On the efficacy of my helmet

Glenn
I venture to suggest that you might be confusing "the [actual] efficacy
of your helmet" with your beliefs about the real efficacy which can be
supported with evidental support of the standard that a rigourous
scientific approach would afford.

That, my my newbie friend, is what and why anecdotal stories are in
general not acceptable as evidence of any substantial worth - they are,
or most often are infected by errors and ommissions that ensue from 'the
reporter's underlying beliefs (pernicious prejudices - perhaps) and also
by the reporter's focus on which particular situational aspects are
attended to and which situational aspects are disregarded or or not
able to be discerned and recognised by the actor in the situation.

Hope that's helpful.

Roger

Hello Roger. Personally, I don't like wearing a helmet when riding my bike
and, in fact, I tend to look for exuses to not wear it (the ol' "well I'm
not going to be in the street except when crossing it... or I don't want to
have to carry it around while I'm in the store" routine) As a
dyed-in-the-wool skeptic, I certainly understand how people's
preconceptions and biases can effect their conclusion about something. And,
I'm aware how people, when making an argument, will emphasize details that
support their views and omit that which doesn't do that. But, Roger,
sometimes things are exactly as they appear to be to the person who
experiences it. I have no agenda on this topic. When I state my case (as I
did) the facts are accurate; I seriously doubt that there is anything
subliminal -- something at the fringes of my brain working against my
integrity -- that is causing me to misstate the facts. I'm all but certain
that if hadn't been wearing a helmet when I slamed into that tree branch, I
would have been "out-cold" (and probably supported a lump or facial marking
for some time.) I think that my helmet was a important factor in *not*
having that happen to me and, furthemore, I think that my assesment of the
matter corresponds well with the facts. I realize anecdotal evidence is
often suspect; nevertheless I said my say on the matter. It's your life, so
naturally you will see what I say as you see it.... I'm just passing
through, anyhow. Ciao.

"Glenn Civello" wrote in message
...
Glenn
I venture to suggest that you might be confusing "the [actual] efficacy
of your helmet" with your beliefs about the real efficacy which can be
supported with evidental support of the standard that a rigourous
scientific approach would afford.

That, my my newbie friend, is what and why anecdotal stories are in
general not acceptable as evidence of any substantial worth - they are,
or most often are infected by errors and ommissions that ensue from 'the
reporter's underlying beliefs (pernicious prejudices - perhaps) and also
by the reporter's focus on which particular situational aspects are
attended to and which situational aspects are disregarded or or not
able to be discerned and recognised by the actor in the situation.

Hope that's helpful.

Roger

Hello Roger. Personally, I don't like wearing a helmet when riding my
bike
and, in fact, I tend to look for exuses to not wear it (the ol' "well I'm
not going to be in the street except when crossing it... or I don't want
to
have to carry it around while I'm in the store" routine) As a
dyed-in-the-wool skeptic, I certainly understand how people's
preconceptions and biases can effect their conclusion about something.
And,
I'm aware how people, when making an argument, will emphasize details that
support their views and omit that which doesn't do that. But, Roger,
sometimes things are exactly as they appear to be to the person who
experiences it. I have no agenda on this topic. When I state my case (as
I
did) the facts are accurate; I seriously doubt that there is anything
subliminal -- something at the fringes of my brain working against my
integrity -- that is causing me to misstate the facts. I'm all but
certain
that if hadn't been wearing a helmet when I slamed into that tree branch,
I
would have been "out-cold" (and probably supported a lump or facial
marking
for some time.) I think that my helmet was a important factor in *not*
having that happen to me and, furthemore, I think that my assesment of the
matter corresponds well with the facts. I realize anecdotal evidence is
often suspect; nevertheless I said my say on the matter. It's your life,
so
naturally you will see what I say as you see it.... I'm just passing
through, anyhow. Ciao.


....and when all else you have are conflicting studies suggesting either
helmet use or not-use being safer conducted scientifically (although
empiricism is suspect); all you have left are these anecdotes!

"Glenn Civello" wrote in message
...
As a newbie to this newsgroup I've noticed there is an ongoing controversy
regarding helmets. I thought I'd relate my experience for what it's
worth.... even if it's not worth very much I have a couple of helmets
and I use them most of the time but not always, preferring, sometimes, to
simply wear a baseball cap. I usually do that on short jaunts to the
supermarket, which has a nice paved bike path nearly all the way. Around
high school graduation time (June in my area) I rode my bike to the
ceremonies, as my nephew was one of the graduates. I left a bit early as
the celebration party was going to be at my house. I was boogying pretty
fast down a section of sidewalk, that I was unfamiliar with, when I came
to
a large tree with a low hanging thick branch. I tried to duck under it
but
didn't make it, causing my forehead to slam into that broad limb. It
nearly
knocked me off my bike and I was definitely seeing stars. For a moment, I
thought I was going to pass out) Well, it turns out I was "OK," but I'm
sure glad I was wearing my helmet that day, because I'm certain things
could
have been a lot worse. Peace.

