Fab Foodie
hanging-on in quiet desperation ...
- Location
- Kirton, Devon.
I was worried the Average White Band might have to come on for yet another encore ..... again .....
Pros and Helmets
- Thread starter Mugshot
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
... and why I added ...ish
young Ed
Veteran
you have the data at your finger tips with the internet so go ahead and tell us!
Cheers Ed
Wobblers
Euthermic
- Location
- Minkowski Space
Sigh.... here we go again.
First point: a helmet absorbs energy by crushing (lots of microcracks open up in the foam cells which requires a good deal of energy). Rather less energy is needed to "split a helmet in two". In other words, it failed.
Second point: even if it had worked as intended, the energy required to cause such a serious injury is fully ten times greater than what a helmet is designed to mitigate, so it cannot have been expected to make any meaningful difference.
Wobblers
Euthermic
- Location
- Minkowski Space
You're not a scientist,are you?
There is a difference between "anecdote" and "data". (I have this strange feeling I've said this before... ) You appear to think that one single observation has some form of validity. It does not. It needs to be repeatable. In other words, you've missed the point. It is not possible for clinicians to be able unequivocally state that a helmet helped. They'd have to make a large variety of measurements during the accident - energy, forces experienced, transient bone deformation, skull strength... Which they don't. Even then, it still needs to be repeatable - that is the difference between science and anecdote. Exactly repeatable. Which is going to be rather hard to do. This is why statistical analysis is so useful, because it enables epidemiologists and medical practitioners to collect all such observations and extract reliable, repeatable data from them. All medical treatments undergo such analysis to confirm their validity. But, since you don't believe such statistical analysis has any meaning, I trust that you will be refusing all medical treatment, yes? Because otherwise, you'd appear a hypocrite - and you certainly aren't that.
Great patronising. Really excellent.
It wasn't me missing the point. It was you. You have to read the context of posts rather than take them in isolation. Go check the context of my post before you assign beliefs to me which I don't hold, assume positions which I don't take. Then do yourself a favour and read my posts again slowly and carefully.
I've a feeling that you amongst many others have fallen for the old "if he's not with us he's against us" mentallity, and have leapt in for a feeding frenzy on the assumption that I am arguing in favour of helmet use. You (and others) can no doubt quote me on that. Go on then.........best of luck. In fact, best of luck finding a single post or part of a post anywhere on the forum where I have commented on helmet use. I'm pretty sure I haven't, and certainly not in this thread.
When everyone has calmed down, all you'll see I have done is suggest that medics are in a better position than anyone else to comment as to whether or not a helmet may or may not have helped someone in a single particular accident. That doesn't mean they are in a good position to comment, just in a better position than anyone else. Statisticians of course are the only people who can assess whether or not helmets are generally useful, useful in categories of accidents, useful for categories of wearers, and so on, but, as I said, they have no role in determining whether or not an individual accident victim was helped or otherwise through the use or non-use of a helmet. We're back to your patronising single observation point. I already said all that, in the post you quoted, but that didn't stop you assigning some bollocks to me about having no faith in statistics. Oh, by the way, I'll have made a claim about a single observation somewhere, will I? You'd better quote me on that, then.
--
Oh, and even your patronising was misleading. There is a difference between observation and experimentation (it's experimental results that need replication to be of any use to, say, a physicist), and there are differences between the value of observations in different fields. For instance, a single observation in zoology is perfectly good enough to move the range of an extant or extinct species. A single observation of mine (alone), unsupported by photography, moved the northernmost range of the African Black-Footed Cat by some 400 miles. Single observations of, say, astronomical events, are also accepted in some circumstances. So, if you really feel the need to patronise people again in the future, see if can get your facts straight first, and that your target is saying what you actually think he/ she is saying.
Last edited:
So,,,, the medics are in the position to give the best advice
If the medics are right about cycle helmets, we should listen to their advice and wear them?
Does it also mean that if the same medics make the same claims about the thudguard, should we also be listening to their advice unequivocally and making children wear them?
Last edited:
Did I say that? Care to quote me?
No, medics are NOT in the best position to give advice. Jeez, some here really do struggle with reading comprehension.
The personal insults do not really make an imprssion I am afraid, nor do they support your cause -especially when they are so ironic
Yes you did say that and yes, I would care to quote you ... in fact I already have, but out of courtesy will do so again with emphasis on the relevant sentence.
Now if you could explain how that unequivocal statement should be read and comprehended, I would be grateful.
Wobblers
Euthermic
- Location
- Minkowski Space
Ermm, once you've stopped complaining about people "not reading your posts" perhaps you'd like to point out where anyone's claimed you're pro-helmet?
You've not supported or adopted any position on helmets, but you have stated this:
Which seems odd when you then said this:
(My apologies to @Cunobelin and @User, but I do feel that repetition is the best way forwards here).
PS: You tell less from one off events than you are claiming. I would be rather surprised if one single observation unsupported by any evidence would be sufficient to extend the range of any animal as you say. Just like any field of science, it will require corroboration. And single observations in astronomy are less useful than you claim. While the observation that the progenitor star of SN1987A was a luminous blue variable rather than the expected red supergiant was entirely unexpected, that observation needs to be corroborated to see if there is a pattern (and Type IB supernovae have now been confirmed to originate from LBV stars). Even forensic scientists cannot say with absolute certaincy what happened in a crime. They construct a picture by corroborating many different techniques and strands of evidence to determine the most probable course of events. Medics have neither the training or the data to make such judgements, therefore their opinion is one that is unsupported by rigorous evidence.
I can't see anyone strutting ... oh, wait .... Someone's only seeing half the discussion I think. The trouble with ignore lists is that a person can end up strutting pompously about in an empty room, hearing only his own voice. I expect that's really rewarding for them in this case.
No. No, no, no..........This is where you're obviously struggling. Those two statements, despite your claim, are not in conflict. Let me say this again......
Medics are in a better position to comment as to whether or not a helmet may have helped in a particular accident, but not to give general advice as to the efficacy of helmets. Where on earth is the problem with that? It really is simple.....they've got a kid covered in grazes in front of them, and they can say.........."looks like the helmet saved him a head wound", but, (unless they have a special personal interest in cycling and have reviewed all the available research and data) they are in no position to say "all kids should be wearing a helmet".
- Status
