View Full Version : Slammed my head into concrete, helmet saved me
Didn't I ask you to ask a question and not ask you what you discussed?
After asking if you wanted to know, did I ask you anything else?
Wasn't I responding to nklatt, and not to you?
I think someone who chooses ignorance speaks loud enough to expose his mind without further discussion.
Please, present to us your medical qualifications, as well as your recent medical history, before you pry into that of other members.
So stop the slander, learn of which you post and stop putting your foot in your mouth (unless that's where you like it)
I'm sure you're aware it's impossible to slander someone on a bike forum, although legal definitions are subject to change of late. In Australia, the word for you is "Stickybeek". I suggest you get your nose out of other peoples business and move on.
closetbiker
01-22-05, 05:57 PM
Wow, more names! Will the responses that advance thought never quit?
What would the importance of having a medical qualification have to do with asking a question of a medically qualified person so as to better understand what he could have suffered medically?
In case you can't read, after the question was asked, and not answered I followed with a follow up question, I was met with a - shut the hell up - I didn't ask him again, or as you may put it, I've took my nose out of his business. I hope it is a reading issue, because you can't be that dense.
LordOpie
01-22-05, 06:02 PM
bottomline...
Has a helmet ever helped lessen the severity of an injury for a person?
-- probably every day.
Has a helmet ever caused a problem or made an injury worse?
-- I've never heard of such a situation.
Conclusion: helmets sometimes are good, helmets are almost never bad. Do the math.
closetbiker
01-22-05, 06:39 PM
bottom line for me...
there is a claim that a helmet "saved my bacon" and a claim that he had a mild concussion.
he didn't want to ask about focal or diffuse injury and which catagory a concussion falls under, which is fine - his choice - but it's central for his claim to be a valid claim.
Go to BHSI and enter rotaional forces on the search page.
I came up with INJURIES TO PEDAL CYCLISTS: AN OVERVIEW
Diffuse injuries can range from mild concussion to severe injury of the nervous
tissue. Mild concussion may not result in loss of consciousness, but merely some
confusion and disorientation. This is common and reversible, and often not brought
to medical attention. Classic concussion involves immediate loss of consciousness
following the head impact. Consciousness is lost for less than 24 hours and is
reversible. Loss of memory (amnesia) for events before and after the head
impact is present, and the duration of this amnesia is a good indication of the
severity of the concussion.
- now I'm no doctor but a doctor did write this description of a concussion as a diffuse injury -
helmet tests monitor the effect of linear force but not rotational force. A blow which is not square on centre, i.e. not linear, will rotate the head. Diffuse injuries - the most serious and common type of brain injuries - result from rotational stresses on the brain. Linear force on the other hand, result in focal or localized injuries rather than diffuse injuries.
Chief Pathologist Clive Cooke, in Coroner's Court Testimony, Perth, Australia testified, "In situations of a fall they [helmets] are next to useless because they do not protect against diffused brain damage. The damage to the brain would still have occurred because it is the rattling inside the skull that caused the damage."
- Now I didn't really have to put this down, it's always better to learn on your own or from someone you trust, like your mother, but this is the point here. Someone is making a claim that seems to be impossible for a helmet to be able to do.
Wow, more names! Will the responses that advance thought never quit?
What would the importance of having a medical qualification have to do with asking a question of a medically qualified person so as to better understand what he could have suffered medically?
In case you can't read, after the question was asked, and not answered I followed with a follow up question, I was met with a - shut the hell up - I didn't ask him again, or as you may put it, I've took my nose out of his business. I hope it is a reading issue, because you can't be that dense.
So, are you working on your thesis? Are you an intern? The guy hit his head, busted his helmet, and he's sharing this on the thread. As a competent adult, he sought the medical attention he felt was required for his situation. I don't recall him asking for medical advice on the thread. Yes, several people have been less than subtle in telling you to "Shut the hell up", but you haven't taken the hints. On a positive note, you are correct, I can't be that dense.
bottom line for me...
there is a claim that a helmet "saved my bacon" and a claim that he had a mild concussion.
did you see the image of the helmet? i reckon we can grant him the benifit of your doubt
he didn't want to ask about focal or diffuse injury and which catagory a concussion falls under, which is fine - his choice - but it's central for his claim to be a valid claim.
when did he say didn't want to ask his mother?
how do you know he didn't already know?
and when was it necessary to validate his claim? really. its the fr!gg!n internet. you could even be a cyclist for all we know. that is the beauty of it all.
