#61
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |