Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Death rate VS vegetable rate

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Death rate VS vegetable rate

Old 02-18-19, 09:23 PM
  #26  
AlmostTrick
Tortoise Wins by a Hare!
 
AlmostTrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Looney Tunes, IL
Posts: 6,559

Bikes: Wabi Special FG, Raleigh Roper, Nashbar AL-1, Miyata One Hundred, '68 Schwinn Orange Krate, and More!!

Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1127 Post(s)
Liked 158 Times in 99 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
I really didn’t think it was that hard, but ……



Those statements put them squarely in the “The others are simple saying, "Make your own choices, I will make mine" camp.

See what happens when you are so eager to make snide remarks, you don’t actually think much?
Wait a minute...

Fact is, the two camps seem to be "I want to wear a helmet, therefore everyone should be forced to," and "I choose to continue to ride without every conceivable bit of safety gear, and since I am still riding more than five decades after I started, I'd have to say the evidence of my existence proves that wrist, elbow, hip, shoulder, and head pads are Not necessary to cyclists' survival."
Your second camp doesn't wear a helmet. Apparently you forgot at least one camp!

Extra points for taking a swipe at VC in a helmet thread. I can't say I've ever thought of doing that.

Hey, if we can't have a little fun in a helmet thread what can we do? Pedal On!
AlmostTrick is offline  
Old 02-18-19, 09:46 PM
  #27  
jon c. 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 3,794
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1022 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 69 Times in 45 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
Please quote three posts where the posters said helmets do not ever make the slightest difference in any situation.
.
That was intended as a bit of rhetorical hyperbole, but how about:

"Actually, there's a very strong correlation between helmet wearing and danger for the cyclist. It's not causation and it has probably more to do with other factors, but the numbers simply don't support the claim that a helmet makes cycling safer. "

I could find others, but I really don't care that much. I just find the extent to which people will go to justify not wearing a helmet to be amusing. It's like the folks who argue against using lights because lights aren't going to stop a car from hitting you. An interesting facet of the human condition.
jon c. is offline  
Old 02-18-19, 10:09 PM
  #28  
venturi95
Woof!
 
venturi95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NorCal
Posts: 423

Bikes: Breezer Venturi, Lemond Ti, Santa Cruz Blur, Soma Saga, Miyata Colorado

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 4 Posts
In the late 70s, when nobody wore a helmet unless racing, my friend went down fast and hard on his head. We were just starting to accelerate on a downhill, he hit a little bump and his hands slipped off the drops. I was drafting him close and almost got caught up in his crash. He took a little chip out of his scalp and was seeing black and white for a minute. I have cracked a couple helmets in accidents. Do whatever you want, I don't always wear a helmet (commuting, dog frolicking, grocery errand, etc.).
venturi95 is offline  
Old 02-19-19, 01:23 AM
  #29  
avole
Banned.
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: France
Posts: 1,031

Bikes: Brompton, Time, Bianchi, Jan Janssen, Peugeot

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 598 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by 86az135i View Post


Wow. So inconveniencing people, and assaulting people is somehow comparable to not wearing a helmet?

So when is the part where you offer any reasonable argument to forcefully telling people what’s right for them?
Of course not! I was attempting to show people like you that in virtually no circumstances do we have real freedom of choice, for different reasons. Yes; it is illegal to ram a hamburger down someones's throat, but why was it declared such - laws are intended to maintain standards of behaviour and protect the public, as defined by the legislators. Ask yourself how you learnt not to do that, or make huge amounts of noise in a cinema if the film is crap? The second example certainly starts as peer pressure, which is how we learn many things. It may also be banned in the cinema, I don't know. The third example is seat belts, which have had a dramatically positive effect since their introduction, and is a direct parallel with helmets. Few even think that their freedom of choice is being restricted, buckling up is automatic, as you know. The law is there for safety reasons alone, freedom of choice was never a consideration. Surely even you can't disagree with that.