i am pretty sure that he just told you to mind your own business. this obviously got the rise from you he intended.
you should try going for a ride. it is really good for the soul. i just went for a 40km spin this a.m. Perfect temperature out: 29C. I couldn't feel better. as usual the forecasters got it wrong: http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/wrap_fwo.pl?IDV10450.txt
So turn the heating up, put on a video of the Tour Down Under and spin the night away. Couple of stretches, couple of glasses of water - just lay off the red cordial. I am no doctor, but you can trust me. You'll feel much better. And there is absolutely no risk of carpel tunnel syndrome.
cheers
marty
Go to BHSI and enter rotaional forces on the search page.
Go to BHSI, http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm, and right there it says:
"A very high percentage of cyclists' brain injuries can be prevented by a helmet, estimated at anywhere from 45 to 88 per cent."
"Wearing a bike helmet can reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent. "
"Helmets are needed because head injuries in bicyclists are noted in:
65,000 emergency room cases and 7,700 hospital admissions annually
about 40 per cent of bicyclists admitted to hospitals
an estimated 70 to 80 per cent of fatally injured bicyclists
Bicyclists hospitalized with head injuries are 20 times as likely to die as those without."
"Riding without a bicycle helmet significantly increases the risk of sustaining a head injury in the event of a crash. Nonhelmeted riders are 14 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than helmeted riders. "
"Correct fit and proper positioning are essential to the effectiveness of bike helmets at reducing injury. One study found that children whose helmets fit poorly are at twice the risk of head injury in a crash compared with children whose helmet fit is excellentIn addition, children who wear their helmets tipped back on their heads have a 52 percent greater risk of head injury than those who wear their helmets centered on their heads. "
"
Bicycle helmets have been shown to reduce the risk of head injury by as much as 85 percent and the risk of brain injury by as much as 88 percent.Bicycle helmets have also been shown to offer substantial protection to the forehead and midface.
It is estimated that 75 percent of bicycle-related fatalities among children could be prevented with a bicycle helmet.
Universal use of bicycle helmets by children ages 4 to 15 could prevent between 135 and 155 deaths, between 39,000 and 45,000 head injuries, and between 18,000 and 55,000 scalp and face injuries annually.
Child helmet ownership and use increases with the parent’s income and education level, yet decreases with the child’s age. Children are more likely to wear a bicycle helmet if riding with others (peers or adults) who are also wearing one.In a national survey of children ages 8 to 12, 53 percent reported that a parental rule for helmet use would persuade them to wear a helmet, and 49 percent would wear a helmet if a state or community law required it. "
"Every dollar spent on a bike helmet saves society $30 in direct medical costs and other costs to society.
If 85 percent of all child cyclists wore bicycle helmets in one year, the lifetime medical cost savings could total between $109 million and $142 million. "
Finally: "Two-thirds of fatally injured bicyclists are tested for alcohol; 32 per cent of those tested have been drinking. "
And from the New England Journal of Medicine
Volume 320:1361-1367 May 25, 1989 Number 21
A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets
RS Thompson, FP Rivara, and DC Thompson
Abstract
Bicycling accidents cause many serious injuries and, in the United States, about 1300 deaths per year, mainly from head injuries. Safety helmets are widely recommended for cyclists, but convincing evidence of their effectiveness is lacking. Over one year we conducted a case-control study in which the case patients were 235 persons with head injuries received while bicycling, who sought emergency care at one of five hospitals. One control group consisted of 433 persons who received emergency care at the same hospitals for bicycling injuries not involving the head. A second control group consisted of 558 members of a large health maintenance organization who had had bicycling accidents during the previous year. Seven percent of the case patients were wearing helmets at the time of their head injuries, as compared with 24 percent of the emergency room controls and 23 percent of the second control group. Of the 99 cyclists with serious brain injury only 4 percent wore helmets. In regression analyses to control for age, sex, income, education, cycling experience, and the severity of the accident, we found that riders with helmets had an 85 percent reduction in their risk of head injury (odds ratio, 0.15; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.07 to 0.29) and an 88 percent reduction in their risk of brain injury (odds ratio, 0.12; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.04 to 0.40). We conclude that bicycle safety helmets are highly effective in preventing head injury. Helmets are particularly important for children, since they suffer the majority of serious head injuries from bicycling accidents.
