|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#861
|
|||
|
|||
Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet
"Bill Sornson" wrote in message
... David Damerell wrote: Quoting : David Damerell wrote: Your reading comprehension is too limited to explain this. I did not say that the negative and positive effects were equal. Please reread it until you understand what I am saying; then perhaps we can discuss it. You wrote: the supposed negative and positive effects being discussed are equally "once an accident has happened". I'm guessing you meant "equal". Well, you're wrong. I wrote "equally" because I meant "equally", of course. Why don't you try reading what I wrote, not what you think I wrote? "the supposed negative and positive effects being discussed are equally 'once an accident has happened'" makes no sense. Do you suppose that's what he meant when he said that he meant to write "equally"? I'm thinking that what he's saying is that he meant to write nonsense. |
Ads |
#862
|
|||
|
|||
Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet
Steven Bornfeld wrote: Context is everything. Anti-helmet folks using risk compensation seem to say that any perceived protective measure is useless for its intended function--that safety measures in short do not promote safety--that they promote risky behavior. That phrase "seem to say" is as accurate as a third grader saying "The teacher seems to say three times four is fourteen." IOW, you must not have been paying attention. What we're saying - well expressed by Dave - is that whether a "safety" measure is useful or not depends at least partly on whether the user has a realistic sense of its protective effect. Risk compensation is real, and denying it is vacuous. It's far too easy to demonstrate. But that doesn't disprove the benefit of _any_ safety item. To attach hypothetical numbers (for explanation only), if the person behaves 30% riskier and the protection is 40% greater, the person still comes out ahead. If the person behaves 50% riskier with that same protection, the person comes out behind. What affects the person's behavior? In part, his estimate of protection. As I've said before, side impact beams in car doors are largely unknown to consumers. They're not visible, and people don't think about their presence. They probably cause negligible risk compensation. Therefore, if they have _any_ protective effect, it's probably a net positive situation. OTOH, helmets are constantly obvious on one's head. Worse, the public has been convinced that they prevent 85% of truly serious head injuries. Many people probably believe they prevent 85% of fatalities. Given those facts, helmets probably generate extreme risk compensation. I really do believe that if people knew and understood the incredibly low level of impact in the certification tests, helmet-induced risk compensation would largely vanish. Unfortunately, the helmet promotion hasn't started with "Helmets are 85% effective." It's started with "Cycling is incredibly dangerous." At this point, I think our phobic public would stop cycling entirely. There is no acknowledgement that there is any benefit to safety devices or behaviors. I don't need to come in here and praise safety devices. We have an entire industry, plus dozens of government agencies, doing that all the time. It's reached ludicrous proportions. Regarding "safety behaviors," I can discuss those readily. Those are where the emphasis _should_ be. But it's not, not at all. "Bicycle safety" has become equated with "bicycle helmet." Maybe it's a natural effect of an instant gratification consumer society - but when people want to be safer, they don't try to _learn_ anything; they try to _buy_ something. And hey, if that "something" fixes 85% of the problem, why bother with learning? No time in this very lengthy debate (to my knowledge) is spent on speculating how safety devices can be improved; only whether they have a right to exist at all We can talk about how to improve helmets, if that's what you want. It's simple. Make them much thicker. Do away with most of the ventilation holes. Bring back the hard shells. Oh, and redesign the ridiculously ineffective straps with something that will keep its shape and adjustment - maybe solid plastic. One more thing: If you take the recommendation of the Thompson & Rivara team (originators of the "85%" crap), you should build rigid chin bars into all bike helmets. You know - full face helmets for ordinary riding. They actually have called for such things. Do all those things, and you can probably increase a bike helmet's protective range from the current 14 mph impact of a decapitated head, to perhaps an 18 mph impact of a decapitated head. the use of the term "risk compensation" in this thread has become as slippery as Frank wants it to be. You know, I teach for a living. And I've learned that not all students will get the subject material, no matter what I do or say. Some just can't comprehend, and some just don't want to comprehend. Whatever the reason, Steven, I'd recommend you drop this class. If you truly don't understand what risk compensation is by now, you're just not keeping up. - Frank Krygowski |
#863
|
|||
|
|||
Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet
In article 3w4Ne.2836$wb.2818@trndny09,
Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote: David Damerell wrote: Quoting Mark & Steven Bornfeld : wrote: An interesting test for someone who thinks they _don't_ risk compensate is this: Get into a car and drive in heavy traffic with no seatbelt and no airbag. Oh, and considering that the lack of seatbelts as a safety device will stop me driving (or that I will not cycle if I've forgotten my helmet on a ride) Then you pretty clearly risk compensate. Lacking a seatbelt, you reduce the chance of being in a motor accident to zero; given a seatbelt, you increase it to some higher figure. Only as a driver or passenger. But most of you anti-helmet crowd There is no "anti-helmet crowd." It is all in your head. [...] -- Michael Press |
#864
|
|||
|
|||
Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet
In article ,
Steven Bornfeld wrote: Context is everything. Anti-helmet folks using risk compensation seem There are no "anti-helmet folks." It is all in your mind. -- Michael Press |
#865
|
|||
|
|||
Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet
Michael Press wrote:
In article , Steven Bornfeld wrote: Context is everything. Anti-helmet folks using risk compensation seem There are no "anti-helmet folks." It is all in your mind. That's funny, I could have sworn it's been on my computer screen! |
#866
|
|||
|
|||
Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet
Bob the Cow wrote:
That, and they have jobs which feature virtually limitless and unsupervised access to computers. Virtually or morally? -- IT Management. Tel: +64 3 479 5478 Web and database hosting, Co-location. Web: http://www.wic.co.nz Software development. Email: |
#867
|
|||
|
|||
Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet
I submit that on or about Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:38:19 -0400, the person