In an ideal society, where people took responsibility for their actions, we would not need so many laws.
avole is offline  
Old 02-19-19, 02:27 AM
  #30  
downhillmaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 480 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 161 Times in 86 Posts
OP does not know the meaning of the word conflate, was originally unable to count to eight, and started another dopey helmet thread.
My choice for this years triple crown winner
downhillmaster is offline  
Old 02-19-19, 07:14 AM
  #31  
base2 
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
base2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 983

Bikes: N+1

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 516 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 69 Times in 48 Posts
Originally Posted by downhillmaster View Post
OP does not know the meaning of the word conflate, was originally unable to count to eight, and started another dopey helmet thread.
My choice for this years triple crown winner
Conflate
Con·flate (kən-flāt′)

tr.v. con·flat·ed, con·flat·ing, con·flates

1. To bring together; meld or fuse.

2. To combine (two variant texts, for example) into one whole.

3. To fail to distinguish between; confuse.

I'm pretty sure I used the word correctly.
Thus far, aside from posts #18 & #20 Lots of words have been wrote, but little said on the topic.

Though the humor in posts #5 & #7 is appreciated.
base2 is offline  
Old 02-19-19, 07:37 AM
  #32  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 11,472

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 137 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5472 Post(s)
Liked 121 Times in 82 Posts
You may have understood the meaning of the word “conflate” according to the dictionary but you still used it wrong, and the question you asked is meaningless.

Originally Posted by base2 View Post
So my actual question is: "Why do people, usually the anti-helmet crowd, but not always, tend to conflate brain injury statistics with death statistics?"
Nonsense.

Please show examples.

Specific citations? No?

What the problem here is, is that there are No real statistics about helmet-wearers’ injuries. There is data about how many of the few people who die on bikes are wearing helmets but nothing on how they died … let alone any mention of people who were injured.

Therefore it is Impossible to “conflate” statistics on brain injury and death. There are no such statistics.

What you are trying to say is that some people act as though only fatalities are counted …. Which is true.

But here is the problem: when people say that wearing a helmet should be mandatory because of evidence that helmets save lives, (not just prevent scalp scrapes in low-speed tip-overs) There Is No Evidence to support that.

But even thought it would be intellectually more honest, “Helmets prevent scalp scrapes and forehead bruises” is a much weaker position rhetorically. Therefore, those people who want to make helmets mandatory, pretend that there is some sort of evidence showing that helmets save lives.

Do helmets save lives? Possibly. How often? No One Can Ever Know. There is no way to recreate an accident to run through it once with a helmet and once without. Some people are certain that they would have died had they not been wearing helmets … and some people are certain the Earth is flat.

I don’t recall ever seeing rational, accurate data supporting the idea that helmets are dangerous (though I have seen nonsense about increased risk-taking—Wholly unsubstantiated.)

Neither have I seen data showing conclusively that any number of cyclists would either survive crashes, or would avoid TBI, if they were wearing helmets.

I have not even seen data about how many cyclists hit their heads in crashes. I know that in more than 50 decades of riding I have hit my head twice—once when traveling about two mph (no likelihood of death or serious brain injury (and the first person who says “you can get TBI from falling while walking” had best where a helmet every waking moment or else is a complete hypocrite,)) and once while traveling about 18 mph, when I broke my collarbone. I didn’t hit my head hard enough to even have a lump or a headache. I just noticed that my head brushed the pavement after my bone broke (literally) my fall, and vice versa.

In every other collision, many involving cars (in the far distant past,) I have hit and hurt about every part of me Except my head.

This is why I agreed that data such as you are seeking would be interesting.

But, please … since you complain about all the worthless words which have been written … prove that your question is not worthless.

Please explain how “Why do people, usually the anti-helmet crowd, but not always, tend to conflate brain injury statistics with death statistics?" is Worth a meaningful response.

Please show examples where people “conflated” these two data sources. Please show us where You found both data sources. If you are going to posit an "anti-helmet crowd,” please show exactly what that means and list all the members by name, since you claim to have actually read and digested their posts and come up with this theory of “conflation” of imaginary data.

But be a little careful. I have Never seen an “anti-helmet” post. I have seen posts against Mandatory helmets but never against helmets per se.

