes from a strange planet, where truth and fiction are
reversed.

I believe Scharf is delusional.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!