I'm sure you're aware it's impossible to slander someone on a bike forum, although legal definitions are subject to change of late. In Australia, the word for you is "Stickybeek". I suggest you get your nose out of other peoples business and move on.
Stickybeak: http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/STICKYBEAK
cheers
marty
Perhaps Closetbiker should have a few drinks before he heads out on his next ride then. He knows he's safe without a helmet, and he's got all that medical knowledge too, so he should be alright.
Stickybeak: http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/STICKYBEAK
cheers
marty
Here's a website just for Closetbiker - www.stickybeek.com.au (http://www.stickybeek.com.au/)
XzEn54321
01-22-05, 08:07 PM
A simple test for those who do not like helmets:
1. stand facing a wall, preferably rock or concrete.
2. place hands on wall at eye level
3. slam your head into the wall as hard as you posably can
Now repeat while wearing a helmet, notice how your head and face don't hurt as much?*
Remember any crash you are in will have many times more force.
*Xzen54321 can not be held liable for any or all injures sustained while preforming the above test. :rolleyes:
2manybikes
01-22-05, 08:23 PM
A simple test for those who do not like helmets:
1. stand facing a wall, preferably rock or concrete.
2. place hands on wall at eye level
3. slam your head into the wall as hard as you posably can
Now repeat while wearing a helmet, notice how your head and face don't hurt as much?*
Remember any crash you are in will have many times more force.
*Xzen54321 can not be held liable for any or all injures sustained while preforming the above test. :rolleyes:
You know......we use ROTFLMAO sometimes when we really don't fall out of the chair laughing.
I almost just fell out of my chair laughing! Most excellent :beer:
I have to send this to all my friends.
closetbiker
01-22-05, 08:53 PM
Those are all very nice replies but, none of them deal with the issues put forward. It would be good if the issues are dealt with. Then maybe we could move forward.
Bekologist
01-22-05, 09:08 PM
What issues? K5 crashed, hit head, helmet helped prevent more serious injury.
Those are all very nice replies but, none of them deal with the issues put forward. It would be good if the issues are dealt with. Then maybe we could move forward.
You are so right. This was about his helmet saving him. Now who was it that got the thread off track, prying into his personal medical details, and conversations with his family? I recall an earlier post where someone was discussing different kinds of head injuries. Here's their post: "ask your mother the difference between focal and diffuse injury and which catagory a concussion falls under". Perhaps the author of that piece of work can clarify what that has to do with the effectiveness of the helmet.
closetbiker
01-22-05, 10:04 PM
You are so right.
I'm not right, physics are.
Believe what you like, but the laws of physics are the same regardless of what you feel.
Bekologist
01-22-05, 10:11 PM
Before closetbiker obsfucates this thread even more,
K5, glad you're okay, how you feeling now? Have you gotten back on the bike, or are you waiting a bit yet? Hope you have been looking at new helmets!
I'm not right, physics are.
Believe what you like, but the laws of physics are the same regardless of what you feel.
What are you talking about... first you're talking about someone's mother, then helmet safety, then you're talking about someone talking about your issues, now it's physics? I'm confused.
closetbiker
01-22-05, 10:26 PM
What are you talking about... I'm confused.
Don't worry, you've got company. Looks like reading comprehension problems. It makes things confusing.
"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh!t". Closetbiker, please enlighten us. How do the laws of physics have anything to do with this thread? Kf5nd stated that his helmet saved him, and produced a photo of a helmet that had obviously absorbed the impact that our skulls are unable to. We're all glad that he was not seriously injured, and now you're babbling about physics.
As an aside for Slvoid, I have a question. Shouldn't that be 2-Cyl, liquid cooled, 1/2 HP @ 90 RPM? Seems to me power output is greatly reduced without water. And no, let's not discuss emissions.
closetbiker
01-22-05, 10:41 PM
Closetbiker, please enlighten us. How do the laws of physics have anything to do with this thread?
Read post #55.
If it's too much, read the second sentence - starts with, there is a claim - and the last sentence - ends with, seems to be impossible for a helmet to be able to do.
The stuff in between just supports the last sentence (you don't really have to understand it, but it'll help)
Don't worry, you've got company. Looks like reading comprehension problems. It makes things confusing.
It's not reading comprehension. It's the fact that you like to thinly disguise your posts as insults to other people (as in other people's ability to read and comprehend) and to confuse people with your own agenda.
You know what I'm talking about, if you don't, perhaps you should check on your own ability to read, comprehend, and keep your posts on track with the OP's post.
