Originally Posted by mconlonx (Post 14924199)

Well, I give him as much credit as anyone else, including you, so when he says he's got a handle on the physics/math, I believe him. Maybe not all of what he has to say, but on that end, sure. He says his helmet deformed in accordance to the way it's supposed to, I accept that more than the usual, "My helmet cracked, so see? it saved my life!", because he knows what to look for and the forces involved with the material better than your average bear. Most of the people you bash here have no idea how to measure 3d deformation or that they should be looking for it in the first place.

We're still dealing with politics here, so yes, both sides are as correct as they are wrong. Just depends on your POV on this political issue. The studies both sides post don't do anything to clear up the issue because both sides use studies out of context, creating this confusing political divide for anyone coming into this for information.

In the end, despite his claims, I don't think a helmet will protect me any more than I did a few days ago before his post; a helmet won't protect me any less; but I will continue to wear one.. ...And you obviously aren't going to suddenly don a helmet because of what he says.

Again, it's the same tired "Helmet saved me!" "Did not!" bickering, just with bigger words. Do you know that his helmet didn't save his life just as he asserts? No. Does he know that it did? No. Just dealing in politics and probablities based on inconclusive studies, personal anecdote and experience. Again.

Originally Posted by 350htrr (Post 14924365)

Personal experiences can be worth 10X more than any text book learning And when head meets pavement I would say most people would probably say thank goodness I was wearing one not thank goodness I wasn't... JMO ;)

Originally Posted by mconlonx (Post 14924702)

...and for everyone who falls and says a helmet helped, there's someone out there who fell and didn't hit their head. Or injuries, including head/brain, were so severe, a helmet didn't matter. Or they haven't fallen in such a way that a helmet would have helped.

It's been established in this here thread that personal anecdotes are out. Like this most recent one. Even though personal experience means something to an individual, there's nothing about it which is valid in another's case.

I wear a helmet based partly on my own experience, but that's no reason anyone else should.

Originally Posted by 350htrr (Post 14924982)

Personal anecdotes/experiences are a good way to learn from other peoples experiences/mistakes and any particular possible outcome of a particular action/event, and should not be summarily dismissed...

Basically I guess what I am trying to say is that learning from other peoples mistakes is a lot better than ignoring them... ;)

Originally Posted by 350htrr (Post 14924365)

Personal experiences can be worth 10X more than any text book learning And when head meets pavement I would say most people would probably say thank goodness I was wearing one not thank goodness I wasn't... JMO ;)

Originally Posted by 350htrr (Post 14924982)

Personal anecdotes/experiences are a good way to learn from other peoples experiences/mistakes and any particular possible outcome of a particular action/event, and should not be summarily dismissed...

Originally Posted by mconlonx (Post 14925082)

When that experience is filtered through someone's personal views, dogmas, and prejudices, it's up to others to sift through all that with their own value system to find something useful.

Are you down with learning from those who's mistake was wearing a helmet?

Originally Posted by 350htrr (Post 14925176)

As for a scientific study, yes one MUST filter out all the personal views, but for a personal decision, one MUST learn from others experiences/probable mistakes and go with the prevailing view, but take it with a grain of salt...

Originally Posted by mconlonx (Post 14925207)

Which is different from the reasoning of those who don't wear helmets, how?

Originally Posted by 350htrr (Post 14925344)

I decide to wear a helmet because of my non belief of these so called studies, believing more in my real experiences/mistakes and also taken other peoples experiences/mistakes as I have been told about, and... I put on a helmet believing over all it's better.

The non-helmet group seems to have decided to ignore (and not learn from) other peoples experiences/mistakes as their personal mistakes haven't caused then any harm yet, and are believing the supposedly scientific studies/conclusions... Thus no helmet is better than wearing a helmet so they don't wear one...

Originally Posted by Ancient Mariner (Post 14925389)

I'm wondering what might have happened without the helmet.

Originally Posted by mconlonx (Post 14925383)

^^^ That's what I thought. I.e. you're as much an ignorant tool as you think the bare-headers here are. JMO ;)

Your reasoning is no different; your conclusions are. You admit that it is just your opinion, yet you discount the mere studied opinions of those who disagree with you. :thumb:

Originally Posted by Ancient Mariner (Post 14925389)

I'm wondering what might have happened without the helmet.

Originally Posted by 350htrr (Post 14925470)

The ONLY reason I'm here is to try and make people on the fence think first before they decide whether to wear a helmet or not. ;) I think once you have decided one way or the other change will be hard either way...

Originally Posted by sudo bike (Post 14925516)

But people have posted their real life experiences that run contrary to yours, so whether you're deciding based on "real-life experiences" (which is anecdotal, and there's a reason it's considered a far inferior form of evidence of something ) or "pieces of paper" (studies), you're filtering out some you don't like to hear.

Originally Posted by 350htrr (Post 14925538)

Yes, but people have different life experiences...
One person crashes and only has a bump on the head even tho he wasn't wearing a helmet.
Another person crashes and has a weeks worth of memory gone and was wearing a helmet, thus the conundrum...
What would have happened if the first person was wearing a helmet?
What would have happened if the second person wasn't wearing a helmet?

I can assure you that no piece of paper would/can answer those two questions... But maybe a 100 years + of people saying what happened to them may shine a bit of light onto the subject? But oh no that's anecdotal evidence and can't be used scientifically, but maybe should be used personally to decide what one should do...

Originally Posted by sudo bike (Post 14925575)

Sure, but then that isn't you basing your opinion on experience while everyone else is basing it on studies... that's you basing your opinion on some people's experience. 100+ years of a mixed bag doesn't shine much light on the subject...

Originally Posted by 350htrr (Post 14925470)

Exactly, I live my life according to my experience and what information I think is more relevant to me...

They live life according to their experience, and what information they think is more relevant to them...

I discard/disregard their piece of paper, they discard/disregard other peoples real life experiences... Of course we come to a different decision...

The ONLY reason I'm here is to try and make people on the fence think first before they decide whether to wear a helmet or not. ;) I think once you have decided one way or the other change will be hard either way...

Originally Posted by mconlonx (Post 14925643)

Why do you discount the personal experiences of others in favor of your own? Or rather, why do you expect others to give your personal experience more credence than their own?

Why do you assume the opinions of the bare headers are based only on studies you don't agree with instead of their own first hand experience on the matter?

Originally Posted by 350htrr (Post 14925678)

I don't discount others personal experiences I was just saying how I come to my conclusions and how they probably came to their conclusions...

Originally Posted by 350htrr (Post 14925671)

Here is my PERSONAL experience...
I have probably crashed/fallen off the bike 10 times in my life, 9 of those times my head never touched the ground... So mathematically in my case the helmet was TOTTALY USELESS 9 out of 10 times, I could write a paper saying that 90% of the time you crash the helmet is TOTTALY USELESS and be correct. But 1 time I lost one weeks worth of memory even tho I was wearing a helmet, so, was the helmet useless or not? Hard to prove what COULD have happened so my 9 out of t 10 stands and wearing a helmet is not needed... Isn't that how it works?

EDIT; Oh hell why not add a curve ball and actually come up with a hypotheses that the helmet actually may have increased the chance on my 1 week of memory loss happening, who can prove different?