known to the court as The Wogster made a statement in Your Honour's bundle) to the following effect: I doubt it would take much to feed the output of a hub generator into a trickle type charger that charges a small battery, then have the battery power the lamps, giving you the best of both worlds. No need: modern dynamo lights are available with built-in standlights. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound |
#868
|
|||
|
|||
Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet
I submit that on or about Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:42:54 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS made a statement in Your Honour's bundle) to the following effect: Oh dear, you accidentally forgot to provide the evidence to back your assertions, as requested in the bit you snipped. So let's be clear, he you assert with great confidence that dynamo lighting is unsafe. You're looking more and more like Frank, trying to create strawmen. I have never stated that dynamo lighting is unsafe. So you say. And of course in ScharfWorld, denouncing them as "woefully inadequate" is of course completely different... http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec...e=source&hl=en But once again you "forgot" to post any evidence! So, where is your externally verifiable evidence that these systems are "woefully inadequate"? Per-mile collision data for dynamo versus battery users would prove your point nicely. You also say "The only good dynamo system remains the very expensive Dymotec S12 with its 12 volt/5W headlight." This conflicts with the opinions of a very large number of dynamo users: the SON 6V hub is widely reckoned to be the best dynamo on the market. You also instruct people not to rely on the generator lighting systems on the commuter bikes you discuss on your pages. I guess that since you read on a web page somewhere that you are "one of Earth's leading experts on bicycle lighting" that must make your judgment superior to that of the manufacturers of those bikes, to say nothing of the many cyclists who have bought them and mysteriously failed to die as a result of their "woefully inadequate" lighting. Mind you, a 0.2W LED is enough to stop side-impacts, it's only 3W headlights which are inadequate... Again, if you want to discuss the relative merits of each type of lighting system, please start a thread on that subject. This thread has digressed enough as it is. Once again you miss the point. This is not really about lighting, it's about the way you make dogmatic assertions, falsely portray as extremists those who would allow cyclists to make choices other than the one you make, as if it is your dogmatic view which is balanced: you do not permit of the possibility that you may be wrong, but when challenged for hard evidence you are mysteriously silent. I guess to a zealot like you every agnostic looks like an atheist :-) Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound |
#869
|
|||
|
|||
Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
I submit that on or about Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:38:19 -0400, the person known to the court as The Wogster made a statement in Your Honour's bundle) to the following effect: I doubt it would take much to feed the output of a hub generator into a trickle type charger that charges a small battery, then have the battery power the lamps, giving you the best of both worlds. No need: modern dynamo lights are available with built-in standlights. Guy But think about it for a second, the argument against dynamo lights is their low power (no matter how you look at it, 3Watts at 3V is pretty dim). The problem with battery systems is that the batteries, go flat. So, how about combining the two, a hub generator outputs power at all times, so it would be charging the battery, ride all day, and your battery is fully charged, then you can ride all night, without being concerned with a battery that is going to go flat. W |
#870
|
|||
|
|||
Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet
In article ,
Steven Bornfeld wrote: Context is everything. Anti-helmet folks using risk compensation seem to say that any perceived protective measure is useless for its intended function--that safety measures in short do not promote safety--that they promote risky behavior. The only reason they seem to be saying that is because you're not reading for comprehension. It usually goes something like this: Helmet Zealot: Everybody should wear a helmet. FK: Why? What benefit do they provide? HZ: They prevent head injuries. FK: What kind of head injuries? HZ: All of 'em. FK: Really? Cite? HZ: You're claiming they don't? Cite? FK: Here you go. HZ2: But helmets prevent most serious injuries, so everybody should wear one. FK: No, they don't, and if you ride as if they will you're exposing yourself to more risk. HZ2: But cycling is dangerous, and people need the helmet to protect them. ....and this is where risk compensation gets introduced. If the protective measure is completely inadequate for its intended function, then it *is* useless, risk compensation or not - and if it's assumed to be effective, it's worse than useless, because of the risk compensation that that assumption leads to. Of course, Frank isn't always as clear as he could be on the subject, but I think that's an unavoidable consequence of the amount of time he spends arguing with idiots about it. When the best response you can hope for, no matter how well you present something, is a blank stare (or the usenet equivalent), there's no way to tell whether you need to improve your presentation, and not much of an incentive to do so either. Which is why it's nice to have people who don't spend enough time arguing with idiots to run into that, but aren't sick enough of it that they don't occasionally stick their heads in to address some particularly egregious reasoning errors. I like to think I'm one of those. Dave Vandervies wrote: Once you've read *and* *understood* that last paragraph, and thought through the consequences of what it says, go back and read this again: wrote: IOW, you perceive there is protection from the helmet. Therefore, because of that perceived protection, you engage in an activity you would otherwise avoid, at least sometimes. Briefly, you are giving personal testimony about your risk compensation. and tell us whether it makes sense, and whether your response to it makes sense. It makes sense, as does my response--because the use of the term "risk compensation" in this thread has become as slippery as Frank wants it to be. Slipperier than it should be, perhaps, but you're as much to blame as him for that (if not more). And it appears you still haven't read and understood what I wrote. Are you going to, or are you just going to tell us why you should be allowed to remain stupid because you can't be bothered to understand what we're trying to tell you? dave -- Dave Vandervies (In the interest of full disclosure, I do, however, have a friend who is a rocket scientist.) --Ben Pfaff in comp.lang.c |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|