An experiment to prove the helmet law proponants RIGHT (or wrong)

[DiscoDuck]

Everybody here, ride thier bike this week without a helmet (law or
not) and report here if you made it back alive. If not then leave a
note for a loved one to post here that you experienced an unfortunate
head injury and suffered serious brain damage (such as Robert
Broughton or Edward Dolan).

Do not engage in argument in this thread only. Just report back with
either

a) Rode today without a helmet-still alive and unharmed

b) Today "insert name here" I proved my point that ALL people should
wear a helmet because I was in an accident and sufferred a head inury.
Note, real name, area and hospital must be provided for authenticity
(we wouldn't want lyers posting falsehoods, would we).

[Peter Clinch]

Post by DiscoDuck
Everybody here, ride thier bike this week without a helmet (law or
not) and report here if you made it back alive.

So far so good, and I even had an accident (a SMIDSY for which the
driver apologised profusely and admitted it was entirely their fault,
and since nobody was hurt and no paint scratched and I think they
learned a small lesson I left it at that).

Pete.

[David Martin]

On 30/11/04 8:22 am, in article

Post by DiscoDuck
Everybody here, ride thier bike this week without a helmet (law or
not) and report here if you made it back alive. If not then leave a
note for a loved one to post here that you experienced an unfortunate
head injury and suffered serious brain damage (such as Robert
Broughton or Edward Dolan).
Do not engage in argument in this thread only. Just report back with
either
a) Rode today without a helmet-still alive and unharmed

And just how many person weeks do you think you would need to make a
statistically relevant study?

HI on bicycles are rare events.

One HI in over 25 years regular cycling in all sorts of conditions (heavy
traffic, sheet ice, time trialling, off road).

..d

Post by DiscoDuck
b) Today "insert name here" I proved my point that ALL people should
wear a helmet because I was in an accident and sufferred a head inury.
Note, real name, area and hospital must be provided for authenticity
(we wouldn't want lyers posting falsehoods, would we).

[MSeries]

Post by DiscoDuck
Everybody here, ride thier bike this week without a helmet (law or
not) and report here if you made it back alive. If not then leave a
note for a loved one to post here that you experienced an unfortunate
head injury and suffered serious brain damage (such as Robert
Broughton or Edward Dolan).
Do not engage in argument in this thread only. Just report back with
either
a) Rode today without a helmet-still alive and unharmed
b) Today "insert name here" I proved my point that ALL people should
wear a helmet because I was in an accident and sufferred a head inury.
Note, real name, area and hospital must be provided for authenticity
(we wouldn't want lyers posting falsehoods, would we).

troll

[Tony Raven]

Post by DiscoDuck
Everybody here, ride thier bike this week without a helmet (law or
not) and report here if you made it back alive. If not then leave a
note for a loved one to post here that you experienced an unfortunate
head injury and suffered serious brain damage (such as Robert
Broughton or Edward Dolan).
Do not engage in argument in this thread only. Just report back with
either
a) Rode today without a helmet-still alive and unharmed
b) Today "insert name here" I proved my point that ALL people should
wear a helmet because I was in an accident and sufferred a head inury.
Note, real name, area and hospital must be provided for authenticity
(we wouldn't want lyers posting falsehoods, would we).

troll

You haven't got the hang of this have you? You are supposed to put
"Troll" at the top and quote the message to which you are "replying"
complete with all the expanded headers ;-)

Tony

[Dave Larrington]

troll

YA John Doe AICFMP.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by DiscoDuck
Everybody here, ride thier bike this week without a helmet (law or
not) and report here if you made it back alive. If not then leave a
note for a loved one to post here that you experienced an unfortunate
head injury and suffered serious brain damage (such as Robert
Broughton or Edward Dolan).
Do not engage in argument in this thread only. Just report back with
either
a) Rode today without a helmet-still alive and unharmed
b) Today "insert name here" I proved my point that ALL people should
wear a helmet because I was in an accident and sufferred a head inury.
Note, real name, area and hospital must be provided for authenticity
(we wouldn't want lyers posting falsehoods, would we).

troll

So far soo good. "M Series" trolled his bike today without incident.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Post by DiscoDuck
Everybody here, ride thier bike this week without a helmet (law or
not) and report here if you made it back alive. If not then leave a
note for a loved one to post here that you experienced an unfortunate
head injury and suffered serious brain damage (such as Robert
Broughton or Edward Dolan).

Where do I post the retrospective reports for most of this year?

Guy

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Just zis Guy, you know?
Where do I post the retrospective reports for most of this year?
Guy

I suggest we start from cratch. But another thread wouldn't hurt.

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

Another favourite of mine, is "You can do what you want with
statistic-85% of people know that." :)

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Post by DiscoDuck
Another favourite of mine, is "You can do what you want with
statistic-85% of people know that." :)

Well, hell, everyone knows that 94.2% of statistics are made up on the
spot ;-)

Guy

[Judith Wheat]

Post by Just zis Guy, you know?

Post by DiscoDuck
Another favourite of mine, is "You can do what you want with
statistic-85% of people know that." :)

Well, hell, everyone knows that 94.2% of statistics are made up on the
spot ;-)

Statistics have shown that 65.34% of statistics are inaccurate.
And 80% of people consider themselves to be above average.

[JRKRideau]

Post by Judith Wheat

Post by Just zis Guy, you know?

Post by DiscoDuck
Another favourite of mine, is "You can do what you want with
statistic-85% of people know that." :)

Well, hell, everyone knows that 94.2% of statistics are made up on the
spot ;-)

Statistics have shown that 65.34% of statistics are inaccurate.
And 80% of people consider themselves to be above average.

This last is perfectly possible if you define the average as the
arithemetic mean (that is, add up all the numbers and divide by the
number of people) :)

John Kane
Kingston ON Canada

BTW always read papers with a calculator at hand.

[Gordon Mulcaster]

Post by JRKRideau

Post by Judith Wheat

Post by Just zis Guy, you know?

Post by DiscoDuck
Another favourite of mine, is "You can do what you want with
statistic-85% of people know that." :)

Well, hell, everyone knows that 94.2% of statistics are made up on the
spot ;-)

Statistics have shown that 65.34% of statistics are inaccurate.
And 80% of people consider themselves to be above average.

This last is perfectly possible if you define the average as the
arithemetic mean (that is, add up all the numbers and divide by the
number of people) :)

Ummm, no. If you use the arithmatic mean 50% of the people will be above
the mean and 50% below the mean, that's what the mean means. A majority
can be above average no problem. See example:


2, 7, 9 , average = 6, 66.7% of the numbers are above average.

[David Martin]

On 4/12/04 6:20 pm, in article

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by JRKRideau

Post by Judith Wheat

Post by Just zis Guy, you know?

Post by DiscoDuck
Another favourite of mine, is "You can do what you want with
statistic-85% of people know that." :)

Well, hell, everyone knows that 94.2% of statistics are made up on the
spot ;-)

Statistics have shown that 65.34% of statistics are inaccurate.
And 80% of people consider themselves to be above average.

This last is perfectly possible if you define the average as the
arithemetic mean (that is, add up all the numbers and divide by the
number of people) :)

Ummm, no.

surely you mean 'Umm, yes' as you demonstrate.

Post by Gordon Mulcaster
If you use the arithmatic mean 50% of the people will be above
the mean and 50% below the mean, that's what the mean means.

That is the median, not the mean. Go back to maths 101.

Post by Gordon Mulcaster
A majority
2, 7, 9 , average = 6, 66.7% of the numbers are above average.

mean = sum of values divided by number of values
median = the middle value.
mode = the most observed value.

