helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Peter Clinch on 21 May 2010 07:19 Derek C wrote: > Also anecdotal evidence, which Peter Clinch always claims is only used > by his opponents. I don't claim any such thing. In fact I stated very clearly I was using an anecdote. That wasn't the end of the story, but not actually a worse piece of "evidence" than yours. In other words, one point was to demonstrate specifically that anecdotal evidence isn't the end of the story, but you managed to miss that... What you've also failed to realise is you only need a single data point to prove something false, if it proves it false. So if your premise is you must be better off with a helmet on the you only need one contrary indication to show it ain't so. It was long considered doubtful that a functional atomic bomb could be made. Do you think there'd be any doubt of that still if the only one ever to go off had been the one that levelled Hiroshima? Well, I mean, there's only been one so that's not much of a sample base, is it? >> If you think a skull absorbs impacts better than skull+helmet then go >> ahead and ride without one, no ones going to care. But why try and persuade >> others of your nonsense arguments? >> > Here here! As usual you've failed to account for the part a helmet may play in the accident occurring, and as usual you have failed to apply the same logic to cycling as you do to other comparably risky activities. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
From: Derek C on 21 May 2010 07:24 On 21 May, 12:19, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > Derek C wrote: > > Also anecdotal evidence, which Peter Clinch always claims is only used > > by his opponents. > > I don't claim any such thing. In fact I stated very clearly I was using > an anecdote. That wasn't the end of the story, but not actually a worse > piece of "evidence" than yours. In other words, one point was to > demonstrate specifically that anecdotal evidence isn't the end of the > story, but you managed to miss that... > > What you've also failed to realise is you only need a single data point > to prove something false, if it proves it false. > So if your premise is you must be better off with a helmet on the you > only need one contrary indication to show it ain't so. It was long > considered doubtful that a functional atomic bomb could be made. Do you > think there'd be any doubt of that still if the only one ever to go off > had been the one that levelled Hiroshima? Well, I mean, there's only > been one so that's not much of a sample base, is it? > > >> If you think a skull absorbs impacts better than skull+helmet then go > >> ahead and ride without one, no ones going to care. But why try and persuade > >> others of your nonsense arguments? > > > Here here! > > As usual you've failed to account for the part a helmet may play in the > accident occurring, and as usual you have failed to apply the same logic > to cycling as you do to other comparably risky activities. > > Pete. > -- Yawn!
From: Brian Morrison on 21 May 2010 07:27 On Fri, 21 May 2010 04:18:07 -0700 (PDT) Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > They should however protect your skull > in many other more minor types of accident, such as the one I recently > described. And yet there will be other minor types of accident where the intervention of the helmet will lead to greater injury because in those particular cases the geometry and dynamics of the impact happen to produce greater rotational forces to the neck and upper spine. -- Brian Morrison
From: Peter Clinch on 21 May 2010 07:29 Derek C wrote: > On 21 May, 12:08, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: >> Derek C wrote: >>> He was an A&E consultant, not a neurosurgeon! >> Same applies though. Working in A&E makes you expect at repairing >> things, not necessarily in the accidents that cause them. >> >>> How can adding a crumple zone to your skull not reduce injuries? >> Let's look at another distinguished opinion. The following writtten by >> Brian Walker of Head Protection Evaluation, who do most of the testing >> of lids in the UK: >> >> "the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work, >> tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting >> for either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be >> safer wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to so do, stating >> that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and >> without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the performance of >> cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to >> be made." >> > As cycle helmets won't protect you from all possible impacts (neither > will any other type of crash helmet) I can understand their point. If > a 42 ton lorry wheel rolls over your head, you will almost certainly > die whatever you are wearing. They should however protect your skull > in many other more minor types of accident, such as the one I recently > described. No, you've missed the point again. The point is that A Cyclist, setting out from home, is (allegedly) safer in terms of /any accidents they might have/ if they wear a helmet. Look again, the eminent QC is simply trying to get the others "to state that one must be safer wearing a helmet than without", not with any qualifiers about being in an accident where a helmet can have no effect. And, "in their view, the performance of cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to be made." Perhaps I should have quoted more from Walker's original, including, "Rather my purpose is to illustrate that the whole cycle helmet issue contains many hidden issues of which most researchers are quite unaware." And, as it happens, A&E consultants would be included too. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
From: Peter Clinch on 21 May 2010 07:30
Derek C wrote: > Yawn! Can't actually argue the real point, so will make ad hominem attacks. Hey ho. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |