A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

helmet



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old October 28th 12, 06:11 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joy Beeson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,638
Default helmet

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 12:40:46 -0400, Wes Groleau
wrote:

. . . I'd have to conclude in most
arguments that both sides are wrong and the other side is right.


I've noticed that. Most really-emotional arguments are along the
lines of "worship the chipmunk totem!"/"worship the ground-squirrel
totem!" when it's obvious to me that the totem we really need is a
full-grown bison.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net


Ads
  #62  
Old October 28th 12, 06:22 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Dan O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,098
Default helmet

On Oct 27, 10:11 pm, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 12:40:46 -0400, Wes Groleau

wrote:
. . . I'd have to conclude in most
arguments that both sides are wrong and the other side is right.


I've noticed that. Most really-emotional arguments are along the
lines of "worship the chipmunk totem!"/"worship the ground-squirrel
totem!" when it's obvious to me that the totem we really need is a
full-grown bison.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Butter_Battle_Book

(The Ralph Bakshi animated video is excellent.)
  #63  
Old October 28th 12, 06:29 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,673
Default helmet

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.

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.

She was using the broken legs as a humorous 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.

For more details (although this doesn't specifically mention broken legs) try
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1131.html. Warning, there's some math involved..

- Frank Krygowski
  #64  
Old October 28th 12, 06:30 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Dan O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,098
Default helmet

On Oct 27, 9:24 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Oct 27, 8:08 pm, datakoll wrote:

It really hurt.


(Glad I was wearing a helmet.)


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


yeah I got that with a heavy FM receiver right thru muh loweer lip.


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.

I routinely wear my helmet for commuting, because it's a long trip,
making the overhead (ha, ha) of dealing with it small; exposure is
going to be extensive; and I use the brim to shield my eyes from
glare. I usually don't wear it close to home bopping around on my
bouncy, flouncy whjeelie bike (except for that one time I was setting
out to attempt some Evel Kneivel thing).

I tend to ride with more abandon on the whjeelie bike. Sure I get
downright radical to break the monotony of commuting, and *maybe* I'd
consciously tone some of it down a bit if I was bareheaded, but that's
only part of a total stance of due caution. I do *not* count on a
helmet to prevent any injury, but it would be stupid to think that it
can't.

The helmet may actually be part of a total precautionary stance that
*does* reduce chances of a crash. Sounds contrary to conventional
wisdom, I know; but I've reflected deeply on this, and I honestly
think I have a pretty healthy grip on affairs. The lapses are
probably more likely when I'm carefree, but by the same token I ride
hardest when my blood is really pumping and I'm hauling ass (standard
commuting). I won't discount the risk compensation phenomenon, but
nor do I ever feel the least bit like, "What the hell, I've got a
helmet on" (except maybe riding through light, low hanging foliage -
tactile engagement of which is kind of a thrill).


Oh, the data: I haven't recorded it, but I definitely crash more
often - unhelmeted - on (er... off) the whjeelie bike - in much fewer
hours and much fewer miles of riding (hard to say which gets more
trips - depends on the weather, I guess). Bouncy, flouncy - fun, fun,
fun...
  #65  
Old October 28th 12, 07:40 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Dan O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,098
Default helmet

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.
  #66  
Old October 28th 12, 07:44 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Dan O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,098
Default helmet

On Oct 27, 11:40 pm, 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.


"Commentary" at the top of the page... that's as far as I got. No way
I'm wasting my time and giving myslef heartburn reading "commentary"
form that wacko propaganda site.

Good night.

snip
  #67  
Old October 28th 12, 07:48 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Dan O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,098
Default helmet

On Oct 27, 11:44 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:40 pm, 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.


"Commentary" at the top of the page... that's as far as I got. No way
I'm wasting my time and giving myslef heartburn reading "commentary"
form that wacko propaganda site.

Good night.

snip


Actually (took a glance and scroll before closing the browser window),
I think I've read it before, and considered it with interest, but
it's obviously got an agenda.
  #68  
Old October 28th 12, 08:52 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Ralph Barone[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 321
Default helmet

Art Harris wrote:
Duane Hébert wrote:
Didn't know that he died. Sorry to hear that.



He didn't.

See:

http://rayhosler.wordpress.com/2012/...y-fallen-snow/

Art


Well, I certainly hope somebody has informed Mr. Jobst of this...
  #69  
Old October 28th 12, 01:22 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
datakoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,793
Default helmet

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

It really hurt.








(Glad I was wearing a helmet.)


HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

on first consideration before piling up a stats history, I haven't read the Aussie bit yet, so this is contemporary USA civil theory, wearing a helmet allows pre learning for people prone to 4-5 trial learning ie most of the pop

on getting the law word, the discussion, thinking abt buying, choosing, and fianlly hanging it up in the closet soitsnot damaged.

the process well before riding is cycle education ceptin Dano off course.

and easterners can do nthis with guardrails visavee western roads with no guardrails or snowbanked forest roads visavee tree lined forest roads, walking a rope withoutor wotha net, drugging your bear before poking it...the arguements for helmet safety and results waaaaaaaayyyy before the accident are limitless.
  #70  
Old October 28th 12, 04:58 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default helmet

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.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bicycle helmet vs Skate helmet dangerlaef Unicycling 31 December 19th 08 01:57 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 04:44 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.