If you have, please quote those posts as well.

You might have done well to have walked away from this thread a long time ago.
Maelochs is offline  
Old 02-19-19, 07:49 AM
  #33  
ridelikeaturtle
Senior Member
 
ridelikeaturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 745

Bikes: Bianchi Ti Megatube, M Alloy Pro, Sprint 76; Amp Research B4; Colnago Crystal; Klein Pulse; Litespeed Catalyst, Fondriest Squadra Corse

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 330 Post(s)
Liked 63 Times in 47 Posts
Anyone else tired of this ignorant, anecdote-laden, rambling, individualistic, selfish, libertarian-utopia BS? As if one's actions have no impact on others. "Nothing should be mandatory, because /personal freedom!/"

Seriously, arguing about whether or not helmets save lives? Unbelievable.
ridelikeaturtle is offline  
Old 02-19-19, 07:58 AM
  #34  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 11,472

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 137 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5472 Post(s)
Liked 121 Times in 82 Posts
Originally Posted by ridelikeaturtle View Post
Anyone else tired of this ignorant, anecdote-laden, rambling, individualistic, selfish, libertarian-utopia BS? As if one's actions have no impact on others. "Nothing should be mandatory, because /personal freedom!/"

Seriously, arguing about whether or not helmets save lives? Unbelievable.
Care to offer proof? Not anecdotes, which you shun. Actual proof? How many lives over how many accidents? How many serious injuries are reduced and by how much?

If you are tired of this thread ... there are others.
Maelochs is offline  
Old 02-19-19, 08:06 AM
  #35  
ridelikeaturtle
Senior Member
 
ridelikeaturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 745

Bikes: Bianchi Ti Megatube, M Alloy Pro, Sprint 76; Amp Research B4; Colnago Crystal; Klein Pulse; Litespeed Catalyst, Fondriest Squadra Corse

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 330 Post(s)
Liked 63 Times in 47 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
Care to offer proof? Not anecdotes, which you shun. Actual proof? How many lives over how many accidents? How many serious injuries are reduced and by how much?

If you are tired of this thread ... there are others.
The efficacy of bicycle helmets (in the reduction of transfer of g-forces to the head) is so well-established, only a fool would argue against that. But go ahead if you like.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/24/1/55.full.pdf

... and all the references listed therein.
ridelikeaturtle is offline  
Old 02-19-19, 08:08 AM
  #36  
base2 
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
base2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 983

Bikes: N+1

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 516 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 69 Times in 48 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
You may have understood the meaning of the word “conflate” according to the dictionary but you still used it wrong, and the question you asked is meaningless.

Nonsense.

Please show examples.

Specific citations? No?

What the problem here is, is that there are No real statistics about helmet-wearers’ injuries. There is data about how many of the few people who die on bikes are wearing helmets but nothing on how they died … let alone any mention of people who were injured.

Therefore it is Impossible to “conflate” statistics on brain injury and death. There are no such statistics.

What you are trying to say is that some people act as though only fatalities are counted …. Which is true.

But here is the problem: when people say that wearing a helmet should be mandatory because of evidence that helmets save lives, (not just prevent scalp scrapes in low-speed tip-overs) There Is No Evidence to support that.

But even thought it would be intellectually more honest, “Helmets prevent scalp scrapes and forehead bruises” is a much weaker position rhetorically. Therefore, those people who want to make helmets mandatory, pretend that there is some sort of evidence showing that helmets save lives.

Do helmets save lives? Possibly. How often? No One Can Ever Know. There is no way to recreate an accident to run through it once with a helmet and once without. Some people are certain that they would have died had they not been wearing helmets … and some people are certain the Earth is flat.

I don’t recall ever seeing rational, accurate data supporting the idea that helmets are dangerous (though I have seen nonsense about increased risk-taking—Wholly unsubstantiated.)

Neither have I seen data showing conclusively that any number of cyclists would either survive crashes, or would avoid TBI, if they were wearing helmets.