No one in this thread gives a damn about what you think a helmet can and can not possibly or impossibly do. The fact is this dude's helmet saved him from serious injury, let it go man, just let it rest.
As an aside for Slvoid, I have a question. Shouldn't that be 2-Cyl, liquid cooled, 1/2 HP @ 90 RPM? Seems to me power output is greatly reduced without water. And no, let's not discuss emissions.
I wanted to write more but there's a limit to how much you can write. :(
Chief Pathologist Clive Cooke, in Coroner's Court Testimony, Perth, Australia testified, "In situations of a fall they [helmets] are next to useless because they do not protect against diffused brain damage. The damage to the brain would still have occurred because it is the rattling inside the skull that caused the damage."
Good on you for using a quote out of context, especially court testimony. So do you think Clive tells his kids to ignore the helmet laws here, that they're just a bunch of rubbish? I see your point now. Our brain is basically floating inside our skull, protected by a thin fluid membrane. Upon rapid deceleration, that fluid is unable to protect our brain from impacting the interior of our skull. So there's no need to protect the outside of our head. Of course, my helmet is designed to crush on impact, thereby absorbing some of that energy. It's why cars have fore and aft crumple zones. It's why you see trash cans filled with water lined up strategically at freeway off-ramp gore points in certain areas (Los Angeles, anyway). But you are right. In a car accident, you're probably going to impact the interior anyway, (I'm sure you don't believe in seatbelts either) so why have crumple zones and air bags? What on earth makes anyone think that an inch or so of polystyrene is going to compress enough to save their head? Yes, you may still get a concussion, but doesn't the helmet help prevent your skull from cracking open? You present a weak argument, compounded by the fact that this was not the place for the discussion. Everyone else offered up support for an injured mate. You have made yourself look like Shrek's sidekick.
closetbiker
01-22-05, 11:06 PM
It's not reading comprehension. It's the fact that you like to thinly disguise your posts as insults to other people (as in other people's ability to read and comprehend) and to confuse people with your own agenda.
As opposed to the non-disguised insulting posts toward me?
No one in this thread gives a damn about what you think a helmet can and can not possibly or impossibly do. The fact is this dude's helmet saved him from serious injury, let it go man, just let it rest.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Just like I can show what people who know of the subject understand about what happened, but I can't make you believe it. Life goes on.People used to believe the world was flat too. But it wasn't. Time to rest.
53-11 has no claim to the "Biggest Troll on BikeForums" title. It clearly belongs to closetbiker. Personally folks I wouldn't waste anymore bandwidth on his BS. He won't lisyen and replying to him only serves to allow him to propagate more disinformation. I'm betting he's a Republican spin doctor
53-11 was harmless, and actually mellowed out a lot before he disappeared.
53-11 was harmless, and actually mellowed out a lot before he disappeared.
Hardly. In my opinion, the definition of "harmless" is MERTON. MERTON is harmless in a sort of "Lenny" kind of way. (think "Steinbeck") 53-11 was a blowhard who's views were largely incorrect and often times delusional. Personally, (though it pains me to a degree to say it) I'll take MERTON over either of them
Never ran into Merton. He squishes mice?
Go look in Foo. If that doesn't give you a clue as to my meaning search his posts.
closetbiker
01-23-05, 08:28 AM
53-11 has no claim to the "Biggest Troll on BikeForums" title. It clearly belongs to closetbiker. Personally folks I wouldn't waste anymore bandwidth on his BS. He won't lisyen and replying to him only serves to allow him to propagate more disinformation. I'm betting he's a Republican spin doctor
If I consider how and why I'm being insulted, it's hardly a matter at all.
I'll bet some of you would have been right there burning witches in Salem.
glowingrod
01-23-05, 09:25 AM
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Just like I can show what people who know of the subject understand about what happened, but I can't make you believe it. Life goes on.People used to believe the world was flat too. But it wasn't. Time to rest.
You weren't there ya blowhard, the thread starter was. You can't show anyone anything about what happened. I appreciate you're self-rightous smugness though. You're incredibly unlikable and that goes a long way to discrediting all the cooked data you can get your googly little hands on. Maybe you should drop a dime on Your mom and find out why you're so undesirable?
closetbiker
01-23-05, 10:09 AM
It's really interesting to read these responses and see the zealotry that a portion of people have. Never mind the facts, there's just an excessive intolerance of opposing views
The original poster wrote he had a mild concussion.
