"Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity"
Schumacher's not yet ok is he, so a bit premature ?
discussing whether wearing a crash hat is a safety feature or not is a bit like saying wearing a cxndom does not "help" prevent std's, unwanted pregnancies etc
in other words a personal decision and not really up for a debate anymore, its been done to death!
"Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity"
"Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity"
Presumably Schumacher has been saved from certain death by his harness when crashing in his F1 days so I'm surprised no-one started a thread then suggesting it was conclusive proof that cyclists ought to wear seat belts. Then again logic / reason go out he window on both sides when the 'h' word gets mentioned.
What is interesting is that reading about the Schumacher accident there are studies which suggest the uptake of ski helmets is not reducing the level of serious brain injuries at a population level. Mirrors some of what you read about helmet use on bikes.
There should be a helmet law – if you don’t wear a helmet you should legally have to fill out a Donor Card.
F**k you. I would post a reasoned argument elaborating, but you haven't, so why should I?
The reason people hates these threads is because of people like you. If you're not going to post a well-reasoned argument, the sort of thing that at least acknowledges other people disagreeing and explains, properly, why those disagreements are false, don't bother posting anything.
All you're doing is being annoying, since anyone who doesn't agree with you has to spend a lot more time than you did responding or let it be implied that there is no response, when there is. I bothered arguing with people like you in a civilised way, once, but after the thousandth time I just can't be bothered anymore.
nope, the reason people hate these threads is that there is no reasoned argument that hasnt been done to death a thousand times. it seems that @thegreatdivide has made a statement that you dont agree with. c'est la vie old chap
There should be a helmet law – if you don’t wear a helmet you should legally have to fill out a Donor Card.
F**k you. I would post a reasoned argument elaborating, but you haven't, so why should I?
The reason people hates these threads is because of people like you. If you're not going to post a well-reasoned argument, the sort of thing that at least acknowledges other people disagreeing and explains, properly, why those disagreements are false, don't bother posting anything.
All you're doing is being annoying, since anyone who doesn't agree with you has to spend a lot more time than you did responding or let it be implied that there is no response, when there is. I bothered arguing with people like you in a civilised way, once, but after the thousandth time I just can't be bothered anymore.
And you're saying f*ck you to people, so who is worse?
There should be a helmet law – if you don’t wear a helmet you should legally have to fill out a Donor Card.
F**k you. I would post a reasoned argument elaborating, but you haven't, so why should I?
The reason people hates these threads is because of people like you. If you're not going to post a well-reasoned argument, the sort of thing that at least acknowledges other people disagreeing and explains, properly, why those disagreements are false, don't bother posting anything.
All you're doing is being annoying, since anyone who doesn't agree with you has to spend a lot more time than you did responding or let it be implied that there is no response, when there is. I bothered arguing with people like you in a civilised way, once, but after the thousandth time I just can't be bothered anymore.
firstly, I d have a donor card law BUT not a pro helmet law but why r the arguments false dude?
it doesn't take an Einstein to realise that a helmet, gloves, eye protection or a flak jacket, whatever, is better than nothing - hit by a truck? dead - but low speed fall on ice, say, and maybe that ringing in your head will be replaced by a fractured skull ?
ok you ll say but I read this study or other but on the 'net any argument can be "proved"
btw... you do sound very civilised, like "get out my f ing way or I ll glass you" sort of civilised.
What is interesting is that reading about the Schumacher accident there are studies which suggest the uptake of ski helmets is not reducing the level of serious brain injuries at a population level. Mirrors some of what you read about helmet use on bikes.
This lies at the core of a real problem in medicine. While a lot of beneficial health interventions have little effect on a population level injuries and diseases happen to individuals. So if something only saves one life in 100 000 there is no justification in spending on it or making it compulsory. However, if you are the one then the success rate was 100% and not 0.001%. This is why a drug like Herceptin for breast cancer wasn't approved but caused so much anguish amongst patients and relatives.
Helmets may not make much difference to the population but do make incredible differences to individuals. To that end it seems ridiculous to make them compulsory but eminently sensible to advise people to wear them.
One problem with the statistics is that we may be looking at the wrong thing. We don't do nearly enough MRI scans on people with head injuries or have nearly enough understanding of the risks of concussion on long term function. This has become a major issue in American Football with some significant law suits and is being slowly mirrored in rugby and more recently football (Spur's goalkeeper) in the UK. It may well be that helmets have no impact on survivability from major injuries but a significantly beneficial effect on minor concussion and post-concussion syndromes. I am not aware of any work in this direction but am happy to be pointed in the right direction if anyone knows of any.
freddiegrubb
Posts: 448
Posts
Try again.
Happy new year
seanoconn
Rockrider 8.1
discussing whether wearing a crash hat is a safety feature or not is a bit like saying wearing a cxndom does not "help" prevent std's, unwanted pregnancies etc
in other words a personal decision and not really up for a debate anymore, its been done to death!
Might be again if Schuey doesn't make it :P
seanoconn
He needs a helmet for that surely.
Where's buxom Santa gone.... aw...
Here here,
Likewise drunks should pay for hospital treatment after accidents.
Why should average joe pay for the foolishness of idiot joe ?
1. It's 'Hear, hear'.
2. Not sure how donor cards qualify as payment.
On Strava.{/url}
New year, new avatar
seanoconn
I made the same point up thread.
Presumably Schumacher has been saved from certain death by his harness when crashing in his F1 days so I'm surprised no-one started a thread then suggesting it was conclusive proof that cyclists ought to wear seat belts. Then again logic / reason go out he window on both sides when the 'h' word gets mentioned.
F**k you. I would post a reasoned argument elaborating, but you haven't, so why should I?
The reason people hates these threads is because of people like you. If you're not going to post a well-reasoned argument, the sort of thing that at least acknowledges other people disagreeing and explains, properly, why those disagreements are false, don't bother posting anything.
All you're doing is being annoying, since anyone who doesn't agree with you has to spend a lot more time than you did responding or let it be implied that there is no response, when there is. I bothered arguing with people like you in a civilised way, once, but after the thousandth time I just can't be bothered anymore.
And you're saying f*ck you to people, so who is worse?
firstly, I d have a donor card law BUT not a pro helmet law but why r the arguments false dude?
it doesn't take an Einstein to realise that a helmet, gloves, eye protection or a flak jacket, whatever, is better than nothing - hit by a truck? dead - but low speed fall on ice, say, and maybe that ringing in your head will be replaced by a fractured skull ?
ok you ll say but I read this study or other but on the 'net any argument can be "proved"
btw... you do sound very civilised, like "get out my f ing way or I ll glass you" sort of civilised.
This lies at the core of a real problem in medicine. While a lot of beneficial health interventions have little effect on a population level injuries and diseases happen to individuals. So if something only saves one life in 100 000 there is no justification in spending on it or making it compulsory. However, if you are the one then the success rate was 100% and not 0.001%. This is why a drug like Herceptin for breast cancer wasn't approved but caused so much anguish amongst patients and relatives.
Helmets may not make much difference to the population but do make incredible differences to individuals. To that end it seems ridiculous to make them compulsory but eminently sensible to advise people to wear them.
One problem with the statistics is that we may be looking at the wrong thing. We don't do nearly enough MRI scans on people with head injuries or have nearly enough understanding of the risks of concussion on long term function. This has become a major issue in American Football with some significant law suits and is being slowly mirrored in rugby and more recently football (Spur's goalkeeper) in the UK. It may well be that helmets have no impact on survivability from major injuries but a significantly beneficial effect on minor concussion and post-concussion syndromes. I am not aware of any work in this direction but am happy to be pointed in the right direction if anyone knows of any.