Who wears a helmet?

[snorri]

It will be their funeral, not mine.

That's just a stupid and unnecessary comment. No one seems able to come up with any data to support the theory that helmet wearers are less likely to die than non helmet wearers.

 

[srw]

[/B]
and may I ask - whats wrong with religion or homeopathy - do you honestly believe science has all the answers?

Religion is a coherent and all-encompassing attempt to explain those aspects of the world that science does not tackle - the meaning of life.

Homoeopathy is a bunch of charlatans pretending to do science and getting rich by it.

I don't recommend either as a way to understand physics.

 

[thegravestoneman]

That's just a stupid and unnecessary comment. No one seems able to come up with any data to support the theory that helmet wearers are less likely to die than non helmet wearers.

who mentioned Funeral? because I know some people who can help

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

sorry what was the question days ago that I didn't answer ?

Licramite said: ↑

I do (always) - as do many others so if you feel you should - do. And don't let anyone tell you not to, because they will say they don't work or will actually increase your chance of an injury (yea some people really believe that and have figures to prove it) - if they don't wear them good luck to them, but it's a personel safety issue, its up to you. - and hopefully you will never need it.​

Let's see , this is the 39th post, and so far what is the grand total of those telling anyone not to wear a helmet? err i't's an odd No less than 1!

In 16 yrs of helmet wars I don't think I have ever seen anyone telling somene else not to wear a helmet, I would be interested in seeing examples if you disagree.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Errr I'm sorry but, you, are the one making a statement , the statement was " I would say a blow enough to break your helmet would be a good indicator that you may need to see a doctor" . It's you that needs to provide the evidence that your statement has some veracity. Once you have done that I ( and possibly others) then will examine your evidence. This is what's called " The Scientific Method" . The Scientific method doesn't work by you coming out with a statement of what you believe and asking others to show that you are wrong, that's, religion or homeopathy ,In science the status quo remains until you have shown that your opinion is correct . So you have said "I would say a blow enough to break your helmet would be a good indicator that you may need to see a doctor"

To start,

A) How much of a blow does it take to break a helmet?
B) How much of a blow does it take to cause damage enough to be worth seeing a doctor?

oh ok - the answer is yes. to first question about evidence

A) it takes a force sufficient to break the helmet - which is clearly more than the designed force the helmet can take.
B) probably A.

does that satisfy you?

my point was a bang on the head should be taken seriously , even a relatively minor wound, if followed by any of these symptoms such as double vision, giddiness, nausea,sleepiness,headache, strange pains in the head or if you were knocked out or concussed even for less than a minute - medical advice should be sort.

and may I ask - whats wrong with religion or homeopathy - do you honestly believe science has all the answers?[/quote]
I'll file your answers under "Has no evidence, but isn't man enough to admit it"

Religion/homeopathy , both ways of selling magic to gullible people , both rely on "This is right, just believe, you don't need proof just believe harder"

 

[StuartG]

Well, you can't beat a good theory theory, can you? My actual experience all means nothing, because the Prof says it's bollocks.

I didn't say your experience was bollocks. Indeed I accepted it as face value.

All I questioned was your conclusion. I would have said that the helmet could possibly have saved your life but it was extremely unlikely. If you had said it probably saved your life and certainly prevented injury then maybe we could have engaged in useful and enlightening conversation as to what we mean by possible and probable etc. But you made, if you forgive me, a nonsensical absolute claim.

Not that I haven't unthinkingly made nonsensical claims too. But when someone kindly brings it to my attention I'm glad to accept, learn and move on. Defending the indefensible is now what you appear to be doing. Is that really where you want to be?

 

[Licramite]

In 16 yrs of helmet wars I don't think I have ever seen anyone telling somene else not to wear a helmet, I would be interested in seeing examples if you disagree.[/quote]

I suppose your right , but you see I didn't mean it literally, I meant you will (and have) ,lots of people saying they will never wear one and they are dangerous and pointless - but not in those exact words just in case you check. - which by inference suggests you shouldn't bother wear one either.

as for religion/hemopathy - I ask you - do you believe in say god, then I ask do you believe in scientific theory , or a piece of scientific research - in the end it's up to you what you believe in , both take an act of faith. -
there is no garantee any science we have may not be later disproved by more advanced science. - or proved to be false or incorrect. - or not completely true. - science is being re-written daily.

but on a more serious note, - helmeted or not - do not ignore bangs on the head. - let me give you an example.
many years ago when I volunteered in A&E a guy came in, high temperature, vomiting and severe headache, a nurse notice a small puncture wound to his head, he said he court his head on a nail on an old building at work. - on examination they found the nail had punctured his skull, and set up an infection in the fluid around the brain, the wound was the size of a nail head and the puncture the size of a pin. - he could have died from that, as was he was very ill.

 

[Licramite]

but no were near advising someone to wear one

 

[MontyVeda]

Interested on the theory for MTB care to elaborate ?