..d

[Gordon Mulcaster]

Post by David Martin
That is the median, not the mean. Go back to maths 101.

You're quite right. Man what time does to the memory cells is always
amazing...

[Joe Keenan]

Post by Gordon Mulcaster

Post by JRKRideau

Post by Judith Wheat

Post by Just zis Guy, you know?

Post by DiscoDuck
Another favourite of mine, is "You can do what you want with
statistic-85% of people know that." :)

Well, hell, everyone knows that 94.2% of statistics are made up on the
spot ;-)

Statistics have shown that 65.34% of statistics are inaccurate.
And 80% of people consider themselves to be above average.

This last is perfectly possible if you define the average as the
arithemetic mean (that is, add up all the numbers and divide by the
number of people) :)

Ummm, no. If you use the arithmatic mean 50% of the people will be above
the mean and 50% below the mean, that's what the mean means. A majority
2, 7, 9 , average = 6, 66.7% of the numbers are above average.

After reading the debates and "cited numbers" over the past few weeks
in the many debates, a quote by a college professor came to mind:
"Statistics are like bikinis: What they reveal is interesting, but
what they hide may be vital."

Slow Joe Recumbo: Your average cyclist.

P.S. For the politically correct police out there bikinis can be worn
by both sexes.

[Jon Senior]

Post by Just zis Guy, you know?

Post by DiscoDuck
Another favourite of mine, is "You can do what you want with
statistic-85% of people know that." :)

Well, hell, everyone knows that 94.2% of statistics are made up on the
spot ;-)

I once told that joke to a group of people, while they were laughing
someone else wandered up and asked what was so funny, so I repeated the
joke, only the number changed. One member of the original group said
"Hang on. Last time it was only xx%". He got more laughs than I did. [1]

Jon

[1] Sadly though, he was serious.

[Edward Dolan]

Post by DiscoDuck
Everybody here, ride thier bike this week without a helmet (law or
not) and report here if you made it back alive. If not then leave a
note for a loved one to post here that you experienced an unfortunate
head injury and suffered serious brain damage (such as Robert
Broughton or Edward Dolan).

Edward Dolan can only be found at ARBR. I do not post ever to multiple
groups (except in instances like this) as I consider all other groups
infinitely beneath me. For the wit and wisdom of Edward Dolan, you must
resort to ARBR. There is no other way you can access my genius.

[Mike Causer]

Post by Edward Dolan
Edward Dolan can only be found at ARBR. I do not post ever to multiple
groups (except in instances like this) as I consider all other groups
infinitely beneath me. For the wit and wisdom of Edward Dolan, you must
resort to ARBR. There is no other way you can access my genius.

Today I learned that when killfiling it is not enough to do it for the
groups the troll normally posts in -- it must be done for *all* groups
because you just don't know where it might emerge from its ditch. <sigh>



Mike

[David Martin]

On 30/11/04 8:56 pm, in article

Post by Mike Causer

Post by Edward Dolan
Edward Dolan can only be found at ARBR. I do not post ever to multiple
groups (except in instances like this) as I consider all other groups
infinitely beneath me. For the wit and wisdom of Edward Dolan, you must
resort to ARBR. There is no other way you can access my genius.

Today I learned that when killfiling it is not enough to do it for the
groups the troll normally posts in -- it must be done for *all* groups
because you just don't know where it might emerge from its ditch. <sigh>

Loading Image...

..d

[Dave Larrington]

David Martin wrote:

http://www.compbio.dundee.ac.uk/~dmamartin/helmet.jpg

Cloff!

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

For the wit and wisdom of Edward Dolan, you must...

use a scanning electron microscope and a good deal of imagination.

Guy

[Mark Leuck]

Won't work because nobody in lab coats will supervise the experiment, gotta
have those lab coats

Post by DiscoDuck
Everybody here, ride thier bike this week without a helmet (law or
not) and report here if you made it back alive. If not then leave a
note for a loved one to post here that you experienced an unfortunate
head injury and suffered serious brain damage (such as Robert
Broughton or Edward Dolan).
Do not engage in argument in this thread only. Just report back with
either
a) Rode today without a helmet-still alive and unharmed
b) Today "insert name here" I proved my point that ALL people should
wear a helmet because I was in an accident and sufferred a head inury.
Note, real name, area and hospital must be provided for authenticity
(we wouldn't want lyers posting falsehoods, would we).

[Tamyka Bell]

Post by Mark Leuck
Won't work because nobody in lab coats will supervise the experiment, gotta
have those lab coats

<snip>

and crazy white sticking-out hair, and coke-bottle glasses too.

T

[Christopher Jordan]

Tamyka Bell <***@uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:<***@uq.edu.au>...
Yet again
1..2..3..4..

CHILDREN BEHAVE....

1 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
|-2 Peter Clinch Nov 30, 2004
|-3 David Martin Nov 30, 2004
|-4 MSeries Nov 30, 2004
| |-5 Tony Raven Nov 30, 2004
| |-6 Dave Larrington Nov 30, 2004
| \-7 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
|-8 Just zis Guy, you know? Nov 30, 2004
| \-9 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
|   \-10 Just zis Guy, you know? Nov 30, 2004
|     |-11 Judith Wheat Nov 30, 2004
|     | \-12 JRKRideau Dec 3, 2004
|     |   \-13 Gordon Mulcaster Dec 4, 2004
|     |     |-14 David Martin Dec 4, 2004
|     |     | \-15 Gordon Mulcaster Dec 4, 2004
|     |     \-16 Joe Keenan Dec 4, 2004
|     \-17 Jon Senior Nov 30, 2004
|-18 Edward Dolan Nov 30, 2004
| \-19 Just zis Guy, you know? Nov 30, 2004
|-20 Mark Leuck Nov 30, 2004
| \-21 Tamyka Bell Nov 30, 2004
|   \-22 David Nov 30, 2004
\-23 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
  \-24 Edward Dolan Nov 30, 2004
    \-25 DiscoDuck Dec 2, 2004
      \-26 Edward Dolan Dec 2, 2004
        \-27 DiscoDuck Dec 4, 2004
          \-28 Edward Dolan Dec 5, 2004
1 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
|-2 Peter Clinch Nov 30, 2004
|-3 David Martin Nov 30, 2004
|-4 MSeries Nov 30, 2004
| |-5 Tony Raven Nov 30, 2004
| |-6 Dave Larrington Nov 30, 2004
| \-7 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
|-8 Just zis Guy, you know? Nov 30, 2004
| \-9 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
|   \-10 Just zis Guy, you know? Nov 30, 2004
|     |-11 Judith Wheat Nov 30, 2004
|     | \-12 JRKRideau Dec 3, 2004
|     |   \-13 Gordon Mulcaster Dec 4, 2004
|     |     |-14 David Martin Dec 4, 2004
|     |     | \-15 Gordon Mulcaster Dec 4, 2004
|     |     \-16 Joe Keenan Dec 4, 2004
|     \-17 Jon Senior Nov 30, 2004
|-18 Edward Dolan Nov 30, 2004
| \-19 Just zis Guy, you know? Nov 30, 2004
|-20 Mark Leuck Nov 30, 2004
| \-21 Tamyka Bell Nov 30, 2004
|   \-22 David Nov 30, 2004
\-23 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
  \-24 Edward Dolan Nov 30, 2004
    \-25 DiscoDuck Dec 2, 2004
      \-26 Edward Dolan Dec 2, 2004
        \-27 DiscoDuck Dec 4, 2004
          \-28 Edward Dolan Dec 5, 2004
1 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
|-2 Peter Clinch Nov 30, 2004
|-3 David Martin Nov 30, 2004
|-4 MSeries Nov 30, 2004
| |-5 Tony Raven Nov 30, 2004
| |-6 Dave Larrington Nov 30, 2004
| \-7 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
|-8 Just zis Guy, you know? Nov 30, 2004
| \-9 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
|   \-10 Just zis Guy, you know? Nov 30, 2004
|     |-11 Judith Wheat Nov 30, 2004
|     | \-12 JRKRideau Dec 3, 2004
|     |   \-13 Gordon Mulcaster Dec 4, 2004
|     |     |-14 David Martin Dec 4, 2004
|     |     | \-15 Gordon Mulcaster Dec 4, 2004
|     |     \-16 Joe Keenan Dec 4, 2004
|     \-17 Jon Senior Nov 30, 2004
|-18 Edward Dolan Nov 30, 2004
| \-19 Just zis Guy, you know? Nov 30, 2004
|-20 Mark Leuck Nov 30, 2004
| \-21 Tamyka Bell Nov 30, 2004
|   \-22 David Nov 30, 2004
\-23 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
  \-24 Edward Dolan Nov 30, 2004
    \-25 DiscoDuck Dec 2, 2004
      \-26 Edward Dolan Dec 2, 2004
        \-27 DiscoDuck Dec 4, 2004
          \-28 Edward Dolan Dec 5, 2004
1 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
|-2 Peter Clinch Nov 30, 2004
|-3 David Martin Nov 30, 2004
|-4 MSeries Nov 30, 2004
| |-5 Tony Raven Nov 30, 2004
| |-6 Dave Larrington Nov 30, 2004
| \-7 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
|-8 Just zis Guy, you know? Nov 30, 2004
| \-9 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
|   \-10 Just zis Guy, you know? Nov 30, 2004
|     |-11 Judith Wheat Nov 30, 2004
|     | \-12 JRKRideau Dec 3, 2004
|     |   \-13 Gordon Mulcaster Dec 4, 2004
|     |     |-14 David Martin Dec 4, 2004
|     |     | \-15 Gordon Mulcaster Dec 4, 2004
|     |     \-16 Joe Keenan Dec 4, 2004
|     \-17 Jon Senior Nov 30, 2004
|-18 Edward Dolan Nov 30, 2004
| \-19 Just zis Guy, you know? Nov 30, 2004
|-20 Mark Leuck Nov 30, 2004
| \-21 Tamyka Bell Nov 30, 2004
|   \-22 David Nov 30, 2004
\-23 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
  \-24 Edward Dolan Nov 30, 2004
    \-25 DiscoDuck Dec 2, 2004
      \-26 Edward Dolan Dec 2, 2004
        \-27 DiscoDuck Dec 4, 2004
          \-28 Edward Dolan Dec 5, 2004

