|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Helmets: A religious question
1. Any post having to do with whether helmets are good or bad,
worthwhile or useless, whether they save lives or are a waste of money, etc., etc., is essentially religious in nature, and therefore not subject to rational argument. 2. While there may indeed be some underlying "truth" concerning the utility of helmets, those who contribute to such threads are generally more interested in expounding their own opinions (as supported by their own data selections, interpretations, etc.) than in arriving at a consensus as to what such an underlying truth might be. The supposedly "logical" arguments that fill such posts are nothing but a pretext. 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. (Well, people do change their religions, so I guess such an exchange would be theoretically possible, but at a minimum, people of different faiths all believe in a God of _some_ kind. The helmet wars are more like the believers against the atheists.) Conclusion: All pro- or con- helmet posts, as well as those supposedly soliciting advice about helmets ("Are helmets worth it?" etc., etc., are, ipso facto, trolls, i.e., invitations to argue -- if not with the poster, then with each other. A post with a subject line such as "New helmet research results -- not a troll" is, in fact, a bald-faced troll. Can you spell T-R-O-L-L? (You can spell it H-E-L-M-E-T if you like!) Have fun debating this proposition. AGM |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
- wrote:
2. While there may indeed be some underlying "truth" concerning the utility of helmets, those who contribute to such threads are generally more interested in expounding their own opinions (as supported by their own data selections, interpretations, etc.) than in arriving at a consensus as to what such an underlying truth might be. The supposedly "logical" arguments that fill such posts are nothing but a pretext. You appear to have described JPoulos and BZaumen, but most everybody else here is open to discussion of the facts. You can't, however, make false claims as to the facts without getting stomped on by the ones who did their homework and know better. 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. (Well, people do change their religions, so I guess such an exchange would be theoretically possible, I grew up believing in God and motorcycle helmets. It wasn't a far jump from there to believing in bicycle helmet advertising. In the late 1980's I saw the rapid changeover from helmets to foam hats and began to think that style was more important than protection. It didn't matter that much to me, I still had a stockpile of helmets that would last me a while. It was here that I first began to realize it was all about style and profits, and not at all about injury prevention. A post with a subject line such as "New helmet research results -- not a troll" is, in fact, a bald-faced troll. Can you spell T-R-O-L-L? (You can spell it H-E-L-M-E-T if you like!) Have fun debating this proposition. Now who is trolling? Mitch. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
- wrote:
2. While there may indeed be some underlying "truth" concerning the utility of helmets, those who contribute to such threads are generally more interested in expounding their own opinions (as supported by their own data selections, interpretations, etc.) than in arriving at a consensus as to what such an underlying truth might be. The supposedly "logical" arguments that fill such posts are nothing but a pretext. You appear to have described JPoulos and BZaumen, but most everybody else here is open to discussion of the facts. You can't, however, make false claims as to the facts without getting stomped on by the ones who did their homework and know better. 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. (Well, people do change their religions, so I guess such an exchange would be theoretically possible, I grew up believing in God and motorcycle helmets. It wasn't a far jump from there to believing in bicycle helmet advertising. In the late 1980's I saw the rapid changeover from helmets to foam hats and began to think that style was more important than protection. It didn't matter that much to me, I still had a stockpile of helmets that would last me a while. It was here that I first began to realize it was all about style and profits, and not at all about injury prevention. A post with a subject line such as "New helmet research results -- not a troll" is, in fact, a bald-faced troll. Can you spell T-R-O-L-L? (You can spell it H-E-L-M-E-T if you like!) Have fun debating this proposition. Now who is trolling? Mitch. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Mitch Haley wrote:
