Originally Posted by
njkayaker
Based on this: There is a lot of exposure to wearing helmets in other contexts and it typical that people will treat using bicycle helmets as a similar case. That's why it's "obvious". Clearly, that conclusion could be wrong.
Not true. Some people say that helmets increase neck injuries and others say that they keep you from rolling "safely".
You clearly are not reading. Or if you are, you are not understanding. I will state this ONE more time for you. Slowly.
Hypothesis 1: Helmets increase safety (reduce head injuries).
Hypothesis 2: Helmets decrease safety (increase neck injuries/cause brain to twist in skull).
Null hypothesis: Helmets neither increase nor decrease safety.
Pay attention, here's the important part: Hypotheses 1 and 2 are
entirely separate claims about the effect of helmets upon safety, relative to our null hypothesis, which is that helmets have NO effect. Each of these hypotheses is a bold claim in need of evidence. Without sufficient evidence, we must default to the null hypothesis. No matter what we are talking about, the null hypothesis is ALWAYS "no change," whether we are talking about seatbelts, cigarettes or bike helmets.
The distinction I am trying to make you understand is that saying "helmets are ineffective" is entirely different from saying "helmets are dangerous." Someone saying the latter has got to prove it. Someone saying the former does not. If someone claiming that helmets increase safety presents compelling evidence to that effect, we reject the null hypothesis. As I've tried to explain multiple times, THIS is the sticking point. It is entirely rational to be opposed to, say, helmet legislation, on the grounds that it is ineffective, inefficient and discourages people from bicycling, without any belief whatsoever that helmets pose a safety risk to the population at large. Your presentation of the debate as simply "helmets are good" vs. "helmets are bad," betrays a poor understanding of both rules of logic and argument and the views that people actually have on this subject.[/quote]
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
And the "no helmets" advocates have what "perfect" objective data exactly?
This is a foolish question. Which advocates are you talking about?
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
Man, you are stupid.
I think you're projecting.
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
I've never stated my position!
Oh, please. Semantic games are not charming, and they are clearly not your speed. Your position is abundantly clear. What are you saying, that in spite of your clear conviction that helmets are obviously safer, you don't wear one?
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
They are not "required" to do so. People advocate things all the time with out any data. They may be so required if they are trying to legislate helmet use (but no one is talking about legislation).
I'm not talking about people being forced or required by some human institution to present data, you ninny. I'm talking about the rhetorical obligations of the burden of proof. Last I checked, that's what this disgusting little chit-chat was all about.
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
I have never made that claim! Pay attention!
Blah, blah, blah.
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
There's your "cognitive dissonance". Why?
Why not? I do not know whether or not helmets improve safety, nor whether or not they decrease it. On balance, I think that it is less likely to be a danger to my safety than a benefit. I only wear my helmet on road rides, or rides of more than few miles. I don't wear it for my short commute, or tootling around town or campus. My helmet makes little difference in my life.
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
You don't care and you appear to think they have no value and that the value they provide isn't obvious but you wear one anyway. Strange. Irrational.
No value? Hardly. Helmets provide lots of value. Wearing a helmet allows me to be accepted more readily into most facets of cycling culture, especially road cycling culture. Wearing a helmet keeps my mother from worrying, which in turn keeps her from nagging me and becoming upset, which makes my life difficult. Wearing a helmet ensures that, in the event that I am involved in a collision with a a motor vehicle and seriously injured, that I will not be assumed to be responsible for my own injuries irrespective of whether or not a helmet might have prevented them. Wearing a helmet is entirely rational for these and other reasons. Not wearing a helmet is also perfectly rational, on the grounds that an incident is unlikely and that a helmet may not prove to be of any benefit should anything occur. You have a problem with thinking in more than two dimensions, I think.
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
Failling while clipped-in is common. The "need" for a helmet appears to statistically very small. That is, they "function" only for rare events.
What proportion of people riding bicycles use clipless pedals? Of those, what proportion are likely to strike their heads at the kind of velocity that would be obtained from an unarrested fall from three feet or greater? How is falling over on a near-stationary bicycle inherently more dangerous than falling over from simply walking or standing? In other words, why should I care about how often cyclists fall over while clipped in? I've fallen at slow speeds several times. Judging by my experience, body armor would be a better investment than a helmet.