[Arne]

Given the choice between hitting the ground with a bare head and hitting the
ground with something between my head and the ground, I would choose having
something beside my head hitting the ground first. It isn't real
complicated.

Nice to see this is getting cross-posted.. adds to the confusion.
.
Arne, USA

[Jon Senior]

Post by Arne
Given the choice between hitting the ground with a bare head and hitting the
ground with something between my head and the ground, I would choose having
something beside my head hitting the ground first. It isn't real
complicated.

How about not hitting the ground with your head? After over 15 years of
cycling at various speeds, on various bikes, in various cities and with
a few unintentional dismounts I have yet to hit my head on anything.

OTOH I find an inch of foam attached to my skull extremely
uncomfortable.

Jon

[Arne]

Then don't attach it to your head. Just put it on.. I can understand how
screws would hurt.

It is nice that you don't plan on hitting your head. I think you should
write a paper and have it published. It would have helped those who have had
head injuries having bicycle accidents. You could have saved a lot of people
a lot of pain, including parents of children involved in said accidents.
.
Arne, USA
.
"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message >

Post by Jon Senior
How about not hitting the ground with your head? After over 15 years of
cycling at various speeds, on various bikes, in various cities and with
a few unintentional dismounts I have yet to hit my head on anything.
OTOH I find an inch of foam attached to my skull extremely
uncomfortable.
Jon

[Jon Senior]

Post by Arne
Then don't attach it to your head. Just put it on.. I can understand how
screws would hurt.

Glue, not screws. But it still hurts to remove! ;-)

Perhaps you live somewhere where the extra warmth from your helmet is
beneficial. I don't. I overheat when riding in winter, the last thing I
need is additional insulation.

Post by Arne
It is nice that you don't plan on hitting your head. I think you should
write a paper and have it published. It would have helped those who have had
head injuries having bicycle accidents. You could have saved a lot of people
a lot of pain, including parents of children involved in said accidents.

And how many children have _not_ had accidents? How many cyclists have
_not_ had accidents? Or have had accidents but _not_ hit their head? Out
of context, you have a meaningless set of figures (Assuming that you
have any figures at all and are not just making things up!).

Secondly, it probably wouldn't "have helped those who have had head
injuries having bicycle accidents" since the range of injuries that
helmets are effective for are not life threatening.

Thirdly, how far should I take this requirement for protection from the
unforseeable? Surely my normal cycling gear should be augmented by foam
padding on all my limbs and kevlar armour for my torso since it is rare
that a fatal head injury is the only fatal injury to a cyclist who has
been involved in an accident.

By all means, protect yourself against realistic threats, but don't kid
yourself that a cycle helmet will save your life.

Jon

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Post by Arne
It is nice that you don't plan on hitting your head. I think you should
write a paper and have it published. It would have helped those who have had
head injuries having bicycle accidents.

It would sit nicely alongside those which show that helmeted cyclists
are more likely to hit their heads, wouldn't it?

Guy

[dgk]

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 12:54:45 -0000, Jon Senior

Post by Jon Senior

Post by Arne
Given the choice between hitting the ground with a bare head and hitting the
ground with something between my head and the ground, I would choose having
something beside my head hitting the ground first. It isn't real
complicated.

How about not hitting the ground with your head? After over 15 years of
cycling at various speeds, on various bikes, in various cities and with
a few unintentional dismounts I have yet to hit my head on anything.
OTOH I find an inch of foam attached to my skull extremely
uncomfortable.
Jon

That's odd. Just this morning I reached up to check if my helmet was
on. It was. Not that I care if you wear a helmet or not, but I simply
don't feel it. During the summer it can be annoying if it is warm out,
but right now I find that styrofoam insulation is a good thing.

[Jon Senior]

Post by dgk
That's odd. Just this morning I reached up to check if my helmet was
on. It was. Not that I care if you wear a helmet or not, but I simply
don't feel it. During the summer it can be annoying if it is warm out,
but right now I find that styrofoam insulation is a good thing.

My cotton roadie cap currently keeps me suitably warm (Usually
excessively warm in fact!). I can't wear it once the temperature reaches
10C, so the thought of wearing styrofoam holds little appeal.

Jon

[Peter Clinch]

Post by dgk
That's odd. Just this morning I reached up to check if my helmet was
on. It was. Not that I care if you wear a helmet or not, but I simply
don't feel it.

Been there, done that, used the event to tell myself I never noticed it
was there back when I used a lid on very cycling trip. But on longer
trips it started nagging me that the snug chinstrap was less comfortable
than no chinstrap at all, and sweat running into my eyes on big climbs
wasn't much fun either. The latter only an issue if you're doing a big
climb, granted, but the former is always an issue.

If you can't tell you've got a helmet fitted on within a couple of miles
I'd be reasonably surprised, unless you neglected to do it up. There's
also the hassle (limited, but finite) of always remembering to take it,
carrying it about, finding space for it, fumigating it after a long, hot
run, remembering to replace it every 3 or 4 years and so on. Given the
option of not bothering with all that I've come to the conclusion I
prefer not to bother with all that. A bit like putting on a flameproof
suit to do the cooking, making me a little less likely to hurt myself
than an already low figure is not the most important factor to consider.

