Giro helmets - huge appreciation

[benb]

I don't know. Umbridge?

Dumb de dumb de dumb de dumb, dumb de dumb de dumb dumb ?

Oop, I meant umbrage.
In either case it's not hump bridge, although I like that as a term - like getting the hump.

 

[benb]

Hows this then ? From my research (my eyes) more people wear helmets these days than dont. I call that pretty hard evidence.

Lot's of people use homeopathy, that doesn't make it efficacious.

Popularity does not mean it's conferring an advantage.

 

[threebikesmcginty]

Against all the odds, I made it in again - phew!

 

[tigger]

Only if the helmet was made of skin and bone.

Yes, absolutely

 

[lukesdad]

Lot's of people use homeopathy, that doesn't make it efficacious.

Popularity does not mean it's conferring an advantage.

How does that follow then minority compared to majority. You ll have to do a bit better than lots of people use Homeothapy. Or cant you ?

Popularity Doesnt mean it doesnt either does it ?

 

[lukesdad]

How does that follow then minority compared to majority. You ll have to do a bit better than lots of people use Homeothapy. Or cant you ?

Popularity Doesnt mean it doesnt either does it ?

... obviously people must believe theres an advantage otherwise it would be a minority, just like red light. Who knows ?

 

[Red Light]

Hows this then ? From my research (my eyes) more people wear helmets these days than dont. I call that pretty hard evidence.

That's very soft evidence. Its subjective, not objective, its not collected against a protocol designed to minimise confounding by factors such as different levels of wearing in different localities, time of day etc. The best national figure is in TRL PPR420 which comes up with 34.3% for the UK with large regional variations based on measurements at 100 sites across GB. So that's two non-wearers for every wearer not less than 1:1

 

[david k]

No, you'll need to get the hang of this evidence thing first. Evidence is something that demonstrates the truth of an assertion. All you made just was an assertion.

So lets try again. What hard evidence have you produced to demonstrate the truth of your assertion that wearing a helmet is advantageous?

your right of course, i haven't posted a link to an obscure journal, i dont nead one to wear a helmet. So lets try again, why do you need hard evidence before putting a helmet on, why have you no confidence in your own common sense?

 

[Red Light]

How does that follow then minority compared to majority. You ll have to do a bit better than lots of people use Homeothapy. Or cant you ?

Popularity Doesnt mean it doesnt either does it ?

Homeopathy is a great example and analogy. Its popular, its available on the NHS, Prince Charles supports it so it must work mustn't it? If it didn't the Government would stop the NHS offering it surely.

Well its still being offered on the NHS despite the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology saying:

"In the Committee’s view, homeopathy is a placebo treatment and the Government should have a policy on prescribing placebos. The Government is reluctant to address the appropriateness and ethics of prescribing placebos to patients, which usually relies on some degree of patient deception. Prescribing of placebos is not consistent with informed patient choice - which the Government claims is very important - as it means patients do not have all the information needed to make choice meaningful. Beyond ethical issues and the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship, prescribing pure placebos is bad medicine"

and it being unsupported by the whole scientific evidence base. But you will never convince a homoeopathic practitioner or a convinced patient that it doesn't work. Bit like many of the aspects of helmets discussed here really.

 

[david k]

yes once again you give up

 

[Red Light]

your right of course, i haven't posted a link to an obscure journal, i dont nead one to wear a helmet. So lets try again, why do you need hard evidence before putting a helmet on, why have you no confidence in your own common sense?

They're hardly obscure - they are mainstream journals such as the BMJ and Injury Prevention. If you think them obscure then you are probably just illustrating your lack of knowledge on the subject.

You don't need hard evidence to put on a helmet or sling a luck rabbits foot round your neck. As long as it makes you happy and is not harming anyone else then go ahead. But as for common sense, as Einstein said, its just the collection of prejudices acquired by the age 18 and which tells us the earth is flat and the sun goes round it. I prefer to check my common sense against evidence as I've come across too many situations that are counter-intuitive to rely on common sense alone.

 

[david k]

They're hardly obscure - they are mainstream journals such as the BMJ and Injury Prevention. If you think them obscure then you are probably just illustrating your lack of knowledge on the subject.

You don't need hard evidence to put on a helmet or sling a luck rabbits foot round your neck. As long as it makes you happy and is not harming anyone else then go ahead. But as for common sense, as Einstein said, its just the collection of prejudices acquired by the age 18 and which tells us the earth is flat and the sun goes round it. I prefer to check my common sense against evidence as I've come across too many situations that are counter-intuitive to rely on common sense alone.

ok, i understand now

 

[benb]

Oh, and the common sense argument is ridiculous.
It was common sense that made people think the earth was flat for centuries.
Common sense can often be wrong, that's why we developed the scientific method, to remove our biases and stop us deluding ourselves.

The simple fact is that when applied to a large group of people, cycle helmets do not significantly reduce the risk of head injury. Therefore compulsion is unwarranted.

 

[david k]

Oh, and the common sense argument is ridiculous.
It was common sense that made people think the earth was flat for centuries.
Common sense can often be wrong, that's why we developed the scientific method, to remove our biases and stop us deluding ourselves.

The simple fact is that when applied to a large group of people, cycle helmets do not significantly reduce the risk of head injury. Therefore compulsion is unwarranted.

so i am a fool for wearing a helmet because it isnt compulsory?

 

[monkeypony]

Why the on on earth do people feel the need to repeatedly justify their decision either to wear or not wear a bicycle hat.

What the hell is wrong with you people?

Step away from the keyboards folks. Life is passing you by.......