I have not even seen data about how many cyclists hit their heads in crashes. I know that in more than 50 decades of riding I have hit my head twice—once when traveling about two mph (no likelihood of death or serious brain injury (and the first person who says “you can get TBI from falling while walking” had best where a helmet every waking moment or else is a complete hypocrite,)) and once while traveling about 18 mph, when I broke my collarbone. I didn’t hit my head hard enough to even have a lump or a headache. I just noticed that my head brushed the pavement after my bone broke (literally) my fall, and vice versa.

In every other collision, many involving cars (in the far distant past,) I have hit and hurt about every part of me Except my head.

This is why I agreed that data such as you are seeking would be interesting.

But, please … since you complain about all the worthless words which have been written … prove that your question is not worthless.

Please explain how “Why do people, usually the anti-helmet crowd, but not always, tend to conflate brain injury statistics with death statistics?" is Worth a meaningful response.

Please show examples where people “conflated” these two data sources. Please show us where You found both data sources. If you are going to posit an "anti-helmet crowd,” please show exactly what that means and list all the members by name, since you claim to have actually read and digested their posts and come up with this theory of “conflation” of imaginary data.

But be a little careful. I have Never seen an “anti-helmet” post. I have seen posts against Mandatory helmets but never against helmets per se.

If you have, please quote those posts as well.

You might have done well to have walked away from this thread a long time ago.
Maalox: The stats are obvious if you will draw a corrolary between motorcycle and a bicycle. If you are too lazy to go to NHTSA of CDC to look at the data yourself, & see the corrolation between an exposed rider on a 2 wheeled vehicle in traffic, then theres not much I can do for you.

You're posts are dense, ideological, and miss the point. We are cut from the same cloth, you & I. But please come up with more than "show me the data." Discussing data is not what I am interested in in this thread. In fact, I don't give an eff about the data in this thread. This thread is not about the data. Nor is it about helmet use.

This thread is about how/why people arrive at a conclusion they already seem agree with. I provided 8 examples of mishap conditions, then upon further review, 2 additional "normal" conditions.

It seems to me people weight the 2 "normal" conditions more heavily in their risk assessment. Some of both camps will bend over backwards to defend their conclusion. I get it.

If you disagree with the premise or assessment of the grouping of both camps, just say so. I gather, in your assessment, all people are logical, rational, thinking creatures, & it boils down to "authoritarian controllers bent on orthodoxy" and "freedom loving anti-authoritian defenders of liberty?"
O.k. fair point. For you, the reason you make the decisions you do is "anti-authoritian defender of liberty." And your justification is "absence of acceptable conclusive data."

You sure took A LOT of posts & words to get there.
base2 is offline  
Old 02-19-19, 08:36 AM
  #37  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 11,472

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 137 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5472 Post(s)
Liked 121 Times in 82 Posts
Originally Posted by base2 View Post
Maalox: The stats are obvious if you will draw a corrolary between motorcycle and a bicycle. If you are too lazy to go to NHTSA of CDC to look at the data yourself, & see the corrolation between an exposed rider on a 2 wheeled vehicle in traffic, then theres not much I can do for you.
and if you cannot see the difference between a vehicle which regularly travels at 60 mph versus one which rrarely exceeds 20 mph … likewise.

Originally Posted by base2 View Post
This thread is not about the data.
Originally Posted by base2 View Post
So, in order to facilitate useful discussion & to adress the issue of stats, we can classify or define any cycling mishap in one of 8 catagories.

With helmet, lives, brain injury.
With helmet, dies, brain injury.
With out helmet lives, brain injury.
With out helmet, dies, brain injury.
With helmet, lives, no brain injury.
With helmet, dies, no brain injury.
With out helmet, lives, no brain injury.
With out helmet, dies, no brain injury.
You are talking about classifying data in ther initial post of a thread you claim is not about data. Let me emphasize: “to adress the issue of stats” Remember typing that?
Originally Posted by base2 View Post
Nor is it about helmet use.
In which case removing all references to hemlmets shouldn’t change the meaning of the thread, right? Oh, wait … this the read is Entirely about helmets and statistics regarding death and injury while wearing or not wearing helmets.

