|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
My helmet saved me, and broke
Ian Smith wrote: * But they don't - when they are made compulsory, teh rate of cyclist killed and seriously injured goes up (in every jurisdiction that has tried it and enforced it). In teh UK, as the rate of cyclist helmet wearing has sky-rocketed compared to that of pedestrian helmet wearing, the relative accident rate has not changed dramatically (in fact, it has drifted in teh wrong direction). * Regardless of whether these statements are true, and regardless of whether they are based on a fair interpretation of statistics, they are totally irrelevant to the discussion in this forum. This is a unicycle forum. The type of accidents unicyclists have will be very different from the type of accidents bicyclists have. Bicyclists are, in the main, riding from A to B, mixing it with pedestrians and motor traffic. Unicyclists, in the main, aren't. Bicyclists usually fall off forwards or sideways and get tangled in their machines, or they are knocked off by motor vehicles. Unicyclists usually fall off at fairly low speed, but suddenly, when they lose control as a result of a failed manoeuvre. As far as I am aware, no government has ever published accident statistics for unicyclists. So we can only look at one case: A unicyclist falls off and bangs his head. Is he better off with a helmet or without one? There are many circumstances in which he will be better off with a helmet, and very few circumstances in which he would be better off without one. -- Mikefule - Roland Hope School of Unicycling The poor lack much, the greedy, everything. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mikefule's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/879 View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/42900 |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
My helmet saved me, and broke
. . . alright, everyone forgive Mikefule for the inaccuracies in this last post. Just overlook it. Thanks. -- ChangingLINKS.com - member Wishing you Happiness, Joy and Laughter, Drew Brown 'Changing LINKS' (http://www.ChangingLINKS.com) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ChangingLINKS.com's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/5468 View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/42900 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
My helmet saved me, and broke
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 03:43:38 -0500 Mikefule wrote
Ian Smith wrote: * But they don't - when they are made compulsory, teh rate of cyclist killed and seriously injured goes up (in every jurisdiction that has tried it and enforced it). In teh UK, as the rate of cyclist helmet wearing has sky-rocketed compared to that of pedestrian helmet wearing, the relative accident rate has not changed dramatically (in fact, it has drifted in teh wrong direction). * Regardless of whether these statements are true, and regardless of whether they are based on a fair interpretation of statistics, they are totally irrelevant to the discussion in this forum. This is a unicycle forum. The type of accidents unicyclists have will be very different from the type of accidents bicyclists have. No, they are not irrelevant to the discussion, because they were made in direct response to an assertion that helmets, on the whole, must be a good thing, that it is "obvious" that they will do more good than harm. If that were the case, it would be equally obvious whenever bicycle helmets are worn. If that were actually the case, then this obvious benefit would also show up in bicycle accident statistics. Or are you really claiming that bicycle helmets will work better for unicycling than for the activity they were designed for? That would be surprising, given that pretty much everyone else is saying exactly the opposite. So we can only look at one case: A unicyclist falls off and bangs his head. Is he better off with a helmet or without one? There are many circumstances in which he will be better off with a helmet, and very few circumstances in which he would be better off without one. Again, you state as fact something that is (at best) your personal guess (and one that many people disagree with). YOU GUESS there are many circumstances in which he will be better, and you GUESS there are very few circumstances in which he will be worse off. However, those GUESSES seem to contradict the real-world observed performance of helmets on bicyclists, so it is difficult to see a rational justification for them. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
My helmet saved me, and broke
It is difficult to see a rational justification for arguing that a piece of equipment designed to protect the wearer will not do more good than harm in most circumstances. As for my guesses, they are based on some knowledge and experience. I was a keen bicyclist for many years, and an active member of the Cyclists' Touring Club and the Tandem Club. During that time, I not only rode daily in heavy traffic in all weathers, but I had my fair share of knocks and spills, ending up in hospital once, as did my then wife in a separate accident. I am also a motorcyclist (these days a scooterist) and have followed the very similar helmet debate in motorcycling circles. There are still motorcyclists who argue against helmets, rather than against compulsion. You also get the helmet debate in rock climbing circles too. And no doubt in horse riding and many other sports. More to the point, I've spent the last 24 years of my life working in an insurance claims office. Part of my job is reading