|
drkodos
Jun 14, 2003, 9:25 PM
Post #76 of 160
(10723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
Second Tier....
Analysis of the statement: A helmet is safer.
1) Safer (?) than what?
1a) In order to be safer, something must first be unsafe.
1b) Thus: The implication is that not wearing helmet is unsafe.
Is not wearing a helmet unsafe? Has this questions really been asked and understood? This is the real crux of the argument. You see, those that feel a helmet is safer are really stating that not wearing one is unsafe.
Are we good here, or do we need to re-argue and redefine any of this?
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Jun 14, 2003, 9:27 PM
Post #77 of 160
(10723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: If you are PUSHING YOUR LIMITS while climbing, then you probably could use all the safety you can get. Otherwise, since nothing can go wrong, you should just freesolo. I mean, if you're truly experienced, and you are on a route that's below your limit, then what's the point of a rope? There are plenty of people that do so. They die young (usually).
this is another example of a common misconception.
Excerpted from John Dill’s analysis of all climbing accidents in yosemite valley for the last thirty years.
In reply to: No true free-soloer has been killed yet, although one, critically hurt, survived only by the speed of his rescue. A death will happen eventually, possibly the result of a loose hold. Is the free-soloer more alert to the task..... |
|
|
|
|
drkodos
Jun 14, 2003, 9:35 PM
Post #78 of 160
(10723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
Third Tier:
Actuary Tables. These are sets of number used by insurance companies to determine how much to charge one for the transference of liabilty.
They are very accurate. They are, in fact, the most accurate (to date) example of quantifying human behavior into a set of statistics that man (and woman) has devised.
You think they lie? When was the last time an insurance company went bankrupt? Not too often....it does happen, but rarely. Better chance tio get hit the head, then that happening :lol:
Actuary tables. If you don't accept them. We will probably split ways here at this fork in the road. If not, read on...
Actuary tables clearly show that events where helmets are used tend to generate large numbers of head injuries. Seems likely. Helmets are usually used because there ARE threats to the head.
Actaury tables indicate that over the past 12 years, as more helmets have been sold and used to climbers, the incident rate of head injuries claimed by climbers has risen at a higher rate than those numbers of new poeple entering the sport.
That means: not only are there more head injureis, but more per 100 climbers. Of course there are more head injuries...more people are climbing.
BUT, if 1 out of 100 should suffer head injuries and 500 new climber enter the sport, the 5 more people should suffer head injuries.
Real actuary tables indicate that in this scenario outline above, 25 WILL suffer head injuries.
There is more. It is complex.
Next...the bridge from these FACTS to the actual data available on those that wear helmets and their numbers, which are higher! yet.
|
|
|
|
|
hooker
Jun 14, 2003, 9:48 PM
Post #79 of 160
(10723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2003
Posts: 173
|
Actuaries are weird guys.
Sort of like the Guild Navigators in Dune.
What is their spice that allows them to determine future outcomes of behavior based on numbers. Whatever it is, I want some.....
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Jun 14, 2003, 9:53 PM
Post #80 of 160
(10723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
THe misuse of logic by the anti helmet forces is overwhelming.
Maybe someone will have fun pointing the errors out, there are far too many for me to waste my time with.
|
|
|
|
|
soma
Jun 14, 2003, 10:06 PM
Post #81 of 160
(10723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2003
Posts: 155
|
In reply to: Numbers may not tell the whole story, but statistics never lie. Only the people that use them do.
Stats never lie, BAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Statistics can be used to prove ANYTHING. If the data is collected correctly and the proper statistic is used then the null hypothesis can be rejected with a certain error. Statistics lie all the time. I know researchers that pay mathmaticians thousands of dollars to "find" "statistically significant" results in a jumble of otherwise meaningless data.
Even if you are using the right statistic you can still use a "soft" post-hoc test (parametric data) to "prove" your point.