That is All it is about.

Originally Posted by base2 View Post
This thread is about how/why people arrive at a conclusion they already seem agree with. I provided 8 examples of mishap conditions, then upon further review, 2 additional "normal" conditions.
The only person who has “arrived at a conclusion” in this thread is you, to whit:

Originally Posted by base2 View Post
So my actual question is: "Why do people, usually the anti-helmet crowd, but not always, tend to conflate brain injury statistics with death statistics?"
You arrived at the conclusion there stated. No else said they did that, no one else reached any ‘conclusion” about the different data you claim people are conflating. That is All You.

I have stated repeatedly what I actually think, but since it doesn’t fit your prejudice, you continue to ignore it.

Originally Posted by base2 View Post
For you, the reason you make the decisions you do is "anti-authoritian defender of liberty." And your justification is "absence of acceptable conclusive data."
And there you go, lying again to try to win a debate, rather than having an honest discussion.

At no time did I say that. That is Your Inferrence, Your Conclusion.

I am out. If you ever want to have an honest discussion I am around. If you need to deny what you posted, invent ideas and attribute them to others, and deliberately mis-state others’ positions to “win” an internet debate … please don’t bother. It is a waste of your life.

Live as well as you can.
Maelochs is offline  
Old 02-19-19, 08:52 AM
  #38  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 11,472

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 137 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5472 Post(s)
Liked 121 Times in 82 Posts
Originally Posted by ridelikeaturtle View Post
The efficacy of bicycle helmets (in the reduction of transfer of g-forces to the head) is so well-established, only a fool would argue against that. But go ahead if you like.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/24/1/55.full.pdf

... and all the references listed therein.
From the cited document: "Cycle helmets that meet UK and US standards have been tested. The mechanisms of energy absorption for frontal and side impacts have been analysed. A good helmet should protect the wearer for impacts up to 15 mph into a rigid flat surface."

Further: “The conclusion is that a bicycle helmet to a recognised standard provides very valuable protection for the majority of accidents, but it cannot protect the head in a high velocity direct impact.”

The paper also mentions that the neck provides almost no stability, so even if the skull were not crushed the neck could well snap at higher loads.

Basically, if you fall over at low speed a helmet will provide some protection. If you take a hard shot, (above about 15 mph) the helmet provides No protection. Once the foam deforms more than 90 percent the shock is transmitted directly to the head and neck.

Same thing I have been saying all along. helmets are good for low-speed collisions. get slammed by a car traveling 40 mph, or ride into a parked van at 20 mph, and the helmet cannot protect the rider.
Maelochs is offline  
Old 02-19-19, 09:02 AM
  #39  
base2 
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
base2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 983

Bikes: N+1

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 516 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 69 Times in 48 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
and if you cannot see the difference between a vehicle which regularly travels at 60 mph versus one which rrarely exceeds 20 mph … likewise.


You are talking about classifying data in ther initial post of a thread you claim is not about data. Let me emphasize: “to adress the issue of stats” Remember typing that?
In which case removing all references to hemlmets shouldn’t change the meaning of the thread, right? Oh, wait … this the read is Entirely about helmets and statistics regarding death and injury while wearing or not wearing helmets.

That is All it is about.

The only person who has “arrived at a conclusion” in this thread is you, to whit:

You arrived at the conclusion there stated. No else said they did that, no one else reached any ‘conclusion” about the different data you claim people are conflating. That is All You.

I have stated repeatedly what I actually think, but since it doesn’t fit your prejudice, you continue to ignore it.

And there you go, lying again to try to win a debate, rather than having an honest discussion.

At no time did I say that. That is Your Inferrence, Your Conclusion.

I am out. If you ever want to have an honest discussion I am around. If you need to deny what you posted, invent ideas and attribute them to others, and deliberately mis-state others’ positions to “win” an internet debate … please don’t bother. It is a waste of your life.

Live as well as you can.
At no time did I post anything to "win" an internet debate. You are correct though, I did need to infer your position because after all your words, you failed to explicitly state your position or the reasons you make the decisions you do. Did I incorrectly assess what your position is? Correct me.