The zealots here think helmets can exceed their standards at which they're tested.
Don't take my word for it. His mother is a retired neuro-doctor and Dean of the Medical School for an American medical school. She can explain what a concussion is and anybody can look up the testing standards for bike helmets.
It's not a magic hat that protects you from every kind of impact. But I know some will always believe it is. It's just amazing how some can get so upset that they don't even make sense when defending their position.
glowingrod
01-23-05, 10:22 AM
Where did the thread starter state that the helmet exceeded it's standards? Where did he state he -certainly- had a concussion? Where did anyone show you or anyone else that this accident exceeded the standards at which the helmet was tested and therefore rendered it useless? Why would his mom draw a correlation between what happened, what his helmet did, what it's capable of and then discourage it's use? [Why wouldn't she just listen to her adult son, whom she no doubt loves and trust their combined judgement]
You're a double-talking tool. Your studies don't mean jack in the face of the real world experience of the wearer on any occasion.
closetbiker
01-23-05, 10:35 AM
Post #8 Yeah, I figure I have a mild concussion
Helmets are tested in the lab for straight line (linear) blows only. A blow which is not square on centre, i.e. not linear, will rotate the head. Diffuse injuries result from rotational stresses on the brain.
His mom could have explained that a concussion is the result of a diffuse injury.
And they're not my studies, they are sciences' discoveries. Don't shoot the messenger.
Here's a link from someone how has a design that can be an improvement to helmet effectiveness. The design takes into account rotational forces. This may help helmet effectiveness.
http://www.phillipshelmets.co.uk/
One last time for those that can't take a hint. There are no "Pro helmet zealots" here. We're anti-dumb*****. Don't misappropriate someone else's published research data and try to back up your own stupidity with it. Go back to the beginning of this thread. To the part where the original poster asked "Do you think I have a concussion?" And then go to the part where he asked "Will helmets protect against all accidents?". Oh wait, he never said that. He said he hit his head, and was fortunate to be wearing a helmet, which prevented serious injury.
J A Holman
01-23-05, 12:38 PM
Wow, I've never seen someone so guilty as the accused. Even on the newsgroups where Frank Krygowski and those ilk hang out they would leave when the realized they were busted! Now they have their own little section so they can't bother people that just want to talk.
I wondered how you got such a rep closetbiker, now to no doubt be known as "PubMab" so i read back some of your posts, read few, skip a dozen, read a few, skip a dozen.
These people are right, you are as badly fixated as can be and you're as incredibly guilty of the "public masturbation" as any forum or newsgroup user ever has been! You should really seek help, these people aren't zealots, they're weary of just one zealot that has lost his ability to cloud the issues by posting to often and to obviously to an agenda.
And they're right, regurgitating studies that other people do serves no purpose in this thread and in very few others. Now you suggest that they wear the motorcycle helmets you linked in your last post? I watched how often you post as well while reading back a bit. Maybe you should hit the road more often. If you've got nothing to contribute but the work of others that everyone here already has access to. These people are -only- discussing they're own day to day experiences as tehy percieved them and you seem to find it intolerable that they would trust their own judgement over that of someone who apparantly never leaves the keyboard and has never even used all that idle time to conduct a study of their own. It's not hard to see why their own experiences trump you and your {very few} friends, it's because you have a great deal of knowledge about information retrieval via the internet but no knowledge of how to communicate with real people without being skewered by your "fixations" as several have mentioned.
Go ride, sign off for a while, get help because you may well need it.
Been there,
kindest
closetbiker
01-23-05, 09:37 PM
you're as incredibly guilty of the "public masturbation" as any forum or newsgroup user ever has been!
Point's been made. You can go after another witch now.
http://img142.exs.cx/img142/9360/deadhorse.gif
Don't you wish. Where's that gas can?
closetbiker
01-23-05, 11:19 PM
Hey! How many times are you going to give way that I'm not on your ignore list?
The zealots here think helmets can exceed their standards at which they're tested.
It's not a magic hat that protects you from every kind of impact. But I know some will always believe it is. It's just amazing how some can get so upset that they don't even make sense when defending their position.
Right on that. Care to back it up with a quote? Whose comments are you referring to? And when you have a free moment, take at look at Australian standards. They're much more rigorous, yet we still have the same brands over here, made on the same tooling.
100%, rode yesterday, no neurological deficits! Had some fear upon getting on the bike, though. Only did a short ride, rode to the grocery store and back.