Glenn


What we really need now is for a few messages to tell the all of the gory
details of a fall, the trip to the hospital, and ending where the doctor
tells them, "you would be dead if you were not wearing your helmet."

The helmet issue has been around for a long time, with lots of statistics
for both sides, so decide if you are going to wear your helmet or not...then
just ride your bike.

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 21:24:03 -0400, "Glenn Civello"
wrote in message
:

I was boogying pretty
fast down a section of sidewalk, that I was unfamiliar with, when I came to
a large tree with a low hanging thick branch. I tried to duck under it but
didn't make it, causing my forehead to slam into that broad limb.

Go back and try it again without the helmet - might knock some sense
into you ;-)

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

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 21:24:03 -0400, "Glenn Civello"
wrote:

I was boogying pretty
fast down a section of sidewalk, that I was unfamiliar with, when I came to
a large tree with a low hanging thick branch

A "nice paved bike path" (your description) with a "low hanging thick
branch"? That's a setup for a nice lawsuit.

You're lucky. You're probably young and/or in good physical
condition. Such a collision could easily have produced a spinal cord
injury with death or quadriplegia as a result, even WITH a good,
properly-fitted helmet.

I hope you reported this accident. The next guy might not be so
fortunate.

Zippy the Pinhead wrote:


A "nice paved bike path" (your description) with a "low hanging thick
branch"? That's a setup for a nice lawsuit.

Nope. He was riding on a sidewalk.

I hope you reported this accident. The next guy might not be so
fortunate.

Riding on sidewalks is almost never advisable; for anyone above a
walking speed, it's several times more dangerous than a road. And
sidewalk riding is often illegal (unless you're a kid on a 16" wheel
bike). Those in charge of the sidewalk should have no worries.

A person who knows so little about cycling as to ride on a sidewalk (and
not know to duck from branches) certainly shouldn't be giving others
safety advice!



--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Glenn Civello said...

the celebration party was going to be at my house. I was boogying pretty
fast down a section of sidewalk, that I was unfamiliar with, when I came to

Racing down an unfamiliar sidewalk was your first mistake. You would
have been much safer without a helmet racing down the road. Riding
sidewalks slowly and cautiously is OK, IMO.

a large tree with a low hanging thick branch. I tried to duck under it but
didn't make it, causing my forehead to slam into that broad limb. It nearly
knocked me off my bike and I was definitely seeing stars. For a moment, I
thought I was going to pass out) Well, it turns out I was "OK," but I'm
sure glad I was wearing my helmet that day, because I'm certain things could
have been a lot worse. Peace.

That helmet sure makes for a nice big target, and a brim that can catch
and tear you off the bike. We all have anecdotes. I personally knew
several people who died from or were permanently injured by severe head
injuries, one by motorcycle, all the rest in cars. Why don't we wear
helmets in cars? Racers and stunt drivers do. While we are at it, lets
wear helmets in the shower any time we climb a flight of stairs.

Of my many, many bicycle injures, stretching back more than 30 years
(I'm getting old), only one was a head injury and I'm glad I wasn't
wearing a helmet. It was a face plant and instead of a harmless bruise
to the eye socket and a black eye, the helmet would have deflected the
blow to my chin, probably causing me to lose teeth or possibly worse. My
head healed just fine, without even a tiny scar. My left hand got road
rash that is only now getting hard to see more than two years later.

Riding on sidewalks is almost never advisable; for anyone above a
walking speed, it's several times more dangerous than a road. And
sidewalk riding is often illegal (unless you're a kid on a 16" wheel
bike). Those in charge of the sidewalk should have no worries.

A person who knows so little about cycling as to ride on a sidewalk (and
not know to duck from branches) certainly shouldn't be giving others
safety advice!

1. The graduation ceremony was being held at our local university campus
(we have 4 colleges and 1 University in our area) The "sidewalk" is
actually more like a narrow path... (but made from asphalt) It's intended
use is for pedestrians (mostly students) AND cyclists.

2. I'm not giving advice... like I said... sometimes I don't wear a helmet
(but I'm glad I did on that particular day) Geeesh! (tough crowd here ;-)

Thanks
Glenn

Leo Lichtman Wrote:

Rodger Dodger wrote: (clip) my use of language suggesting deeper
consideration(clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your use of stilted language in an attempt to impress reminds me o
what
Edgar Allen Poe wrote: "What is complex is mistaken, a not unusua
error,
for what is profound." My advice to you is, "Eschew obfuscatory
polysyllabification." Rodger, I am struck by the stark difference i
the
post which begins,"I venture to suggest..." and your subsequent post
which
says, in part, "I sorry if my ten dollar words do not meet to you
satisfaction." Which one did you write, and who wrote the other on
for
you?