Perhaps you do not understand statistical modeling? It is a process where an analogue or a sample is used to build a model do derive a working understanding of a set of conditions.

All possible conditions were listed in order to define or frame the debate to actual possible outcomes. Many of which were mentioned by other posters & provided useful insight to why that person made/make the decision they did/do.

"Provide more data" is outside the possible outcomes afforded by the conditions and reveals your understanding of statistical modeling.

Also, you don't like the way I drew the groups. To facilitate useful discussion, provide a better way of defining the groups involved. Please. Not that it makes any difference, but does "pro-helmet vs helmet freedom" lables work for you?
base2 is offline  
Old 02-19-19, 09:03 AM
  #40  
ridelikeaturtle
Senior Member
 
ridelikeaturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 745

Bikes: Bianchi Ti Megatube, M Alloy Pro, Sprint 76; Amp Research B4; Colnago Crystal; Klein Pulse; Litespeed Catalyst, Fondriest Squadra Corse

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 330 Post(s)
Liked 63 Times in 47 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
...
As a cyclist, do you have a choice about what sort of car vs bike accident you're going to be involved in, or when? No, you do not.

If you're wearing a helmet, and you hit your head, it will reduce the g-forces imparted to your head.

It is a very low cost to you, both from a financial perspective, and a "convenience" perspective.

In exchange (for that low cost), it could avoid a very high cost to society, in a trip to the hospital, hospital expenses, ongoing treatment expenses, increases in insurance premiums, a cost to coworkers and employers for lost work, and emotional costs to friends and family.

But "personal freedom!". That argument wears thin. Your choices impact others. It doesn't fly for smoking (in the workplace, or any enclosed space, where others are subjected to secondhand smoke), not wearing seatbelts, and increasingly, not wearing a bike helmet.
ridelikeaturtle is offline  
Old 02-19-19, 09:06 AM
  #41  
Lemond1985
Sophomore Member
 
Lemond1985's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,917
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1119 Post(s)
Liked 430 Times in 289 Posts
"Oh no, secondhand smoke from a helmetless rider. Again!!! I HATE when that happens!"

J/K, carry on. This thread has "Battle of the Titans" written all over it. :
Lemond1985 is offline  
Old 02-19-19, 09:09 AM
  #42  
ridelikeaturtle
Senior Member
 
ridelikeaturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 745

Bikes: Bianchi Ti Megatube, M Alloy Pro, Sprint 76; Amp Research B4; Colnago Crystal; Klein Pulse; Litespeed Catalyst, Fondriest Squadra Corse

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 330 Post(s)
Liked 63 Times in 47 Posts
Is there a way for one user to block seeing specific users' posts? That'd be handy. Then many of us here might avoid going down these stupid rabbitholes.
ridelikeaturtle is offline  
Old 02-19-19, 09:42 AM
  #43  
DrIsotope
Non omnino gravis
 
DrIsotope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: SoCal, USA!
Posts: 7,180

Bikes: Nekobasu, Pandicorn

Mentioned: 112 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3919 Post(s)
Liked 408 Times in 259 Posts
Helmets don't make cycling safer, they have the potential to make crashing safer. As I said before, I totally get people who don't wear a helmet-- I've needed mine just 3-4 times in 40,000 miles.

We're cyclists, after all-- we take calculated risks every time we step onto the pedals. Do helmets prevent TBI? Sometimes, I'm sure. Do helmets prevent cycling deaths? Sometimes, I'm sure.

Do I think the helmet will make much difference if I get taken up by a car doing 40mph? Not really. But maybe. That's one of the beauties of being a human-- resilient yet fragile. Nothing is lethal until it is.

Could get pushed into a ditch by a car doing 50mph and be just fine. Could wash out the front tire @ 8mph and die instantly. In my calculation of risk, the helmet makes cycling less lethal. Good enough.
__________________
DrIsotope is offline  
Old 02-19-19, 09:46 AM
  #44  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 11,472

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 137 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5472 Post(s)
Liked 121 Times in 82 Posts
Originally Posted by ridelikeaturtle View Post
Is there a way for one user to block seeing specific users' posts? That'd be handy. Then many of us here might avoid going down these stupid rabbitholes.
Dude ... really?

