|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
- wrote:
Have fun debating this proposition. No. --Blair "You're the troll." |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Peter wrote:
The only evidence along those lines that I've seen discussed here is statistical data showing that in some areas greatly increased helmet use was accompanied by an increased risk of injury per rider. Whether that was due to greater risk taking (risk compensation), fewer riders leading to less awareness by motorists, injuries due to the increased size and weight of the helmet, or other factors not considered in the studies has never been analyzed. Nor do I think there is sufficient data to do such an analysis. That's evidence enough. I have no idea why the injury rate is up, but it is and that's enough for me. I'm very skeptical about risk compensation, but also think it's moot. Whatever happens to bicycle riders when they wear helmets, something does which raises the injury rate. Then you haven't seen many pro and con arguments on motorcycle helmets. The debate on the impact of helmets on neck injuries has gone on for a long time I've never heard a serious argument for neck injuries using motorcycle helmets. As to time, I've been riding for 40 years and used to write for a bike publication. I think I've heard all the arguments, but I separate serious points from spurious. While I think the less sight / less hearing argument is serious, I don't the neck injury one for motorcycles. It may be for bicycles. -paul |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Peter wrote:
The only evidence along those lines that I've seen discussed here is statistical data showing that in some areas greatly increased helmet use was accompanied by an increased risk of injury per rider. Whether that was due to greater risk taking (risk compensation), fewer riders leading to less awareness by motorists, injuries due to the increased size and weight of the helmet, or other factors not considered in the studies has never been analyzed. Nor do I think there is sufficient data to do such an analysis. That's evidence enough. I have no idea why the injury rate is up, but it is and that's enough for me. I'm very skeptical about risk compensation, but also think it's moot. Whatever happens to bicycle riders when they wear helmets, something does which raises the injury rate. Then you haven't seen many pro and con arguments on motorcycle helmets. The debate on the impact of helmets on neck injuries has gone on for a long time I've never heard a serious argument for neck injuries using motorcycle helmets. As to time, I've been riding for 40 years and used to write for a bike publication. I think I've heard all the arguments, but I separate serious points from spurious. While I think the less sight / less hearing argument is serious, I don't the neck injury one for motorcycles. It may be for bicycles. -paul |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Cassel writes:
Peter wrote: The only evidence along those lines that I've seen discussed here is statistical data showing that in some areas greatly increased helmet use was accompanied by an increased risk of injury per rider. Whether that was due to greater risk taking (risk compensation), fewer riders leading to less awareness by motorists, injuries due to the increased size and weight of the helmet, or other factors not considered in the studies has never been analyzed. Nor do I think there is sufficient data to do such an analysis. That's evidence enough. I have no idea why the injury rate is up, but it is and that's enough for me. Don't believe what you've read about it here regarding increased risks unless you've personally checked the sources. I've never heard a serious argument for neck injuries using motorcycle helmets. As to time, I've been riding for 40 years and used to write for a bike publication. I think I've heard all the arguments, but I separate serious points from spurious. While I think the less sight / less hearing argument is serious, I don't the neck injury one for motorcycles. It may be for bicycles. Since bicycle helmets are thinner and lighter than motorcycle helmets, it would be hard to believe that there is an increased risk of a neck injury for a bicylce helmet over a motorcycle helmet, without there being an even higher risk when not using a helmet at all. Chances are you've seen yet another bogus argument. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Cassel writes:
Peter wrote: The only evidence along those lines that I've seen discussed here is statistical data showing that in some areas greatly increased helmet use was accompanied by an increased risk of injury per rider. Whether that was due to greater risk taking (risk compensation), fewer riders leading to less awareness by motorists, injuries due to the increased size and weight of the helmet, or other factors not considered in the studies has never been analyzed. Nor do I think there is sufficient data to do such an analysis. That's evidence enough. I have no idea why the injury rate is up, but it is and that's enough for me. Don't believe what you've read about it here regarding increased risks unless you've personally checked the sources. I've never heard a serious argument for neck injuries using motorcycle helmets. As to time, I've been riding for 40 years and used to write for a bike publication. I think I've heard all the arguments, but I separate serious points from spurious. While I think the less sight / less hearing argument is serious, I don't the neck injury one for motorcycles. It may be for bicycles. Since bicycle helmets are thinner and lighter than motorcycle helmets, it would be hard to believe that there is an increased risk of a neck injury for a bicylce helmet over a motorcycle helmet, without there being an even higher risk when not using a helmet at all. Chances are you've seen yet another bogus argument. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:04:23 GMT, -
wrote in message : 3. Opinions in this matter are held with religious conviction: Have you ever read a statement such as, "I used to think helmets were useless, until I read the post by Mr. Z. Now I wear one all the time. Thanks for your great insights, Mr. Z!" No, you have not. I have seen a lot of people who start out as strongly pro-helmet and after realising that the case is anything but clear cut, they revise their views. I am one of them. Here is a particularly gracious example: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...s.swman.net.uk I have never seen a helmet zealot make a convert, but that could well be because the default these days is to believe the hype. Much of the evidence supporting the helmet sceptical position is, after all, counter-intuitive. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:29:47 GMT, "Ken [NY)"
wrote in message : 69% of all statistics are made up. I thought it was 86.4%? Are you teling me they made that up? Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Elsewhere, someone posted this on an OU forum | Gawnsoft | UK | 13 | May 19th 04 03:40 PM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | General | 17 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | Social Issues | 14 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
Question for the anti-helmet guys | Harris | Techniques | 37 | October 7th 03 04:40 PM |
Question for the anti-helmet guys | Mike S. | Techniques | 3 | September 29th 03 07:19 AM |