Coroner's reports and Police accident investigators' reports. Part of it is reading medical reports. Part of it is assessing how much damages to pay to people who have suffered severe injuries in road accidents. Helmets are not perfect. Nevertheless, wearing a helmet will tend to reduce the severity of your injuries, or even prevent injuries altogether, in the majority of accidents in which your head comes into contact with a hard object. In a number of cases, the helmet will make no difference whatsoever, and in a minority of cases, the helmet may even exacerbate or cause injuries. As an item of safety equipment, helmets do more good than harm. To argue otherwise is irrational and irresponsible. To argue against compulsion is fair enough, and to argue for one type or style of helmet in preference to another is useful and cosntructive. -- Mikefule - Roland Hope School of Unicycling The poor lack much, the greedy, everything. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mikefule's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/879 View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/42900 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
My helmet saved me, and broke
I wear a hat that I made by hot glueing shards of broken glass dipped in the HIV to it. I think it makes me safer. I've never falled and hit my head anyway, so.... I also put nails on my pedals. They face up. I have an air seat filled with brown recluse spiders. It's the most comfortable thing, EVER! It's like a party under my pants and everyone's invited - 'cept they're ****ed about it so they bite me in the *****. (it's bigger now!) I do these things to look cool. -- Seager - that one guy who does that stuff 'Team RoadShow' (http://www.teamroadshow.com) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seager's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/8840 View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/42900 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
My helmet saved me, and broke
On Mon, 29 Aug, Mikefule wrote:
It is difficult to see a rational justification for arguing that a piece of equipment designed to protect the wearer will not do more good than harm in most circumstances. You don't need a rational justification for arguing it - you can see that it's teh case. It is not necesary to explain why it happens, merely to observe that it does. Having observed that it does, it is irresponsible to pretend that it doesn't, and doubly irresponsible to repeatedly assert that it doesn't. Just because you don't understand or can't explain something, it doesn't mean it's not true. Helmets are not perfect. Nevertheless, wearing a helmet will tend to reduce the severity of your injuries, .... you guess, but the real world accident rates say otherwise. As an item of safety equipment, helmets do more good than harm. Another guess contradicted by the real world statistics. To argue otherwise is irrational and irresponsible. I'm not trying to convinvce you otherwise. There's no need to convince anyone otherwise, the 'otherwise' is simply fact. Over the period that the helmet wearing rate has risen dramatically, the serious injury rate has risen slightly. If your assertion that helmets do more good than harm is true, how can this be? regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
My helmet saved me, and broke
Ian Smith wrote:[color=blue] *On Mon, 29 Aug, Mikefule wrote: Over the period that the helmet wearing rate has risen dramatically, the serious injury rate has risen slightly. If your assertion that helmets do more good than harm is true, how can this be? * The problem here is that correlation != causation. You are failing to look at all the variables. Maybe the car driving rate increased. Maybe amateur bikers increased (lance armstrong effect?). Maybe more people started biking to work on busy streets because of oil prices. Maybe more soccer moms bought SUVs they can't drive and are hitting bikers. Maybe the average biking age dropped. Obviously something was happening in these areas to make helmet wearing compulsory, so maybe whatever drove those laws also had some other random effect causing more accidents. Who knows, but the fact is it's MORE likely that helmets do more good than harm. Your "evidence" of the opposite is bunk because it fails to consider the entire story. Anyone trained in science should be able to see holes in it from miles away. Furthermore, when sketchy evidence goes up against solid logic (hitting your bare head hurts more than hitting your head when it's covered in foam) then the solid logic wins. It's not conclusive, but is sure is enough to throw out a study that makes conclusions without looking at the big picture. -- Seager - that one guy who does that stuff 'Team RoadShow' (http://www.teamroadshow.com) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seager's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/8840 View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/42900 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
My helmet saved me, and broke