First, if you cannot figure out how to use an "ignore" function ... maybe stay off the internet?

Second ... you Do have a choice to simply not read posts by certain posters. That "free will" you scoff at. If you need help controlling your own impulses ... there is an "ignore" function. I am sufficiently in control of my own actions that I just skip the posts or threads I don't want to read, but there are crutches for the weak.
Maelochs is offline  
Old 02-19-19, 09:47 AM
  #45  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 11,472

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 137 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5472 Post(s)
Liked 121 Times in 82 Posts
Originally Posted by DrIsotope View Post
Helmets don't make cycling safer, they have the potential to make crashing safer. As I said before, I totally get people who don't wear a helmet-- I've needed mine just 3-4 times in 40,000 miles.

We're cyclists, after all-- we take calculated risks every time we step onto the pedals. Do helmets prevent TBI? Sometimes, I'm sure. Do helmets prevent cycling deaths? Sometimes, I'm sure.

Do I think the helmet will make much difference if I get taken up by a car doing 40mph? Not really. But maybe. That's one of the beauties of being a human-- resilient yet fragile. Nothing is lethal until it is.

Could get pushed into a ditch by a car doing 50mph and be just fine. Could wash out the front tire @ 8mph and die instantly. In my calculation of risk, the helmet makes cycling less lethal. Good enough.
Stop making sense. There is a time and a place for that ... but this is Bike Forums.
Maelochs is offline  
Old 02-19-19, 09:48 AM
  #46  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 11,472

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 137 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5472 Post(s)
Liked 121 Times in 82 Posts
Originally Posted by Lemond1985 View Post
"Oh no, secondhand smoke from a helmetless rider. Again!!! I HATE when that happens!"

J/K, carry on. This thread has "Battle of the Titans" written all over it. :
My favorite reply so far.
Maelochs is offline  
Old 02-19-19, 09:50 AM
  #47  
ridelikeaturtle
Senior Member
 
ridelikeaturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 745

Bikes: Bianchi Ti Megatube, M Alloy Pro, Sprint 76; Amp Research B4; Colnago Crystal; Klein Pulse; Litespeed Catalyst, Fondriest Squadra Corse

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 330 Post(s)
Liked 63 Times in 47 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
Dude ... really?

First, if you cannot figure out how to use an "ignore" function ... maybe stay off the internet?

Second ... you Do have a choice to simply not read posts by certain posters. That "free will" you scoff at. If you need help controlling your own impulses ... there is an "ignore" function. I am sufficiently in control of my own actions that I just skip the posts or threads I don't want to read, but there are crutches for the weak.
U mad, bro? Relax.

Now where's that 'ignore' button?

[edit:] nevermind, I found it.

Last edited by ridelikeaturtle; 02-19-19 at 09:55 AM.
ridelikeaturtle is offline  
Old 02-19-19, 10:10 AM
  #48  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 11,472

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 137 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5472 Post(s)
Liked 121 Times in 82 Posts
Originally Posted by base2 View Post
I did need to infer your position because after all your words, you failed to explicitly state your position or the reasons you make the decisions you do.
or ... you simply failed to grasp.

My position is that wearing a helmet is a choice and should remain so. Really simple. Not quite sure how anyone could have missed that.

Originally Posted by base2 View Post
Perhaps you do not understand statistical modeling? .... "Provide more data" is outside the possible outcomes afforded by the conditions and reveals your understanding of statistical modeling.
You said your post wasn't about data. Statistics are data. Yet if I ask for data, your "model" built on "data' has no data? You cannot “statistically model” something without base data. You make predictions based on the model, and you base your model on the data. No data, no model.

Originally Posted by base2 View Post
Also, you don't like the way I drew the groups.
Yeah ... um, quote please precisely where i said that or anything like that.