Pete.

[Tom Sherman]

...A bit like putting on a flameproof
suit to do the cooking, making me a little less likely to hurt myself
than an already low figure is not the most important factor to consider.

The flameproof suit is intended for use while participating in
cross-posted Usenet h*lm*t discussions. Duh! ;)

[[Not Responding]]

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:51:57 -0500, dgk

Post by dgk
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 12:54:45 -0000, Jon Senior

Post by Jon Senior

Post by Arne
Given the choice between hitting the ground with a bare head and hitting the
ground with something between my head and the ground, I would choose having
something beside my head hitting the ground first. It isn't real
complicated.

How about not hitting the ground with your head? After over 15 years of
cycling at various speeds, on various bikes, in various cities and with
a few unintentional dismounts I have yet to hit my head on anything.
OTOH I find an inch of foam attached to my skull extremely
uncomfortable.
Jon

That's odd. Just this morning I reached up to check if my helmet was
on. It was. Not that I care if you wear a helmet or not, but I simply
don't feel it. During the summer it can be annoying if it is warm out,
but right now I find that styrofoam insulation is a good thing.

So you probably keep it on while walking, then. Which on balance is
the most appropriate activity to wear it; mile for mile you're more
likely to have a head injury when walking than when cycling.

[Jon Senior]

[Not Responding] ***@dev.null.invalid opined the
following...

Post by [Not Responding]
So you probably keep it on while walking, then. Which on balance is
the most appropriate activity to wear it; mile for mile you're more
likely to have a head injury when walking than when cycling.

Except that unless dgk walks with a hunch or is relatively short,
falling over will exceed its design parameters! ;-)

Jon

[dgk]

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 20:43:02 -0000, Jon Senior

Post by Jon Senior
following...

Post by [Not Responding]
So you probably keep it on while walking, then. Which on balance is
the most appropriate activity to wear it; mile for mile you're more
likely to have a head injury when walking than when cycling.

Except that unless dgk walks with a hunch or is relatively short,
falling over will exceed its design parameters! ;-)
Jon

Nope, I'm fairly tall. But having seen what happens to older members
of my family, I do have a hunch that a hunch is in my future.

[David Martin]

Post by Arne
Given the choice between hitting the ground with a bare head and hitting the
ground with something between my head and the ground, I would choose having
something beside my head hitting the ground first. It isn't real
complicated.

That's fine if your head would hit the ground first. If you have a common
situation where you land on another part of your body such as your shoulder,
that extra inch and a half would provide the difference between your head
hitting the helmet hitting the ground and your head not hitting the ground.

It is complicated. If it was simple then we'd all agree ;-)

..d

[Arne]

I'm not sure why people keep pointing to exceptions to prove a rule. It is
not the people who have been lucky enough to not hit their heads we should
be talking about... It is the people who have hit their helmetless heads
that helmets would have helped.

Using your line of thought, no one would wear their seatbelts in a car
unless they were planning on having an accident where a seat belt would help
them.

Can I assume you also have no health insurance or home insurance because you
have never been sick or never had a house fire..??
.
Arne, USA
.
"David Martin" <***@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:BDDA0798.4F4F%>

Post by David Martin
That's fine if your head would hit the ground first. If you have a common
situation where you land on another part of your body such as your shoulder,
that extra inch and a half would provide the difference between your head
hitting the helmet hitting the ground and your head not hitting the ground.
It is complicated. If it was simple then we'd all agree ;-)
..d

[Richard]

Post by Arne
I'm not sure why people keep pointing to exceptions to prove a rule. It is
not the people who have been lucky enough to not hit their heads we should
be talking about... It is the people who have hit their helmetless heads
that helmets would have helped.

You seem to be stating categorically that helmets would have helped in
every single case where people have hit their helmetless heads? Such
faith. A pity it isn't shared by the manufacturers.

R.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Post by Arne
I'm not sure why people keep pointing to exceptions to prove a rule. It is
not the people who have been lucky enough to not hit their heads we should
be talking about... It is the people who have hit their helmetless heads
that helmets would have helped.

Who might those be? Looking at time trends from countries which have
increased helmet wearing to 80% and more over a very short period, it
is not clear that there are many such people.

Guy

[Rich]

Post by Arne
I'm not sure why people keep pointing to exceptions to prove a rule. It is
not the people who have been lucky enough to not hit their heads we should
be talking about... It is the people who have hit their helmetless heads
that helmets would have helped.
Using your line of thought, no one would wear their seatbelts in a car
unless they were planning on having an accident where a seat belt would
help them.
Can I assume you also have no health insurance or home insurance because
you have never been sick or never had a house fire..??
.
Arne, USA

you are John Doe AICMFP. And you're a top-poster.

Post by Arne
.

[Tony Raven]

Post by David Martin
That's fine if your head would hit the ground first. If you have a common
situation where you land on another part of your body such as your shoulder,
that extra inch and a half would provide the difference between your head
hitting the helmet hitting the ground and your head not hitting the ground.

To say nothing of the extra weight strapped on your head far from your
neck actually making it more difficult for your neck muscles to stop
your head carrying on and hitting the ground when your shoulders have
stopped. Newton rules!

Tony

[Tony Raven]

Post by Arne
Given the choice between hitting the ground with a bare head and hitting the
ground with something between my head and the ground, I would choose having
something beside my head hitting the ground first. It isn't real
complicated.
Nice to see this is getting cross-posted.. adds to the confusion.
..
Arne, USA

Has anyone noticed this line repeatedly popping up. No sooner has one
thread run its course than another new name pops up with the exact same
argument and we start over again. Is it coincidence or planned do you
think?

Tony

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Post by Tony Raven
Has anyone noticed this line repeatedly popping up. No sooner has one
thread run its course than another new name pops up with the exact same
argument and we start over again. Is it coincidence or planned do you
think?

But Tony, surely we enjoy banging our heads against a brick wall? Why
else would we join in helmet threads?

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Tony Raven

Post by Arne
Given the choice between hitting the ground with a bare head and
hitting the ground with something between my head and the ground, I
would choose having something beside my head hitting the ground first.
It isn't real complicated.
Nice to see this is getting cross-posted.. adds to the confusion.
..
Arne, USA

Has anyone noticed this line repeatedly popping up. No sooner has one
thread run its course than another new name pops up with the exact same
argument and we start over again. Is it coincidence or planned do you
think?

We have discovered true perpetual motion!

[Gordon Mulcaster]

Post by Arne
Given the choice between hitting the ground with a bare head and hitting the
ground with something between my head and the ground, I would choose having
something beside my head hitting the ground first. It isn't real
complicated.

So I take it you wear your helmet in the shower, I mean if you slip and
fall wouldn't you prefer having something beside your head hitting the
tub first?

[Peter Clinch]

Post by Gordon Mulcaster
So I take it you wear your helmet in the shower, I mean if you slip and
fall wouldn't you prefer having something beside your head hitting the
tub first?

That would be silly, you couldn't wash your hair properly (or in a case
like mine, polish your head). However, he /should/ wear one to get in
and out of the bath, and certainly out walking. In 1995 in the UK 76
men, half under the age of 64, died from the effects of simply falling
over on the street and sidewalks. Head injuries were the most common cause.
That's more than the number of children that managed to get killed
cycling of both genders, fact fans (see
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_505588-07.hcsp
if you think I'm making this up, btw), so have a think about how
necessary cycling helmets are and if you still think they are then good
luck selling them to the pedestrians that seem to need them more...

