Tim McNamara
12-31-1969, 08:00 PM
In article <469088da$0$31291$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote: {please excuse missing attributions}
Sure. These comments are just yours and mine, so it's easy to keep
straight.
<snip>
> >> People for whom they HAVE worked know they do; they don't need no
> >> steenkin' proof beyond personal experience and reasonable
> >> deduction. (Two hard surfaces -- buffer between good.)
> >
> > No, Bill, they don't "know." They *believe.* They believe the
> > foam hat saved their life, prevented permanent disability, saved
> > them buckets of pain, whatever. But belief != fact whether in
> > helmetism or any other religion.
>
> Knowing something happened tends to lead to belief about it. I
> /know/ (felt, heard, saw) helmets prevent or substantially lessen
> injury when someone falls into/onto rocks or asphalt or curbs;
> therefore, I /believe/ they're effective to a certain degree.
Almost. You interpreted what you felt/heard/saw in a particular way,
but due to human nature this interpretation is filtered through
preexisting beliefs in such a way as to reinforce those beliefs. Now,
as I've said all along, in some/all/none your beliefs may or may not be
correct. You're still conflating belief and knowledge which is the
hallmark of "common sense."
> (Back to the seat belt argument. If I experience one restraining me
> during a car crash or panic stop, then I don't need studies or stats
> to convince me they work or don't. I /know/ they do.)
We know from applying the scientific method that seat belts reduce
injuries in car crashes. Thousands of crash test dummies have been
sacrificed in finding this out. Alternative designs have been tested.
That level of rigor has not been applied to bicycle helmets.
The evidence is equivocal as to whether helmets provide protection. The
effect size in the reduction of cycling-related brain injuries that
should be seen, if the marketing claims of helmet makers and the
supporting claims of pro-helmet people were true, simply haven't been
seen. As I've said before, I want helmets to work. I want effective
protection against brain injuries. The current foam hat doesn't seem up
to the task based on the available data and there doesn't appear to be a
push from within the helmet industry to create a product that does work.
They are being amply rewarded for selling products that are marginal in
effectiveness, so there is probably little incentive.
I do think that helmets are helpful in preventing scalp lacerations,
abrasions and bruises, which is useful protection IMHO, but not
necessarily in preventing brain injury. There is a situation in which I
think helmet use is probably helpful in preventing brain injury: kids.
They're smaller, moving slower, have a higher likelihood of crashing,
and are more likely to have crashes that are within the parameters of
what helmets can cope with. I could be wrong in this belief, of course,
because it's based on assumptions rather than quantified facts.
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote: {please excuse missing attributions}
Sure. These comments are just yours and mine, so it's easy to keep
straight.
<snip>
> >> People for whom they HAVE worked know they do; they don't need no
> >> steenkin' proof beyond personal experience and reasonable
> >> deduction. (Two hard surfaces -- buffer between good.)
> >
> > No, Bill, they don't "know." They *believe.* They believe the
> > foam hat saved their life, prevented permanent disability, saved
> > them buckets of pain, whatever. But belief != fact whether in
> > helmetism or any other religion.
>
> Knowing something happened tends to lead to belief about it. I
> /know/ (felt, heard, saw) helmets prevent or substantially lessen
> injury when someone falls into/onto rocks or asphalt or curbs;
> therefore, I /believe/ they're effective to a certain degree.
Almost. You interpreted what you felt/heard/saw in a particular way,
but due to human nature this interpretation is filtered through
preexisting beliefs in such a way as to reinforce those beliefs. Now,
as I've said all along, in some/all/none your beliefs may or may not be
correct. You're still conflating belief and knowledge which is the
hallmark of "common sense."
> (Back to the seat belt argument. If I experience one restraining me
> during a car crash or panic stop, then I don't need studies or stats
> to convince me they work or don't. I /know/ they do.)
We know from applying the scientific method that seat belts reduce
injuries in car crashes. Thousands of crash test dummies have been
sacrificed in finding this out. Alternative designs have been tested.
That level of rigor has not been applied to bicycle helmets.
The evidence is equivocal as to whether helmets provide protection. The
effect size in the reduction of cycling-related brain injuries that
should be seen, if the marketing claims of helmet makers and the
supporting claims of pro-helmet people were true, simply haven't been
seen. As I've said before, I want helmets to work. I want effective
protection against brain injuries. The current foam hat doesn't seem up
to the task based on the available data and there doesn't appear to be a
push from within the helmet industry to create a product that does work.
They are being amply rewarded for selling products that are marginal in
effectiveness, so there is probably little incentive.
I do think that helmets are helpful in preventing scalp lacerations,
abrasions and bruises, which is useful protection IMHO, but not
necessarily in preventing brain injury. There is a situation in which I
think helmet use is probably helpful in preventing brain injury: kids.
They're smaller, moving slower, have a higher likelihood of crashing,
and are more likely to have crashes that are within the parameters of
what helmets can cope with. I could be wrong in this belief, of course,
because it's based on assumptions rather than quantified facts.