helmet

On 10-27-2012 00:07, SMS wrote:
The biggest reason to believe that helmets are effective is that those
against them have such weak, scientifically faulty and statistically
faulty, reasons for their opposition.

When an argument is so fallacious that it proves nothing,
taking it as evidence for the opposing view is equally fallacious.

--
Wes Groleau

He that complies against his will is of the same opinion still.
— Samuel Butler, 1612-1680

On Oct 26, 10:19 pm, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 10-27-2012 00:07, SMS wrote:

The biggest reason to believe that helmets are effective is that those
against them have such weak, scientifically faulty and statistically
faulty, reasons for their opposition.

When an argument is so fallacious that it proves nothing,
taking it as evidence for the opposing view is equally fallacious.


Refreshing logic.

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 07:16:02 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

James considered Sat, 27 Oct 2012 10:56:27
+1100 the perfect time to write:

On 27/10/12 08:18, Phil W Lee wrote:
James considered Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:26:01
+1100 the perfect time to write:

On 26/10/12 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
(Helmets do nothing against rotational
acceleration, and may even exacerbate it.)

Got data?

I've heard helmets are supposed to offer more grip of the road surface
than hair/skin/flesh/bone, but never seen the test results.

Also greater leverage, due to the increased diameter.
And increased risk of contacting the road in the first place - human
reflexes are actually quite good at protecting the head, but do get
beaten by increases in effective size.
It's a bit like running the hurdles with clown shoes on - even the
best hurdler would expect to clatter a few with that kind of handicap.


As I said in a previous reply, I've never damaged a helmet in any
bicycling accident, though I've always worn one and been in numerous
racing accidents and a few training accidents - some of which involved cars.

Nobody said you were guaranteed to bash your foam, just that the
larger size increases the likelihood.

Maybe if they went out and got a job doing something that required a
"hard hat" they'd understand that you do bump your bead/hat more with
the enlarged head/hat.

So common it is not even a matter for discussion in those circles :-)
--
Cheers,
John B.

On Saturday, October 27, 2012 6:40:01 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 07:16:02 +0100, Phil W Lee

wrote:



James considered Sat, 27 Oct 2012 10:56:27

+1100 the perfect time to write:



On 27/10/12 08:18, Phil W Lee wrote:

James considered Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:26:01

+1100 the perfect time to write:



On 26/10/12 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:

(Helmets do nothing against rotational

acceleration, and may even exacerbate it.)



Got data?



I've heard helmets are supposed to offer more grip of the road surface

than hair/skin/flesh/bone, but never seen the test results.



Also greater leverage, due to the increased diameter.

And increased risk of contacting the road in the first place - human

reflexes are actually quite good at protecting the head, but do get

beaten by increases in effective size.

It's a bit like running the hurdles with clown shoes on - even the

best hurdler would expect to clatter a few with that kind of handicap.





As I said in a previous reply, I've never damaged a helmet in any

bicycling accident, though I've always worn one and been in numerous

racing accidents and a few training accidents - some of which involved cars.



Nobody said you were guaranteed to bash your foam, just that the

larger size increases the likelihood.



Maybe if they went out and got a job doing something that required a

"hard hat" they'd understand that you do bump your bead/hat more with

the enlarged head/hat.



So common it is not even a matter for discussion in those circles :-)

--

Cheers,

John B.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

an arguement at the core !

BTW, hemets are mandatory in Australia ? WTH cawsed that spasm ?

itslike flouride and water

On 10/26/2012 10:19 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 10-27-2012 00:07, SMS wrote:
The biggest reason to believe that helmets are effective is that those
against them have such weak, scientifically faulty and statistically
faulty, reasons for their opposition.

When an argument is so fallacious that it proves nothing,
taking it as evidence for the opposing view is equally fallacious.

If the entity putting forth the fallacious argument actually had any
evidence to support their position then they would use it. Therefore the
use of a fallacious argument is pretty good indication that the opposite
of what they are arguing for is true.

On 10-27-2012 09:56, SMS wrote:
On 10/26/2012 10:19 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 10-27-2012 00:07, SMS wrote:
The biggest reason to believe that helmets are effective is that those
against them have such weak, scientifically faulty and statistically
faulty, reasons for their opposition.

When an argument is so fallacious that it proves nothing,
taking it as evidence for the opposing view is equally fallacious.

If the entity putting forth the fallacious argument actually had any
evidence to support their position then they would use it. Therefore the
use of a fallacious argument is pretty good indication that the opposite
of what they are arguing for is true.

Unless they don't realize the fallacies. If a fallacy were evidence
that the other side is right, then I'd have to conclude in most
arguments that both sides are wrong and the other side is right.

--
Wes Groleau

I've noticed lately that the paranoid fear of computers becoming
intelligent and taking over the world has almost entirely disappeared
from the common culture. Near as I can tell, this coincides with
the release of MS-DOS.
— Larry DeLuca

On Oct 26, 11:35*pm, SMS wrote:

As I pointed out, the fraudulent cyclehelmets.org site simply omitted
the fact that adult cycling rates increased by 44% following the MHL in
Victoria, and only talked about a decrease in youth cycling rates. Of
course neither of those changes could be attributed to the MHL. Adults
didn't start riding more because they thought that now that they were
forced to wear a helmet that they were magnitudes safer, and minors
didn't start cycling less because they were so upset over the law.

So where can we find your evidence that the above nonsense is true?
(44% _increase_ in cycling after telling people it's so dangerous that
it's now illegal to ride without a foam hat???) And why do you
suppose that astonishing fact has somehow slipped by so many cycling
advocacy organizations?

It could be that you're inventing the +44% entirely on your own. More
likely, you've found one bit of data that's actually inapplicable
(such as, a 20 year increase that's smaller than the population
increase and doesn't factor in the original sharp drop in cycling),
i.e. one bit of data that contradicts the dozens of data sources that
everyone else has deemed much more reliable.

But given your habit of citing nothing, just slinging anonymous
numbers, you should understand why people here discount your claims.

More concisely (for the TLDR crowd): Put up or shut up, Stephen.

- Frank Krygowski

On Oct 27, 7:42*am, datakoll wrote:


BTW, hemets are mandatory in Australia ? WTH cawsed that spasm ?

Here's some history to skim:
http://crag.asn.au/?p=2046

More interesting to me is the influence of Bell Sports and the rabidly-
pro-MHL Thompson & Rivara team in the U.S. I think this bears more
careful reading:

http://crag.asn.au/?p=1121

- Frank Krygowski

On Oct 27, 9:56*am, SMS wrote:

If the entity putting forth the fallacious argument actually had any
evidence to support their position then they would use it.

:-) Says the poster so notorious for alluding to phantom or
irrelevant numbers, but almost never providing proper citations or
links!

SMS, you're a treasure!

- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:05:01 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
If anyone here has an argument which we didn't thoroughly

beat to death in 1998, please start a new helmet thread and

enlighten me.

Andrew. This topic is out of season. The dead of winter is the traditional period for helmet wars, although minor skirmishes can emerge without warning. The best piece of helmet research I know of was done at MIT, and I found it extremely convincing - On the Effectiveness of Aluminium Foil Helmets: An Empirical Study. http://tinyurl.com/35skqmm
Best Regards,
Larry