Pete.

[dgk]

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 10:15:37 +0000, Peter Clinch

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by Gordon Mulcaster
So I take it you wear your helmet in the shower, I mean if you slip and
fall wouldn't you prefer having something beside your head hitting the
tub first?

That would be silly, you couldn't wash your hair properly (or in a case
like mine, polish your head). However, he /should/ wear one to get in
and out of the bath, and certainly out walking. In 1995 in the UK 76
men, half under the age of 64, died from the effects of simply falling
over on the street and sidewalks. Head injuries were the most common cause.
That's more than the number of children that managed to get killed
cycling of both genders, fact fans (see
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_505588-07.hcsp
if you think I'm making this up, btw), so have a think about how
necessary cycling helmets are and if you still think they are then good
luck selling them to the pedestrians that seem to need them more...
Pete.

Come on, numbers count here. It is the ratio of (children biking) /
(children biking that get head injuries) that must be compared to the
ratio of (people walking) / (people walking that get head injuries).
Absolute numbers mean nothing since far more people walk than children
bike. You're still probably right but be neat.

[Gordon Mulcaster]

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by Gordon Mulcaster
So I take it you wear your helmet in the shower, I mean if you slip and
fall wouldn't you prefer having something beside your head hitting the
tub first?

That would be silly, you couldn't wash your hair properly (or in a case
like mine, polish your head).

Wash your hair in the sink.

[Dave Larrington]

Post by Gordon Mulcaster
So I take it you wear your helmet in the shower, I mean if you slip
and fall wouldn't you prefer having something beside your head
hitting the tub first?

This is why I prefer baths to showers...

I am contmeplting taking up the wearing of a martlehat while travelling on
the Tube, thobut. Yesterday I stood up without due care and attention and
did tolchock my gulliver mightily against the roof. And it hurt.

[Tony Raven]

Post by Dave Larrington
Yesterday I stood up without due care and attention and
did tolchock my gulliver mightily against the roof.

"The very name "Gulliver" - it comes from "gull," which was a slang term
for "fool" - is meant to put the reader on notice to be wary of this
narrator's judgements."

(http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~lyman/english233/sg-GT3.htm)

Tony ;-)

[Dave Kahn]

Post by Tony Raven

Post by Dave Larrington
Yesterday I stood up without due care and attention and
did tolchock my gulliver mightily against the roof.

"The very name "Gulliver" - it comes from "gull," which was a slang term
for "fool" - is meant to put the reader on notice to be wary of this
narrator's judgements."

Not in this case. Dave was lapsing into Nadsat in which many of the
words are corruptions of Russian. "Golova" is Russian for "head".

[Jon Senior]

Post by Dave Kahn
Not in this case. Dave was lapsing into Nadsat in which many of the
words are corruptions of Russian. "Golova" is Russian for "head".

To the strains of Beethoven's Ninth!

Jon

[harv]

Post by Jon Senior

Post by Dave Kahn
Not in this case. Dave was lapsing into Nadsat in which many of the
words are corruptions of Russian. "Golova" is Russian for "head".

To the strains of Beethoven's Ninth!
Jon

Whilst wearing a codpiece, me droogies.

[DiscoDuck]

***@shaw.ca (DiscoDuck) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...

Today I rode my bike without a helmet. I am fine.
The only real risk was that posed by the Police.

I will post here EVERYDAY until I prove law proponants point (which be
defination means I will be unable to post here since I would be either
a) dead, or b) suffer a serious head injury).

I suggest everyone else do the same.

[Christopher Jordan]

AND AGAIN...
1...2....3...4....
CHILDREN BEHAVE....
1 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
|-2 Peter Clinch Nov 30, 2004
|-3 David Martin Nov 30, 2004
|-4 MSeries Nov 30, 2004
| |-5 Tony Raven Nov 30, 2004
| |-6 Dave Larrington Nov 30, 2004
| \-7 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
|-8 Just zis Guy, you know? Nov 30, 2004
| \-9 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
|   \-10 Just zis Guy, you know? Nov 30, 2004
|     |-11 Judith Wheat Nov 30, 2004
|     | \-12 JRKRideau Dec 3, 2004
|     |   \-13 Gordon Mulcaster Dec 4, 2004
|     |     |-14 David Martin Dec 4, 2004
|     |     | \-15 Gordon Mulcaster Dec 4, 2004
|     |     \-16 Joe Keenan Dec 4, 2004
|     \-17 Jon Senior Nov 30, 2004
|-18 Edward Dolan Nov 30, 2004
| \-19 Just zis Guy, you know? Nov 30, 2004
|-20 Mark Leuck Nov 30, 2004
| \-21 Tamyka Bell Nov 30, 2004
|   \-22 David Nov 30, 2004
\-23 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
  \-24 Edward Dolan Nov 30, 2004
    \-25 DiscoDuck Dec 2, 2004
      \-26 Edward Dolan Dec 2, 2004
        \-27 DiscoDuck Dec 4, 2004
          \-28 Edward Dolan Dec 5, 2004
1 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
|-2 Peter Clinch Nov 30, 2004
|-3 David Martin Nov 30, 2004
|-4 MSeries Nov 30, 2004
| |-5 Tony Raven Nov 30, 2004
| |-6 Dave Larrington Nov 30, 2004
| \-7 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
|-8 Just zis Guy, you know? Nov 30, 2004
| \-9 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
|   \-10 Just zis Guy, you know? Nov 30, 2004
|     |-11 Judith Wheat Nov 30, 2004
|     | \-12 JRKRideau Dec 3, 2004
|     |   \-13 Gordon Mulcaster Dec 4, 2004
|     |     |-14 David Martin Dec 4, 2004
|     |     | \-15 Gordon Mulcaster Dec 4, 2004
|     |     \-16 Joe Keenan Dec 4, 2004
|     \-17 Jon Senior Nov 30, 2004
|-18 Edward Dolan Nov 30, 2004
| \-19 Just zis Guy, you know? Nov 30, 2004
|-20 Mark Leuck Nov 30, 2004
| \-21 Tamyka Bell Nov 30, 2004
|   \-22 David Nov 30, 2004
\-23 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
  \-24 Edward Dolan Nov 30, 2004
    \-25 DiscoDuck Dec 2, 2004
      \-26 Edward Dolan Dec 2, 2004
        \-27 DiscoDuck Dec 4, 2004
          \-28 Edward Dolan Dec 5, 2004
1 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
|-2 Peter Clinch Nov 30, 2004
|-3 David Martin Nov 30, 2004
|-4 MSeries Nov 30, 2004
| |-5 Tony Raven Nov 30, 2004
| |-6 Dave Larrington Nov 30, 2004
| \-7 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
|-8 Just zis Guy, you know? Nov 30, 2004
| \-9 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
|   \-10 Just zis Guy, you know? Nov 30, 2004
|     |-11 Judith Wheat Nov 30, 2004
|     | \-12 JRKRideau Dec 3, 2004
|     |   \-13 Gordon Mulcaster Dec 4, 2004
|     |     |-14 David Martin Dec 4, 2004
|     |     | \-15 Gordon Mulcaster Dec 4, 2004
|     |     \-16 Joe Keenan Dec 4, 2004
|     \-17 Jon Senior Nov 30, 2004
|-18 Edward Dolan Nov 30, 2004
| \-19 Just zis Guy, you know? Nov 30, 2004
|-20 Mark Leuck Nov 30, 2004
| \-21 Tamyka Bell Nov 30, 2004
|   \-22 David Nov 30, 2004
\-23 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
  \-24 Edward Dolan Nov 30, 2004
    \-25 DiscoDuck Dec 2, 2004
      \-26 Edward Dolan Dec 2, 2004
        \-27 DiscoDuck Dec 4, 2004
          \-28 Edward Dolan Dec 5, 2004
1 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
|-2 Peter Clinch Nov 30, 2004
|-3 David Martin Nov 30, 2004
|-4 MSeries Nov 30, 2004
| |-5 Tony Raven Nov 30, 2004
| |-6 Dave Larrington Nov 30, 2004
| \-7 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
|-8 Just zis Guy, you know? Nov 30, 2004
| \-9 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
|   \-10 Just zis Guy, you know? Nov 30, 2004
|     |-11 Judith Wheat Nov 30, 2004
|     | \-12 JRKRideau Dec 3, 2004
|     |   \-13 Gordon Mulcaster Dec 4, 2004
|     |     |-14 David Martin Dec 4, 2004
|     |     | \-15 Gordon Mulcaster Dec 4, 2004
|     |     \-16 Joe Keenan Dec 4, 2004
|     \-17 Jon Senior Nov 30, 2004
|-18 Edward Dolan Nov 30, 2004
| \-19 Just zis Guy, you know? Nov 30, 2004
|-20 Mark Leuck Nov 30, 2004
| \-21 Tamyka Bell Nov 30, 2004
|   \-22 David Nov 30, 2004
\-23 DiscoDuck Nov 30, 2004
  \-24 Edward Dolan Nov 30, 2004
    \-25 DiscoDuck Dec 2, 2004
      \-26 Edward Dolan Dec 2, 2004
        \-27 DiscoDuck Dec 4, 2004
          \-28 Edward Dolan Dec 5, 2004