Well I'll try... unfamiliar MTB trails are far less predictable than unfamiliar roads and cycle tracks, so in theory, I'd consider wearing a helmet should i choose to take on a trail, in exactly the same way I'm more likely to wear a helmet if I went rock climbing in the Cumbrian Mountains as opposed to just fell walking, or white-water canoeing as opposed to getting on a boat.

 

[lukesdad]

Well I'll try... unfamiliar MTB trails are far less predictable than unfamiliar roads and cycle tracks, so in theory, I'd consider wearing a helmet should i choose to take on a trail, in exactly the same way I'm more likely to wear a helmet if I went rock climbing in the Cumbrian Mountains as opposed to just fell walking, or white-water canoeing as opposed to getting on a boat.

Ah fair enough, I thought it might be more to do with the type of injury you maybe likely to sustain but thanks for that.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

In 16 yrs of helmet wars I don't think I have ever seen anyone telling somene else not to wear a helmet, I would be interested in seeing examples if you disagree.

I suppose your right , but you see I didn't mean it literally, I meant you will (and have) ,lots of people saying they will never wear one and they are dangerous and pointless - but not in those exact words just in case you check. - which by inference suggests you shouldn't bother wear one either.

as for religion/hemopathy - I ask you - do you believe in say god, then I ask do you believe in scientific theory , or a piece of scientific research - in the end it's up to you what you believe in , both take an act of faith. -
there is no garantee any science we have may not be later disproved by more advanced science. - or proved to be false or incorrect. - or not completely true. - science is being re-written daily.

but on a more serious note, - helmeted or not - do not ignore bangs on the head. - let me give you an example.
many years ago when I volunteered in A&E a guy came in, high temperature, vomiting and severe headache, a nurse notice a small puncture wound to his head, he said he court his head on a nail on an old building at work. - on examination they found the nail had punctured his skull, and set up an infection in the fluid around the brain, the wound was the size of a nail head and the puncture the size of a pin. - he could have died from that, as was he was very ill.[/quote]
I suppose your right , but you see I didn't mean it literally
So you have no examples of anyone telling anyone not to wear one?

I meant you will (and have) ,lots of people saying they will never wear one and they are dangerous and pointless - but not in those exact words just in case you check. - which by inference suggests you shouldn't bother wear one either.

"Inference"?" shouldn't bother wear one"
That's still not telling someone NOT to wear one , is it?

I ask you - do you believe in say god

I say mind you own bloody business.

I ask do you believe in scientific theory , or a piece of scientific research

Which theory, which research?Some, such as Thompson , Rivara & Thompson, are very, very poor.

there is no garantee any science we have may not be later disproved by more advanced science. - or proved to be false or incorrect. - or not completely true. - science is being re-written daily

Yep true, which is why Thompson , Rivara & Thompson had to back track on their 87% figure and if you ever see it used it's a partial indicator that it's either being used out of ignorance or to bolster an exisiting position , for instance www.helmets.org, a nut job, who refuses to publish Thompson , Rivara & Thompson's revised results because " it wouldn't be useful"

But your right , science gets written and re written, that's the scientific method, you look at the results and test it against the theory, try and prove the theory wrong. The same methods don't seem to be used by those who put their faith in a plastic foam coffee cup on their head, they just seem to say " I've been told they work, ( but never by the manufacturer they wouldn't dare), so they must do!"

 

[Dan B]

do you honestly believe science has all the answers?

I believe it knows how to ask the right questions.

 

[benb]

Yeah, accepting the scientific method as a robust and self-correcting way of discovering how the world works is emphatically not an act of faith. There's a little thing I quite like called evidence.

That is to say, scientific theories are sometimes completely or partially wrong, but it's the scientific method that shows them to be wrong and they are replaced by a new theory that explains the evidence better.

I have no patience for the point of view that because science doesn't know everything it therefore can't be relied upon for anything.

 

[StuartG]

I have no patience for the point of view that because science doesn't know everything it therefore can't be relied upon for anything.

It is also awfully useful into identifying the stuff we don't know. Particularly when we think, mistakenly, that we do. This is really apposite to most helmet discussions ...

 

[martint235]

Religion is a coherent and all-encompassing attempt to explain those aspects of the world that science does not tackle - the meaning of life.
.

Religion is just a way for humans to avoid saying those horrible words: "I don't know". For some reason we feel we have to know everything and if there is something we don't know, we invent an aspect of religion to explain it. This has been going on for time immemorable.

Primitive Farmer 1: Hey why are the crops doing better?
PF 2: I think it's something to do with this period of time we're in when it's warmer than that other period of time. I think it's got something to do with that big yellow thing.
PF1: Well obviously we don't want that big yellow thing to go away, better worship it.

And there is the beginnings of the Sun God. Move forward several thousand years and just phenomenom that needs explaining has changed.