Ian Smith wrote: I'm not trying to convinvce you otherwise. There's no need to convince anyone otherwise, the 'otherwise' is simply fact. Over the period that the helmet wearing rate has risen dramatically, the serious injury rate has risen slightly. If your assertion that helmets do more good than harm is true, how can this be? Ian Smith, you seem to be saying that many of those supporting helmet wear are making invalid assumptions ie seing it as 'obvious' that they offer protection, when, in your eyes, there is no real evidence. So, when someone says it's 'obvious' that, in a head impacting the ground scenario, a helmet will tend to protect the head; it s analogous to someone in the 12th century believing the earth to be flat because it is 'obvious'. Is that a correct summary of your opinion? You yourself seem to believe that helmet use is actually, at best, inneffective, and, at worst, may actually increase injuries. You've concluded this because of studies which have shown that, in places where helmets have been made compulsory, injuries have actually risen. I've got some opinions on this, but, before doing so, i'm hoping that you can verify the above (or ut me staright if I've misunderstood anything) and, if possible, also clarify, the breakdown of injury increases in those studies ie taking three categories of 1 deaths, 2 serious injuries, 3 non-serious injuries- how have each of those categories been affected. I realise you may not have such info, but i think it is relevant as, for example, a rise in injuries could actually be caused by helmets doing their job because people who may, previous to helmet wearing, have died, will now be pushed into the 'injuries' categories, leading to an increase in the injury stats. -- onewheeldave - Semi Skilled Unicyclist "You can't outrun Death forever. But you can make the ******* work for it." --MAJOR KORGO KORGAR, "Last of The Lancers" AFC 32 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ onewheeldave's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/874 View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/42900 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
My helmet saved me, and broke
Seager wrote: *I wear a hat that I made by hot glueing shards of broken glass dipped in the HIV to it. I think it makes me safer. I've never falled and hit my head anyway, so.... I also put nails on my pedals. They face up. I have an air seat filled with brown recluse spiders. It's the most comfortable thing, EVER! It's like a party under my pants and everyone's invited - 'cept they're ****ed about it so they bite me in the *****. (it's bigger now!) I do these things to look cool. * no way! you must look awesome! that is exactly why i don't wear a helmet. it makes me look really cool. also, i don't wear one of those footbal chest protectors. not wearing one of those makes me look sweet. I also don't wear 'these' (http://sixsixone.com/gear/support_bibknee.html), cause not wearing them, showes people what's up. but what really makes me look neato is, you know those neck braces that drag racers wear? yeah, i dont wear one of those. That reminds me, i also don't wear a fire proof suit I guess it's because i am just too cool for school. I'd try that spiders in the air seat thing, but air seats suck. -- onetrack - training wheel required "People over here have a dangerous habit of adding quotes to signature lines." -Klaas Bil What's so scary about evolution theory anyway? -Foss ------------------------------------------------------------------------ onetrack's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/6374 View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/42900 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
My helmet saved me, and broke
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Seager wrote:[color=blue]
Ian Smith wrote: *On Mon, 29 Aug, Mikefule wrote: Over the period that the helmet wearing rate has risen dramatically, the serious injury rate has risen slightly. If your assertion that helmets do more good than harm is true, how can this be? * The problem here is that correlation != causation. You are failing to look at all the variables. No, actually it's the pro-helmet-compulsion people and the 'helmet must do good' people that are failing to look at it. Occam's razor. I'm not claiming any causation - they are - they are claiming wearing a hat causes a reduction in injury severity. Let me summarise: Lots of people wear hats - the accident rate is not affected. Simplest explanation: wearing a hat does not affect accident rate. Simple. Coherent. Logical. No problem whatsoever with any scientific principle. What do you say is wrong with this explanation? If anyone wants to propose a more complex explanation, it is they that should be justifying it, and explaining why the simple explanation is not valid. It's a basic premise of science - the simpler an explanation that explains the observations the better. Who knows, but the fact is it's MORE likely that helmets do more good than harm. What evidence do you have for claiming this as fact? Prove it. The whole point is that it is NOT fact that wearing a helmet does more good than harm. If it is fact, prove it. Must be easy, surely? Anyone trained in science should be able to see holes in it from miles away. Really? What hole is there in my explanation set out above? IF helmets on average do NOT do more good than harm, then all the statistics are consistent and everything is coherent. What is the logical flaw in this argument? Please explain, it must be easy - you claim to be able to see it from miles away. Why is my simple explanation (set out above) patently wrong, and your complex but unexplainable one right? regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet | gwhite | Techniques | 1015 | August 27th 05 08:36 AM |
Helmet redux | gds | General | 143 | June 17th 05 09:15 PM |
Helmets | Peter | General | 305 | June 4th 05 08:56 AM |
Rec.Bicycles Frequently Asked Questions Posting Part 1/5 | Mike Iglesias | General | 4 | October 29th 04 07:11 AM |
First Helmet : jury is out. | Walter Mitty | General | 125 | June 26th 04 02:00 AM |