I grew up believing in God and motorcycle helmets. It wasn't a far jump from there to believing in bicycle helmet advertising. In the late 1980's I saw the rapid changeover from helmets to foam hats and began to think that style was more important than protection. It didn't matter that much to me, I still had a stockpile of helmets that would last me a while. It was here that I first began to realize it was all about style and profits, and not at all about injury prevention. Do you wear motorcycle helmets on a bicycle? Nobody I've heard of denies motorcycle helmets prevent some injuries in a crash. The debate is if wearing of them causes more crashes due to limited scan, hearing, etc. OTOH, there seems to be some inferential evidence that wearing helmets on a bicycle can create injury. That's something I've never heard claimed for motorcycle helmets. -paul |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Mitch Haley wrote:
I grew up believing in God and motorcycle helmets. It wasn't a far jump from there to believing in bicycle helmet advertising. In the late 1980's I saw the rapid changeover from helmets to foam hats and began to think that style was more important than protection. It didn't matter that much to me, I still had a stockpile of helmets that would last me a while. It was here that I first began to realize it was all about style and profits, and not at all about injury prevention. Do you wear motorcycle helmets on a bicycle? Nobody I've heard of denies motorcycle helmets prevent some injuries in a crash. The debate is if wearing of them causes more crashes due to limited scan, hearing, etc. OTOH, there seems to be some inferential evidence that wearing helmets on a bicycle can create injury. That's something I've never heard claimed for motorcycle helmets. -paul |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Cassel wrote:
Mitch Haley wrote: I grew up believing in God and motorcycle helmets. It wasn't a far jump from there to believing in bicycle helmet advertising. In the late 1980's I saw the rapid changeover from helmets to foam hats and began to think that style was more important than protection. It didn't matter that much to me, I still had a stockpile of helmets that would last me a while. It was here that I first began to realize it was all about style and profits, and not at all about injury prevention. Do you wear motorcycle helmets on a bicycle? Nobody I've heard of denies motorcycle helmets prevent some injuries in a crash. The debate is if wearing of them causes more crashes due to limited scan, hearing, etc. OTOH, there seems to be some inferential evidence that wearing helmets on a bicycle can create injury. 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 something I've never heard claimed for motorcycle helmets. 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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Cassel wrote:
Mitch Haley wrote: I grew up believing in God and motorcycle helmets. It wasn't a far jump from there to believing in bicycle helmet advertising. In the late 1980's I saw the rapid changeover from helmets to foam hats and began to think that style was more important than protection. It didn't matter that much to me, I still had a stockpile of helmets that would last me a while. It was here that I first began to realize it was all about style and profits, and not at all about injury prevention. Do you wear motorcycle helmets on a bicycle? Nobody I've heard of denies motorcycle helmets prevent some injuries in a crash. The debate is if wearing of them causes more crashes due to limited scan, hearing, etc. OTOH, there seems to be some inferential evidence that wearing helmets on a bicycle can create injury. 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 something I've never heard claimed for motorcycle helmets. 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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Cassel wrote:
Do you wear motorcycle helmets on a bicycle? No, just hard hats with EPS padding. Bell Tourlight, V-1 Pro, Stratus(what was I thiking when I bought that Darth Vader hat?) and I also have a genuine Foam Hat, a 1990 Specialized Sub-6. Can't remember when I last wore one of them. I wore full-face fiberglass when I rode M/C. Put one on pavement and one onto the side of a stop sign running pickup, never felt the head contact either time. I had time to pull my head back when I hit the truck, I was quite proud of myself for preventing head contact until I got home and found brown paint on my orange helmet. Mitch. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Cassel wrote:
Do you wear motorcycle helmets on a bicycle? No, just hard hats with EPS padding. Bell Tourlight, V-1 Pro, Stratus(what was I thiking when I bought that Darth Vader hat?) and I also have a genuine Foam Hat, a 1990 Specialized Sub-6. Can't remember when I last wore one of them. I wore full-face fiberglass when I rode M/C. Put one on pavement and one onto the side of a stop sign running pickup, never felt the head contact either time. I had time to pull my head back when I hit the truck, I was quite proud of myself for preventing head contact until I got home and found brown paint on my orange helmet. Mitch. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
- wrote:
Have fun debating this proposition. No. --Blair "You're the troll." |
|
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 |