Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

In article . ca,
says...

"Espressopithecus (Java Man)" wrote in message
ble.net...
In article ,
says...
Quoting Espressopithecus (Java Man) :
At the other extreme, it's possible that helmets OFTEN help but MORE
OFTEN make things worse. It's possible to have these two cases
generate
the same overall population statistics.

Well... no, surely, it's not. If only one in every few thousand cyclists
can expect to die cycling at all, how could the one-in-twenty "saved my
life" possibly be right? Helmets would have to make things worse and
help
in the same incidents...

What is it about the phrase "at the other extreme" you don't understand?
The same overall population statistic could be generated by many
different underlying processes, and no one seems to know the proportion
of potentially serious accidents in which helmets mitigate injuries vs.
the ones where they have no effect, and the ones where they exacerbate
injuries. Do you?


No, as you say, no one knows if there are any incidents where helmets
mitigate at all.

All we know is what the population-level studies tell us. Absent any other
valid data, they are the thinking person's guide.

Yes, if the thinking person is limiting his/her inquiry to the
population level stats, and isn't inquiring about the details. You may
have noted I was discussing what is under the population level stats.
See my other recent note summarizing this discussion.

And what those tell us is:

a) helmets do not do what the manufacturers and the helmet lobby tells us
they do;

b) cycling is not dangerous; and

c) helmet compulsion is a net health cost.

And as legistlators tell us that they _will_ introduce helmet compulsion
when helmet wearing reaches some pre-determined level, wearing a helmet is a
vote for increased health costs and a greater chance of injury to the
cycling population; and further, that idiots posting drivel on usenet about
how there might possibly be some extreme circumstances where a helmet might
be useful (despite the apallingly low level of claimed absolute protection)
are _also_ a vote (albeit - and fortunately - a weak one) for increased
health costs and a greater chance of injury to the cycling population.

Your response suggests I am somehow in favour of MHLs, or you've decided
to hop aboard the discussion to steer it in the anti-MHL direction.
Save your breath, er, keystrokes. I am NOT in favour of MHLs, NOT
arguing for universal helmet use, and NOT debating the results of the
population studies.

Rick

Tony Raven wrote:
Sorni wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:

As for priorities for helmets, 20 times as many people die from trips,
slips and falls as die cycling so if just five percent of people could
be made to wear helmets it would have far more effect than getting all
cyclists to do so. So lets start on the biggest risk.

But...but...you say helmets aren't effective at preventing serious head
injuries at all, much less fatal ones. So please explain why pedestrians
wearing helmets would lessen deaths, but cyclists wearing helmets wouldn't.


I didn't say how big an effect it would be but whatever it was it would
be bigger with just 5% of people wearing them rather than 100% of
cyclists. OTOH at least with pedestrians, the majority of trips, slips
and falls fall within the design limits of a cycle helmet which most
cycle accidents don't.

Doesn't that "20 times as many people" statistic come from a population
of just about everyone? I would assume the population includes the
very old and the very young -- the epileptic, disabled, intoxicated and
anyone else who is capable of tripping and falling. Considering the
vast difference in populations (everyone who [barely] walks upright
versus bicyclists), this is really a rather dire statistic for
bicyclists. What is the injury rate for these people versus
bicyclists? It must be tiny if the total injuries are only 20 times
those of bicyclists. -- Jay Beattie.

"Espressopithecus (Java Man)" wrote in message
ble.net...

What is it about the phrase "at the other extreme" you don't
understand?
The same overall population statistic could be generated by many
different underlying processes, and no one seems to know the
proportion
of potentially serious accidents in which helmets mitigate injuries
vs.
the ones where they have no effect, and the ones where they exacerbate
injuries. Do you?


No, as you say, no one knows if there are any incidents where helmets
mitigate at all.

All we know is what the population-level studies tell us. Absent any
other
valid data, they are the thinking person's guide.

Yes, if the thinking person is limiting his/her inquiry to the
population level stats, and isn't inquiring about the details. You may
have noted I was discussing what is under the population level stats.

And what to data ("details") were you referring that can discriminate at
finer resolution?

"Paul Murphy" wrote in message
...
"David Damerell" wrote in message
...
Quoting Paul Murphy :
"David Damerell" wrote in message
How then do you explain the experts - many of whom post to this
thread -
who started out with the agenda of confirming their belief in helmets
and
reached the opposite conclusion? Does that make you suspicious?
Would that be like how that law expert fellow reached his findings with
regards to the Govt and Dr David Kelly and remained completely impartial
throughout?

Are you suggesting that every single person posting here saying that
they
are competent to understand the papers and that they started pro-helmet
actually secretly had an anti-helmet agenda all along? Because that's as
insulting as it is ridiculous.

No - but are you 100% certain that this doesn't occur at all?

... or are you just coming up with some vaguely plausible-sounding piece
of rhetoric to avoid addressing the issue?

I'm not sure what you mean by "vaguely plausible-sounding piece of
rhetoric"
with regards to my post.

Perhaps, somehting along the lines of, oh, I don't know, maybe:

"No - but are you 100% certain that this doesn't occur at all?"