Leo's sharp - he's got me there but let's dig a little deeper...

My style was affected - that's obvious - and it does look to have al
the hallmarks that some might construe (whoops gotta limit my languag
to the audience's supposed intellectual level) and eschew (whoop
again gotta find a simpler word substitute with 'avoid') less commonl
encountered words because they might likely arouse resentment from thos
whose vocabulary is limited and those who, when they stumble on a wor
they dont understand can't and won't be bothered to make the effort t
look it up in a dictionary.

Yeah, Leo could my affected style have been a device perchance (now
know you'll object to me using 'perchance' but isn't it enjoyable t
use and extend our vocab, or should we refrain from that source o
enjoyment purely because we feel the need to pander to people wh
choose to take it that that choice of language was intended to b
exclusive or ostentatious or obfuscatory?) - it was an artifice t
provoke attention to the poverty of the very popula
simple-folks-talk, and in doing I I risk being branded as yo
described. I was well aware of that my stylistic device might not b
recognised but rather that it be mistaken for what you describe.

Does our lanuage have to be dumbed down so the illiterate masses won'
get offended?

Is it a prerequisite or precondition of participation on this foru
that we all conform to a simple folks standard of language - or is tha
taking George Orwell's admonitions on difficult and unclear language
too far?

As an aside compare in society the current acceptance of conspicuou
consumption and the untouubled acceptance of ostentatious displays o
wealth - compare that with the 'pressure' to conform to a very cautiou
approach to language so as not to alienate or offend - like compare ho
in the 1960's and 1970's ostentatious displays of wealth were frowne
upon.

I'm reminded of what Nietzsche had to say about impatient readers
that readers who want ease will be dissapointed with his writing, tha
time patience and a willingness to ponder patiently and invest effor
are what are necessary to enjoy the rewards of a greate
understanding.

A poke at simple folks talk, Leo, the currency of which is like wor
out coins, a one legged army of dead metaphor..

--
RogerDodger

RogerDodger wrote:
|| Leo Lichtman Wrote:
|||
||| Rodger Dodger wrote: (clip) my use of language suggesting deeper
||| consideration(clip)
||| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
||| Your use of stilted language in an attempt to impress reminds me of
||| what
||| Edgar Allen Poe wrote: "What is complex is mistaken, a not unusual
||| error,
||| for what is profound." My advice to you is, "Eschew obfuscatory
||| polysyllabification." Rodger, I am struck by the stark difference
||| in the
||| post which begins,"I venture to suggest..." and your subsequent
||| post, which
||| says, in part, "I sorry if my ten dollar words do not meet to you
||| satisfaction." Which one did you write, and who wrote the other one
||| for
||| you?
||
|| Leo's sharp - he's got me there but let's dig a little deeper...
||
|| My style was affected - that's obvious - and it does look to have all
|| the hallmarks that some might construe (whoops gotta limit my
|| language to the audience's supposed intellectual level) and eschew
|| (whoops again gotta find a simpler word substitute with 'avoid')
|| less commonly encountered words because they might likely arouse
|| resentment from those whose vocabulary is limited and those who,
|| when they stumble on a word they dont understand can't and won't be
|| bothered to make the effort to look it up in a dictionary.
||
|| Yeah, Leo could my affected style have been a device perchance (now I
|| know you'll object to me using 'perchance' but isn't it enjoyable to
|| use and extend our vocab, or should we refrain from that source of
|| enjoyment purely because we feel the need to pander to people who
|| choose to take it that that choice of language was intended to be
|| exclusive or ostentatious or obfuscatory?) - it was an artifice to
|| provoke attention to the poverty of the very popular
|| simple-folks-talk, and in doing I I risk being branded as you
|| described. I was well aware of that my stylistic device might not be
|| recognised but rather that it be mistaken for what you describe.
||
|| Does our lanuage have to be dumbed down so the illiterate masses
|| won't get offended?
||
|| Is it a prerequisite or precondition of participation on this forum
|| that we all conform to a simple folks standard of language - or is
|| that taking George Orwell's admonitions on difficult and unclear
|| language, too far?
||
|| As an aside compare in society the current acceptance of conspicuous
|| consumption and the untouubled acceptance of ostentatious displays of
|| wealth - compare that with the 'pressure' to conform to a very
|| cautious approach to language so as not to alienate or offend - like
|| compare how in the 1960's and 1970's ostentatious displays of wealth
|| were frowned upon.
||
|| I'm reminded of what Nietzsche had to say about impatient readers -
|| that readers who want ease will be dissapointed with his writing,
|| that time patience and a willingness to ponder patiently and invest
|| effort are what are necessary to enjoy the rewards of a greater
|| understanding.
||
|| A poke at simple folks talk, Leo, the currency of which is like worn
|| out coins, a one legged army of dead metaphor...
||

Hmm.....I don't think that was worth my effort to read....