I insisted on nothing. Just pointed out the platitude you've used before to dodge the question.

And yet less than a year ago, it was a "fair question."

You project such unrealistic qualities onto a few ounces of fabric. Surely you can find a slow, one-way, near zero traffic road to enjoy a few moments unbuckled, you know, just to flush.

-mr. bill

I seriously doubt that. Or this:



I had thought that you might be interested in the differing risk ratios and catastrophic consequences which show that your analogy is improper, but since you prefer this vaguely insulting mis-recollection instead, I'll go back to non-conversational mode with you now.

Someone posts a picture of his *NOT* *DEAD* father and they are part of the "helmet saved my life!" crowd?

Another person is an eye-witness to a crash and posted their opinion that the rider would have gone to the hospital had they not been wearing a helmet, and you challenge the "fact" - and you know this opinion is false because, why? Because you have a keyboard?

Another person posts about their helmet and their head, and their opinion that without the helmet they would have hurt their head. And yet you challenge again, and you know that opinion is false because, why? Because their helmet and their head are actually yours?

-mr. bill

1) No, they would be part of the "unfounded claims made by helmeteers" crowd. Because obviously, dad wasn't wearing a helmet and is not dead...

2) I did not claim it was presented as a fact, nor did I claim their opinion was false. I can haz logic.

3) Again, I did not claim -- nor do I know that -- their opinion is false, I merely asked why they thought their opinion was correct. And they provided more follow up information. Which you may have noted I did not challenge. I know what the bare-head brigade challenges would be to his reply, but it satisfied my previously stated curiosity -- I think probably their helmet could very well have provided some injury mitigation, but would still stop short of a definitive statement without qualifiers.

The only unfounded statement is by you, questioning if a helmet would have helped.... He reported a story, and offered an emphatic opinion.

You? Well....

How can you claim this as truth?

I can't say it any better than this:

-mr. bill

The implication was pretty clear. You'd have to be pretty obtuse in your understanding to not connect the two statements with each other. And I didn't offer a statement in response, only a couple of questions.

How can you claim a question is false? Or a non-truth?

That sounds familiar, hmm...:

The existence of helmet threads speaks for human sanity as much as the existence of a Flat Earth Society.

Uh, you better be careful with the whole flat earth analogy. Scientists are currently testing a theory that the universe is 2d (flat, which would include the Earth) and we are merely experiencing a holographic projection...

"Scientists" test a lot of things.

A fresh new start, with fresh new insults.

Havent posted here in a while. Checked in and see the usual suspects that are against helmets are amazingly still alive and kicking. They remind me of one of my sons that told me that teens are good drivers since they have lightning quick reflexes. But-------------------------that was before he had an accident.

Keep up the good work! :thumb: :)

And I thank my helmet for my continuing ability to come up with more and more.

These threads often make use of statistics in all sort of right and wrong ways. One needs statistics only when no direct experience exists for an event. Probability is not fact, it is merely the projection of the past into the future making lots of assumptions like that trends will continue and models are correct, which often don't and aren't. Hence people with an intact helmet enjoy 0% of the effects the probability predicts, and people with a cracked helmet suffer 100%.

When you have direct experience of what a helmet can do for you when you fall on your head, you need not freaking statistics, or other people's say in the matter.

A wonderful human ability is that of learning from other people's experiences. That's why many smart people wear helmets, and when their day of misfortune comes, god forbid, they go through the mishap dressed for it.

As you were.

Another step toward the idea that it's all a computer game and the player(s) must be getting bored and any time now comes the big Switch Off. Keep your helmet on.

If we're waxing philosophical, this perspective must be feasible since people survive it but I have to disagree both in theory and in practice. Reason helps us before an event, and in reacting to an event, but after the fact our reasons are less relevant than the repercussions. We probably agree on that - maybe that's all you're trying to say in which case I take it back and say "spot on."

But it sounds like you want to disregard the probability and statistics because of a specific outcome, which would be completely wrong. Everything we experience is governed by some probability, which we may control to varying extent which makes it fundamental to rational, thoughtful behavior. Otherwise we're reduced to rote rule-following.

When no incident occurs, we do experience a non-zero positive benefit - the risk reduction we obtained when we made the decision. After the ride is over, and we didn't bump our head, it is hard to say there was any benefit to the helmet - and yet, if the decision was optimal for risk reduction prior to the ride, it is still optimal even in hind-sight knowing nothing happened. Because of the element of chance.

The important question is not "how likely am I to need a helmet?", it is "what are the implications of not having a helmet and needing one?".

I see those as being almost the same question! Or more precisely, two sides to the same question, which mathematically is the "expected value" of a decision. You need at minimum both the likelihood of the event, and the severity of the consequence. More realistically, the likelihood of a spectrum of events and the consequence of each of them.

Then I respectfully submit you are not making important distinctions. They are very different questions.

Maybe it's a difference between a mathematical mode of thought and other perspectives. Which isn't intended to be condescending or snarky, but there are different ways to look at the world.

Neither question is sufficient by itself to evaluate risk. But they are both necessary.

I probably wouldn't have remarked on it, but I thought your two questions were well put for explaining the actual risk calculation - not with the distinction, but with the questions together. e.g,

To evaluate risk, the two questions are "how likely am I to need a helmet?", and "what are the implications of not having a helmet and needing one?".

Ergo, you wear a helmet while driving/walking/watching TV, because according to your own admission it's not important what the chance is that driving/walking/watching TV will result in head injury, it's all about the implications of not having a helmet while driving/walking/watching TV and needing one.

I think it's the fact that you made a misstatement initially by saying they were almost the same question -- which, to your credit, you immediately corrected -- when they're really the two variables you need to get an expected value for a particular random variable.

I agree with you, though; you need both the probability of an event happening and the magnitude of the consequences of the event's occurrence to make any meaningful statement about what measures should be taken.

I still don't see the misstatement but a lack of clarity is not that unusual for me. Both are are attempting to ask the question about risk, hence "almost the same question, or two sides of the same question" but neither correctly so. He put it succinctly though, in stating the two necessary questions.

I disregard probability and statistics because I have something better, the real McCoy. And if I were to use the past to know what to expect in the future, no past is my relevant than my own. I need not probabilistic estimate to tell me what I know for sure, that cycling the way I do, where I do, I can hurt my head.

Statistics is mostly mind games. A succedaneum of real knowledge. Useful for dealing with large populations, almost useless for individual events. It's ALWAYS an estimate, because the future is not knowable. Therefore, the confidence factor pales next to what is knowable: (1) two-wheel vehicles keep an easy to lose, precarious balance at all times; (2) impacts to the head at cycling speeds can cause serious injury and death. That suffices for me.

Here is a statistic: One in seven Americans dies of heart problems. That is useful to direct funds for medical research at the national level, but it says squat about the condition of your heart, or mine. Similarly for helmet stats.

Sooo well said.