Jay Beattie wrote:

Doesn't that "20 times as many people" statistic come from a population
of just about everyone? I would assume the population includes the
very old and the very young -- the epileptic, disabled, intoxicated and
anyone else who is capable of tripping and falling. Considering the
vast difference in populations (everyone who [barely] walks upright
versus bicyclists), this is really a rather dire statistic for
bicyclists. What is the injury rate for these people versus
bicyclists? It must be tiny if the total injuries are only 20 times
those of bicyclists. -- Jay Beattie.


Yes but the vast majority of those cyclists died on the roads and in
collision with a motor vehicle where they were only 2% of road traffic
deaths. Whereas the people managed to trip, slip and fall all over the
place usually without the help of a motor vehicle or anyone else

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

"jtaylor" wrote in message
net.ca...

"Paul Murphy" wrote in message
...
"David Damerell" wrote in message
...
Quoting Paul Murphy :
"David Damerell" wrote in message
How then do you explain the experts - many of whom post to this
thread -
who started out with the agenda of confirming their belief in helmets
and
reached the opposite conclusion? Does that make you suspicious?
Would that be like how that law expert fellow reached his findings with
regards to the Govt and Dr David Kelly and remained completely
impartial
throughout?

Are you suggesting that every single person posting here saying that
they
are competent to understand the papers and that they started pro-helmet
actually secretly had an anti-helmet agenda all along? Because that's
as
insulting as it is ridiculous.

No - but are you 100% certain that this doesn't occur at all?

... or are you just coming up with some vaguely plausible-sounding
piece
of rhetoric to avoid addressing the issue?

I'm not sure what you mean by "vaguely plausible-sounding piece of
rhetoric"
with regards to my post.

Perhaps, somehting along the lines of, oh, I don't know, maybe:

"No - but are you 100% certain that this doesn't occur at all?"

I certainly don't see why you would possibly think (even in an uncertain way
as above) that my poignant statement fits that description. Perhaps David
Damerell could give his own take on my question with a clear answer, as the
author I believe it would be more appropriate for him to write about what he
was thinking.

Paul

Tony Raven wrote:
Sorni wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:
Sorni wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:

Talking of things you can't or won't address, when are you going
to take my challenge? Just tell me where the step change down in
head injuries occured from an MHL induced step doubling of helmet
wearing. http://www.cycling.raven-family.com/Helmet%20Graphs.jpg

February 16th.


I'll take that as a "won't address" response. I wonder why you
ducked the test?

What test?


The one above in the text you didn't snip

That's a test? Looks like two squiggly lines in very generic graphs (no
values given for either axis). I do note the decidedly downward trend,
however vague the mystery figures for the two mystery countries may be.

Too bad I've not been talking about MHLs at all, nor overall population
studies (which include old people on MUPs, DUI cases, kids on who-knows-what
kind of bikes, etc. etc.). As it relates to helmets, I only care about road
cycling and mountain biking, as those are the two types of riding I do
almost exclusively. Lids make sense for both. To me. You can do what you
want. (MHLs aside, of course.)

Bill "back from my ride; 50 and fried" S.

"Sorni" wrote in message
...
Tony Raven wrote:
Sorni wrote:

The only thing deliberate is your and Tony's removal of the full
context of what I said. Biz as usual.

Bill "not stooping to comment on 'garmmatical'" S.


So which removed bits from your post would you like reinstated to help
your claim for a "porcelain-rich environment"?

I'm the one who injected the "lids in the shower" example, because it's
often used by...your crowd. Arguing that people would be better off
wearing
helmets while bathing than they are while bike riding /doesn't/ mean that
the latter is a bad idea.


Actually, it is meant to point out that wearing a helmet while cycling is a
SILLY idea - in that no-one would consider wearing a helmet while showering,
or crossing a down-town street; but the same people are so frightened of
what they mistakenly perceive to be the dangerous act of riding a bicycle
that they ignore the data that shows it is less likely to result in an
injury that, well, showering or crossing a down-town street.

"Tony Raven" wrote in message
...
Sorni wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:
Sorni wrote:
You consistently delete the things you can't or won't address; and
you /often/ leave misleading or incomplete comments in place to
change the meaning of previous exchanges.

Talking of things you can't or won't address, when are you going to
take my challenge? Just tell me where the step change down in head
injuries occured from an MHL induced step doubling of helmet wearing.
http://www.cycling.raven-family.com/Helmet%20Graphs.jpg


February 16th.



I'll take that as a "won't address" response. I wonder why you ducked
the test?


Again.

"Sorni" wrote in message
...

Too bad I've not been talking about MHLs at all, nor overall population
studies (which include old people on MUPs, DUI cases, kids on
who-knows-what
kind of bikes, etc. etc.). As it relates to helmets, I only care about
road
cycling and mountain biking, as those are the two types of riding I do
almost exclusively. Lids make sense for both. To me. You can do what
you
want. (MHLs aside, of course.)


Well, no, some of us cannot do what we wish, because people like you who
ignore the data allow and promote MHLs.