You know, if closetbiker had asked:
"Are you aware that there are classes of injuries that helmets may not be very good at preventing, they are called xxx, here is a website that talks about them, if you have questions please ask me, have a nice day", then I would've been much more receptive and curious,
but,
"Have you asked your mother...?"
killed it for me and for everyone else it seems.
Closetbiker's worst sin is that he has no social skills, and doesn't know he has no social skills.
I can accept that a helmet can't much reduce head rotation upon impact, but I didn't get the chance to elect what kind of forces my head was going to receive as I fell. What can you do other than use the best safety equipment available?
The other option is to not ride, which is not acceptable.
Before closetbiker obsfucates this thread even more,
K5, glad you're okay, how you feeling now? Have you gotten back on the bike, or are you waiting a bit yet? Hope you have been looking at new helmets!
closetbiker
01-24-05, 08:06 AM
Closetbiker's worst sin is that he has no social skills, and doesn't know he has no social skills.
I can accept that a helmet can't much reduce head rotation upon impact, but I didn't get the chance to elect what kind of forces my head was going to receive as I fell. What can you do other than use the best safety equipment available?
The other option is to not ride, which is not acceptable.
Well now, there you go. An acknowledgement of the only 2 points I made. A rotational force, and the best protection that wasn't designed to gaurd against that type of force. If you can accept that, I can accept that my worse sin is a lack of social skills.
I also agree the other option (not to ride) is no option at all, because not riding would be worse.
The development of the Phillis helmet design to be extended to cycling would be a big help for the extended harm reduction for cyclists.
Way to go spin doctor! Don't apologize for being a world class jerk. Just acknowledge that for all your annoying hot air, kf5nd has stated something we already know and agree on: "I didn't get the chance to elect what kind of forces my head was going to receive as I fell". He's not validating your comments, he's stating that he was wearing a helmet in the hope that it would protect him from any (not all) head trauma.
kf5nd, we're glad you're back on your bike. :beer:
closetbiker
01-24-05, 01:15 PM
Whatever you say boss. You're always right.
Where did the thread starter state that the helmet exceeded it's standards? Where did he state he -certainly- had a concussion? Where did anyone show you or anyone else that this accident exceeded the standards at which the helmet was tested and therefore rendered it useless? Why would his mom draw a correlation between what happened, what his helmet did, what it's capable of and then discourage it's use? [Why wouldn't she just listen to her adult son, whom she no doubt loves and trust their combined judgement]
You're a double-talking tool. Your studies don't mean jack in the face of the real world experience of the wearer on any occasion.
:O
I am dumbfounded on so many levels by this quote and the others like it. Has this thread been hijacked by 15 year olds or something?
"Your studies don't mean jack in the face of the real world experience of the wearer on any occasion."
But this is what I wanted to respond to. In fact, studies do mean jack in the face of real world experience. That is why we have somthing called "Science" and people who perform research and interpret it. Otherwise, we would would be teaching "Glowingrod's real world experiences" in university and high school.
I think that I am going to copy this thread and use it in the Research Methods class that I teach. It illustrates a number of phenomena that scientists grapple with when they try and present their findings to the public:
1) Most people are not informed about how science works
2) People get very angry when their beliefs are challenged
3) It is difficult to explain the difference between a good and bad study to most people
4) Most people are not willing to give up their beliefs in the face of empirical evidence
5) People are distrustful of scientists and their findings and think that they are being duped or cheated in some way. This goes back to point #1. A study is often the attempt to combine the collective experiences regarding a certain variable of hundreds or thousands of people (or observations). Evidence points one way or the other. All studies are flawed in some way and the level of confidence you have in the results is related to amount and degree of flaws in that study. Scientists examine the preponderance and quality of the data to try and figure out where the reality exists. I have to say, I am less confident in the data regarding nearly anything than many of you are regarding helmet issues.
closetbiker
01-25-05, 07:58 AM
That's just it.
It's not that there is a disagreement, but it's the form of the arguments that discredits the objections.
Bikeforums.net has always been an area that was better place than most to discuss and debate. Contributions such as the ones here hurt this boards good reputation.
Bekologist
01-25-05, 08:19 AM
You science types must not digest the preponderance of data that supports helmet use, instead selectively culling negatives out of otherwise wholly supporting evidence regarding helmet use. Helmets kill, right. Don't wear your helmet because of rotational forces. Right.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.