 

 

 

 

[f***@shaw.ca]

Plenty of content now, and previous. You're just to thick to "get it."

[DiscoDuck]

Hey Dolan,
Plenty of content now, and before. You're just too thick to "get it."

[f***@shaw.ca]

Over a week now and still going strong.
The scariest risk I had, was when I cop car drove past me. My hear
started to race faster, and I quickly turned the other way to ensure
they did not see me.
Those cops are freaken SCARY when it comes to riding without a helmet.
Terrifying.

[DiscoDuck]

Several weeks later and I am still fine.
Should we be calling the book of records since it appears I am defying
death defying odds?

Post by f***@shaw.ca
Over a week now and still going strong.
The scariest risk I had, was when I cop car drove past me. My hear
started to race faster, and I quickly turned the other way to ensure
they did not see me.
Those cops are freaken SCARY when it comes to riding without a

helmet.

Post by f***@shaw.ca
Terrifying.

[Eric®]

Post by DiscoDuck
Several weeks later and I am still fine.
Should we be calling the book of records since it appears I am defying
death defying odds?

I broke my index finger on the right hand while sliding and crashing on
an icy trail 2 weeks ago. Using studded tires & a helmet.

Eric Schild

[DiscoDuck]

ERIC, YOU FOOL!!!!
EVERYONE KNOWS YOU SHOULD BE WEARING STEEL GLOVES WHILE CYCLING.
I hope you didn't seek medical treatment as why the hell should my tax
dollars pay for your idiocy.
tsk tsk tsk.

[Theo Bekkers]

Post by Eric®
I broke my index finger on the right hand while sliding and crashing
on an icy trail 2 weeks ago. Using studded tires & a helmet.

Was the helmet or the tyre the reason you broke your finger?

I snapped a tendon in my ring finger last year falling off an arbor I was
building in the front yard. I wasn't wearing a helmet.

Theo

[DiscoDuck]

Weeks have gone by and I am STILL alive and unharmed.

[DiscoDuck]

STILL alive unharmed.
Can someone explain to me how this is possible since cycling is
supposed to be so risky according to helmet law proponents?

[Marty Wallace]

Post by DiscoDuck
STILL alive unharmed.
Can someone explain to me how this is possible since cycling is
supposed to be so risky according to helmet law proponents?

Go troll in some other place you DROPKICK.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Marty Wallace
Go troll in some other place you DROPKICK.

Hurts to be wrong so you resort to calling me a "Troll". LOL

[dkahn400]

Post by DiscoDuck
STILL alive unharmed.
Can someone explain to me how this is possible since cycling is
supposed to be so risky according to helmet law proponents?

Your sample size of one is too small to be statistically significant.
I've been riding for decades without a helmet and I'm still alive as of
this morning. That doesn't mean anything either.

[DiscoDuck]

Actually it means a lot. It means the risks have been blown
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of proportion.
According to proponents, I should be dead by now or at least suffered a
severe head injury. OR at least see legions of victims lying on the
side of the road on a daily basis.

How many people do you know that have suffered head injuries as a
result of cycling?

[dgk]

Post by DiscoDuck
Actually it means a lot. It means the risks have been blown
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of proportion.
According to proponents, I should be dead by now or at least suffered a
severe head injury. OR at least see legions of victims lying on the
side of the road on a daily basis.
How many people do you know that have suffered head injuries as a
result of cycling?

I realize that helmet laws are the religious argument in bicycling and
have pretty well avoided the threads, but I'm curious about something.
I've always worn a helmet simply because it seems logical that it
would provide some element of protection on the off chance that my
head makes contact with a hard object, say the street.

I realize, just from osmosis while reading the newsgroups, that the
statistics pushing mandatory helmet laws are less than definitive.
Perhaps it is even just another case of government acting as a shill
for corporate sales. That is pretty much how I view the US government
anyway. But are you making the point that I am LESS SAFE by wearing a
helmet?

[dkahn400]

Post by dgk
I realize, just from osmosis while reading the newsgroups, that the
statistics pushing mandatory helmet laws are less than definitive.
Perhaps it is even just another case of government acting as a shill
for corporate sales. That is pretty much how I view the US
government anyway. But are you making the point that I am LESS SAFE
by wearing a helmet?

Don't panic! Cycling is a safe form of transport with or without a
helmet. To suggest that you are less safe with a helmet than without
one is contentious, but there are plausible mechanisms by which it may
be so. I happen to think you are slightly less safe (but still
acceptably safe) with a helmet than without one for normal riding in
traffic. But that's a personal view based on the balance of the
evidence I'm aware of, and I could be wrong.

<http://www.cyclehelmets.org/> is a good place to get the
helmet-skeptic viewpoint.

[TimC]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 at 14:25 GMT, dkahn400 (aka Bruce)

Post by dkahn400

Post by dgk
I realize, just from osmosis while reading the newsgroups, that the
statistics pushing mandatory helmet laws are less than definitive.
Perhaps it is even just another case of government acting as a shill
for corporate sales. That is pretty much how I view the US
government anyway. But are you making the point that I am LESS SAFE
by wearing a helmet?

Don't panic! Cycling is a safe form of transport with or without a
helmet. To suggest that you are less safe with a helmet than without
one is contentious, but there are plausible mechanisms by which it may
be so. I happen to think you are slightly less safe (but still
acceptably safe) with a helmet than without one for normal riding in
traffic. But that's a personal view based on the balance of the
evidence I'm aware of, and I could be wrong.

Of course, then there are people who have personal experience that
suggest that it was lucky of them to be wearing a helmet.

In my case, I had luck on my side twice.

I don't care what anyone else does (although I still laugh at people
who have carefully placed their helmet on their brake lever -- stops
them damaging the brake if they need to actually use it; incidentally,
I've only noticed an increase of non helmet mirrors over the last
couple of weeks -- did kids and adults alike get a bike as a present,
but someone forgot to give 'em a helmet?), but I'm wearing a helmet.