I have no problem with your groups, except that without anything but the titles, that's all they are. headings over empty columns. "'List of possible outcomes in a bike wreck--you get hurt, or you don't, you get killed or you don't." Now what?

Listing a bunch of potential outcomes with no data associated is meaningless. Basically, it is "you get hurt or you don't, you get killed or you don't." No Information is provided. The groups themselves are fine, but if all they are is a partial list of potential outcomes ... nothing is taught, nothing is learned.

Your categories seem fine to me ... what do they Actuallly represent? Just themselves?

You basic premise, that people who choose not to wear helmets, cannot tell the difference between a head injury and an unspecified fatal injury, is also completely unsupported.

Originally Posted by base2 View Post
To facilitate useful discussion, provide a better way of defining the groups involved. Please.
What exactly do you want to discuss? Do you want to discuss the fact that you began your thread with a false premise?

Consider the first line of your initial post:
Originally Posted by base2 View Post
In this forum, over the years there has been many a discussion among the "Helmets do nuthin'" crowd & the "Helmets protect yer noggin'" crowd.
You start with a lie. No one says helmets do nothing.

How can you have a “discussion” when the opening sentence is not only dishonest, but attempts to demean the people with whom you do not agree?

So … Exactly what did you hope to “discuss”?
Maelochs is offline  
Old 02-19-19, 11:13 AM
  #49  
AlmostTrick
Tortoise Wins by a Hare!
 
AlmostTrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Looney Tunes, IL
Posts: 6,559

Bikes: Wabi Special FG, Raleigh Roper, Nashbar AL-1, Miyata One Hundred, '68 Schwinn Orange Krate, and More!!

Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1127 Post(s)
Liked 158 Times in 99 Posts
Originally Posted by Lemond1985 View Post
"Oh no, secondhand smoke from a helmetless rider. Again!!! I HATE when that happens!"
The only way it could be worse is if that rider was also Taking the Lane. OMG, guaranteed pages of thread!

Hey, I'm sure I'd do my part to support.
AlmostTrick is offline  
Old 02-19-19, 11:44 AM
  #50  
base2 
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
base2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 983

Bikes: N+1

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 516 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 69 Times in 48 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
or ... you simply failed to grasp.

My position is that wearing a helmet is a choice and should remain so. Really simple. Not quite sure how anyone could have missed that.

You said your post wasn't about data. Statistics are data. Yet if I ask for data, your "model" built on "data' has no data? You cannot “statistically model” something without base data. You make predictions based on the model, and you base your model on the data. No data, no model.

Yeah ... um, quote please precisely where i said that or anything like that.

I have no problem with your groups, except that without anything but the titles, that's all they are. headings over empty columns. "'List of possible outcomes in a bike wreck--you get hurt, or you don't, you get killed or you don't." Now what?

Listing a bunch of potential outcomes with no data associated is meaningless. Basically, it is "you get hurt or you don't, you get killed or you don't." No Information is provided. The groups themselves are fine, but if all they are is a partial list of potential outcomes ... nothing is taught, nothing is learned.

Your categories seem fine to me ... what do they Actuallly represent? Just themselves?

You basic premise, that people who choose not to wear helmets, cannot tell the difference between a head injury and an unspecified fatal injury, is also completely unsupported.

What exactly do you want to discuss? Do you want to discuss the fact that you began your thread with a false premise?

Consider the first line of your initial post:

You start with a lie. No one says helmets do nothing.

How can you have a “discussion” when the opening sentence is not only dishonest, but attempts to demean the people with whom you do not agree?

So … Exactly what did you hope to “discuss”?
Man, this is like pulling teeth. Maybe if this were in survey form. Lets start with:

Hi, my screen name is: (fill in your screen name)
I have experienced: (outcome "x" of possible outcomes)
Based on that experience, I do: (input decision)
I see people make decisions that: (either same or different) than my own.
I think that may be because: (fill in reason related to what you think their decision tree may have been)

So far there is plenty of people that have figured it out.
That you seem to think possible outcomes of a scenario equals likelyhood, or odds of a particular outcome occuring i.e. "statistics" is puzzling.
base2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.