[Tony Raven]

Post by TimC
but I'm wearing a helmet.

But being in Australia you do not have a choice about it.

Tony

[John Tserkezis]

Post by Tony Raven

Post by TimC
but I'm wearing a helmet.

But being in Australia you do not have a choice about it.

Plenty of people here choose to break the law..

The police here in sydney (australia) are generally accepting of this
"option". I've passed many a copper without even a glance, and only stopped on
my recumbent trike once.

They appeared more interested in the trike and lack of flag rather than the
lack of helmet.

I generally don't make a habit of it, but sometimes I put the helmet down
somewhere at work and forget about it on the way out.

[TimC]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 at 22:45 GMT, I was almost, but not quite,

Post by TimC
I don't care what anyone else does (although I still laugh at people
who have carefully placed their helmet on their brake lever -- stops
them damaging the brake if they need to actually use it; incidentally,
I've only noticed an increase of non helmet mirrors over the last

^^^^^^^

Post by TimC
couple of weeks -- did kids and adults alike get a bike as a present,
but someone forgot to give 'em a helmet?), but I'm wearing a helmet.

Eh? I wonder what I had on my mind at the time? Too much lisp, by the
looks of my sentence structure.

Anyway - substitute "use" for "mirrors" :)

[DiscoDuck]

Post by TimC
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 at 14:25 GMT, dkahn400 (aka Bruce)

Post by dkahn400

Post by dgk
I realize, just from osmosis while reading the newsgroups, that the
statistics pushing mandatory helmet laws are less than definitive.
Perhaps it is even just another case of government acting as a shill
for corporate sales. That is pretty much how I view the US
government anyway. But are you making the point that I am LESS SAFE
by wearing a helmet?

Don't panic! Cycling is a safe form of transport with or without a
helmet. To suggest that you are less safe with a helmet than

without

Post by TimC

Post by dkahn400
one is contentious, but there are plausible mechanisms by which it may
be so. I happen to think you are slightly less safe (but still
acceptably safe) with a helmet than without one for normal riding in
traffic. But that's a personal view based on the balance of the
evidence I'm aware of, and I could be wrong.

Of course, then there are people who have personal experience that
suggest that it was lucky of them to be wearing a helmet.
In my case, I had luck on my side twice.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it wasn't luck-it was the odds. EVEN
WITH an accident the chances are EXTREMLEY low you will suffer a head
injury.

Post by TimC
I don't care what anyone else does (although I still laugh at people
who have carefully placed their helmet on their brake lever -- stops
them damaging the brake if they need to actually use it;

incidentally,

Post by TimC
I've only noticed an increase of non helmet mirrors over the last
couple of weeks -- did kids and adults alike get a bike as a present,
but someone forgot to give 'em a helmet?), but I'm wearing a helmet.

Beautiful-the law happens to coincide with your choice. The beauty of
choice is that both sides can have it their way. The present way
prohibits choice.

[TimC]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 at 17:42 GMT, DiscoDuck (aka Bruce)

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by TimC
Of course, then there are people who have personal experience that
suggest that it was lucky of them to be wearing a helmet.
In my case, I had luck on my side twice.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it wasn't luck-it was the odds. EVEN
WITH an accident the chances are EXTREMLEY low you will suffer a head
injury.

Um. In the cases I reference, my head was either the thing that hit
the ground first, or the thing that became the subject of a steering
wheel lock. You can see what happened to the helmet in the latter, in
some photos I posted earlier. I nevertheless, still had headaches for
a month afterwards.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by TimC
Um. In the cases I reference, my head was either the thing that hit
the ground first, or the thing that became the subject of a steering
wheel lock. You can see what happened to the helmet in the latter, in
some photos I posted earlier. I nevertheless, still had headaches for
a month afterwards.

And that is a reason to remove choice for all cyclists?

[TimC]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 at 01:31 GMT, DiscoDuck (aka Bruce)

Post by DiscoDuck

Post by TimC
Um. In the cases I reference, my head was either the thing that hit
the ground first, or the thing that became the subject of a steering
wheel lock. You can see what happened to the helmet in the latter,

in

Post by TimC
some photos I posted earlier. I nevertheless, still had headaches

for

Post by TimC
a month afterwards.

And that is a reason to remove choice for all cyclists?

I said earlier that I don't give a shit whether you wear a helmet or
not. I will laugh at people whose bike's brake lever wears a helmet,
but I don't demand that you do or don't.

Just mentioning the two occasions I was glad I was wearing one, in
order to give undecided cyclists an extra data point.

I happen to consider it a stage of evolution. Those who make
themselves more suited to survive riding a bicycle, with its inherent
risks, get to live on. If you don't wear a helmet, and you crash and
become a vegetable, you're doing us all a favour, in the long term.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by TimC
I said earlier that I don't give a shit whether you wear a helmet or
not. I will laugh at people whose bike's brake lever wears a helmet,
but I don't demand that you do or don't.
Just mentioning the two occasions I was glad I was wearing one, in
order to give undecided cyclists an extra data point.
I happen to consider it a stage of evolution. Those who make
themselves more suited to survive riding a bicycle, with its inherent
risks, get to live on. If you don't wear a helmet, and you crash and
become a vegetable, you're doing us all a favour, in the long term.

And why is that?
You are assuming the number of injured people is enough to make a
difference in the evolutionary process. It does not. If cancer
doesn't, then neither doee head injuries from cycling (nor all head
injuries combined).

It's good you don't agree with the law, but I am afraid you are
misleading about the volume of injuries. They are exceedingly rare.
Don't let ANYONE tell you otherwise.
Don't take my word for it, research it yourself. More people win the
lottery each year.

[TimC]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 at 07:35 GMT, DiscoDuck (aka Bruce)

Post by DiscoDuck
It's good you don't agree with the law, but I am afraid you are
misleading about the volume of injuries. They are exceedingly rare.
Don't let ANYONE tell you otherwise.
Don't take my word for it, research it yourself. More people win the
lottery each year.

I've done my research! To the point of getting my helmet involved in
2 accidents! Very 1st person research, if you ask me -- no lab rat
research for me :)

[Tony Raven]

Post by TimC
I've done my research! To the point of getting my helmet involved in
2 accidents! Very 1st person research, if you ask me -- no lab rat
research for me :)

An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician were travelling together
from Sydney to Melbourne for a conference. As they crossed the border
into Victoria the astronomer looked out the window and, spotting a
black sheep, said to his companions "Would you look at that, all the
sheep in Victoria are black!" "That's rubbish" replied the physicist,
"with your observation all you can say is there are black sheep in
Victoria". "You're both wrong" growled the mathematician. "All you can
say is that in Victoria there is at least one field in which there is at
least one sheep of which at least one side is black"

You are an astronomer and ICMFD

Tony ;-)

[TimC]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 at 10:27 GMT, Tony Raven (aka Bruce)

Post by Tony Raven
An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician were travelling together
from Sydney to Melbourne for a conference. As they crossed the border
into Victoria the astronomer looked out the window and, spotting a
black sheep, said to his companions "Would you look at that, all the
sheep in Victoria are black!" "That's rubbish" replied the physicist,
"with your observation all you can say is there are black sheep in
Victoria". "You're both wrong" growled the mathematician. "All you can
say is that in Victoria there is at least one field in which there is at
least one sheep of which at least one side is black"

Why, that's entirely unfair! Just yesterday, I got some simulation
results that agreed with observation within an order of magnitude.
Just after I do some sanity checks on it, we are going to rush out a
paper, because the results are so exciting!

I demand you change that to "based on this sample of one, most of the
sheep in Victoria are black".

[DiscoDuck]

Post by TimC
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 at 07:35 GMT, DiscoDuck (aka Bruce)

Post by DiscoDuck
It's good you don't agree with the law, but I am afraid you are
misleading about the volume of injuries. They are exceedingly rare.
Don't let ANYONE tell you otherwise.
Don't take my word for it, research it yourself. More people win the
lottery each year.

I've done my research! To the point of getting my helmet involved in
2 accidents! Very 1st person research, if you ask me -- no lab rat
research for me :)

But again you have evaded the question, that is a reason to remove the
choice for everyone?

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 01:40:31 GMT someone who may be TimC

Post by TimC
I happen to consider it a stage of evolution. Those who make
themselves more suited to survive riding a bicycle, with its inherent
risks, get to live on. If you don't wear a helmet, and you crash and
become a vegetable, you're doing us all a favour, in the long term.

It is reassuring that those who believe in plastic hats resort to
such "arguments".

[David Martin]

On 20/1/05 1:40 am, in article

Post by TimC
I happen to consider it a stage of evolution. Those who make
themselves more suited to survive riding a bicycle, with its inherent
risks, get to live on. If you don't wear a helmet, and you crash and
become a vegetable, you're doing us all a favour, in the long term.

And if you crash whilst wearing a helmet?

Didn't someone mutter something about 'cargo cult science' a short while
back?

..d

[Richard]

Post by TimC
I happen to consider it a stage of evolution. Those who make
themselves more suited to survive riding a bicycle, with its inherent
risks, get to live on. If you don't wear a helmet, and you crash and
become a vegetable, you're doing us all a favour, in the long term.

No doubt you will be able to point to a case where a cyclist suffered
irreparable serious brain damage, and a specialist doctor stated
categorically that they would not have done so had they been wearing a
helmet?

[Tom Sherman]

...
Don't panic!...

And remember your towel.

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:05:20 -0500 someone who may be dgk

Post by dgk
I realize, just from osmosis while reading the newsgroups, that the
statistics pushing mandatory helmet laws are less than definitive.
[snip] But are you making the point that I am LESS SAFE by wearing a
helmet?

You could be for one of two reasons:

1) Risk compensation (which can be looked up on any search engine),
both by yourself and by others.

2) Rotational injuries (ditto).

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ is a good place to start on the
subject.

[DiscoDuck]

Please quote where I said that (less safe).

IF you want to wear a suit of armor, you have a choice. With bicycle
helmets no such choice exists.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by dgk
I realize, just from osmosis while reading the newsgroups, that the
statistics pushing mandatory helmet laws are less than definitive.
Perhaps it is even just another case of government acting as a shill
for corporate sales. That is pretty much how I view the US government
anyway. But are you making the point that I am LESS SAFE by wearing a
helmet?

Please quote where I suggested that (less safe).

IF you want to wear a suit of armor, you have a choice. With bicycle
helmets no such choice exists.

[DiscoDuck]

Post by dgk
I realize, just from osmosis while reading the newsgroups, that the
statistics pushing mandatory helmet laws are less than definitive.
Perhaps it is even just another case of government acting as a shill
for corporate sales. That is pretty much how I view the US government
anyway. But are you making the point that I am LESS SAFE by wearing a
helmet?

Still waiting for the area were you felt I suggested that, so I can
clarify.

[DiscoDuck]

Still riding and alive. Only close call wasa cop who I avoided like
the plague (can't tell the good from the bored).

[Edward Dolan]

Post by DiscoDuck
Still riding and alive. Only close call wasa cop who I avoided like
the plague (can't tell the good from the bored).

Hey, DiscoDuck, you old son of gun, I mean you stupid jackass - still at it
I see. Hells Bells, you do not ever need to wear a helmet as your skull is
most likely made of tempered steel just like your brain.

It seems no one will respond anymore to my totally outrageous posts, so I
will see what I can dredge up on all those groups you are posting to. We
here on ARBR are way too smart for numskulls like you, but it may be that
these other groups that you are posting to are NOT composed of idiots like
you. I think we all know by now know that bc.cycling can't be much, but the
uk and nyc can't be as stupid as you are. Aus.bicycle has proven to be a
disappointment to me (they all violate their helmet laws and think nothing
of it), but then nothing can began to compare to ARBR, a newsgroup that is
composed of mature and wise cyclists (with a few exceptions) par excellence
who obey the laws even when they disagree with them. What a scofflaw and a
totally reprehensible human being you are.

Why are most Canadians so incredibly stupid? Has the North frozen their
brains?

[Colin B.]

Are you sure that you don't work for the Fraser Institute as you know
nothing about proper surveys? You sample size of one proves nothing.

Post by DiscoDuck
Actually it means a lot. It means the risks have been blown
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of proportion.
According to proponents, I should be dead by now or at least
suffered a
severe head injury. OR at least see legions of victims lying on the
side of the road on a daily basis.
How many people do you know that have suffered head injuries as a
result of cycling?

[DiscoDuck]

Post by Colin B.
Are you sure that you don't work for the Fraser Institute as you know
nothing about proper surveys? You sample size of one proves nothing.

No I do not work for the Fraser institute (nor am familiar with them.
However it seems you perceive them as s threat) but have taken
Quantitative methods.

One of the things taught is a "sanity" test. That is ensure your
results indicate what you know is true-usually provable by common
sense. Common sense indicates your chances of a head injury are
literally infinitesimal. I would guess in the MILLIONS to one. I am
not sure how you or anyone else can disagree with that-yet you do.

[Not Responding]

Post by DiscoDuck
Actually it means a lot. It means the risks have been blown
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of proportion.
According to proponents, I should be dead by now or at least suffered a
severe head injury. OR at least see legions of victims lying on the
side of the road on a daily basis.
How many people do you know that have suffered head injuries as a
result of cycling?

Er, me?

The hospital, I'm sure, has me down as "unhelmeted cyclist, head
injuries". Fortunately the human skull is made of sterner stuff than
polystyrene hats and, scarring and a short mid-road kip aside, I'm fine.

[Edward Dolan]

Post by Not Responding

Post by DiscoDuck
Actually it means a lot. It means the risks have been blown
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of proportion.
According to proponents, I should be dead by now or at least suffered a
severe head injury. OR at least see legions of victims lying on the
side of the road on a daily basis.
How many people do you know that have suffered head injuries as a
result of cycling?

Er, me?
The hospital, I'm sure, has me down as "unhelmeted cyclist, head
injuries". Fortunately the human skull is made of sterner stuff than
polystyrene hats and, scarring and a short mid-road kip aside, I'm fine.

You bet! As if a helmet wouldn't have given you some protection. But Hey! Go
ahead and continue to ride your bike without wearing a helmet and maybe next
time you will get your just deserts - death. Anyone as stupid as you who
does not learn from experience does not deserve to live, let alone to be
posting your nonsense to ARBR.

[JLB]

Edward Dolan ranted hysterically:
[snip]

Post by Edward Dolan
You bet! As if a helmet wouldn't have given you some protection. But Hey! Go
ahead and continue to ride your bike without wearing a helmet and maybe next
time you will get your just deserts - death.

So - lets get this clear - someone who does not die deserves death as
their just reward for living. Right.

Anyone as stupid as you who

Post by Edward Dolan
does not learn from experience does not deserve to live, let alone to be
posting your nonsense to ARBR.

Whereas someone as stupid as you: too clue-proof to understand any of
the the various studies that have been cited; any of the evidence that
is available; any of the conclusive demonstrations of the very limited
difference it makes to anyone's survival chances if they strap a feeble
lump of expanded polystyrene on top of their head; you are the shining
example and authority we should follow. Yeh, right.