David
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Jun 14, 2003, 10:35 PM
Post #82 of 160
(10723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
Who the F#$k cares what you do or don't do? I were a helmet and many of my partners don't. I wear one every time I climb unless I am soloing which I do lot. I don't ever ask anyone else to wear one unless they are a new student and I am teaching them. I would absolutly hate to have anyone tell me that I have to wear one. WTF?
|
|
|
|
|
csoles
Jun 14, 2003, 11:15 PM
Post #83 of 160
(10723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2002
Posts: 329
|
Doc, I'm overwhelmed by your verbosity...but not your intellect. Very disappointing actually. Your drivel just isn't worth the time to answer point by point. It would be easy to pick apart and you probably know it. Indeed I have looked into the helmet issue in greater depth than you claim but I don't care to thump my chest as you do.
Surely you can be more original than calling me a gear pimp (I left R&I years ago btw). Try for some real flames...since you've proved you aren't informative you may as well be entertaining.
|
|
|
|
|
cantclimbforsht
Jun 14, 2003, 11:25 PM
Post #84 of 160
(10723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 138
|
drkodos said that there are only two states of being: safe and unsafe. That is just ridiculous. nothing is ever completely safe. no matter what you are doing there is always a chance of injury. there are different degrees of safeness. were you actually serious when you said the thing about safe and unsafe? i agree that most of the time when someone wears a helmet, it doesnt do anything, but everyonce in a while, something will hit your head and you will have wished you had a helmet. of course a helmet wouldnt protect against a big rock, but it would help if a small rock hit you. I was at the local crag last week which normally has barely any rockfall, but some stupid kid at the top was kicking rocks off from the top. One of these rocks hit someone on the head and he had to be rushed to the hospital. I bet that he would reccomend wearing a helmet. although the benifits of wearing a helmet may be minimal, there are no benefits of not wearing one. someone said that they impair your vision, but they dont impair it enough to cause a problem. and yes it is always best to just make safe decisions when climbing, but who says you cant do this while wearing a helmet?
helmets can definately prevent injuries. how would you feel if the man who i saw get clonked on the head told me that he wasnt wearing a helmet because someone on rc.com told him that they are unsafe?
|
|
|
|
|
potreroed
Jun 14, 2003, 11:38 PM
Post #85 of 160
(10723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 1454
|
drkokos, thou art a fool. Still I hope you never have to eat your venomous words.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jun 14, 2003, 11:57 PM
Post #86 of 160
(10723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: Almost all accidents requiring helmets are completely avoidable. That's my point. Period. At last count, I have taken over 200 leader falls. Some as long as 100 feet. Not once did I wack my head. If it ain't safe to air it out---I don't.
So....
You understand and admit that not all accidents requiring helmets are avoidable.
You also state that you have never taken a risk.
What a boring life you must live.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jun 15, 2003, 12:02 AM
Post #87 of 160
(10723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: That means: not only are there more head injureis, but more per 100 climbers. Of course there are more head injuries...more people are climbing. BUT, if 1 out of 100 should suffer head injuries and 500 new climber enter the sport, the 5 more people should suffer head injuries. Real actuary tables indicate that in this scenario outline above, 25 WILL suffer head injuries. There is more. It is complex.
Not really....
Do you suppose the influx of more climbers causes the overall median skill level to dimish somewhat?
In other words, all these "new climbers" are just that... new. And therefore more prone to falls... and therfore more prone to injury?
You can toss out numbers as much as you want, but in the end, there are three types of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.
Have a nice day.
|
|
|
|
|
neadamthal
Jun 15, 2003, 12:18 AM
Post #88 of 160
(10723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2002
Posts: 245
|
the thing is that 'safe' is a construct of our minds - sorta looking to the future and trying to hedge your bets - so if a helmet can increase your odds of living through a bad situation then i think it IS safer only because we can forsee that benefit.
thus the helmet only really IS safe if it end up helping you out. until then it contributes nothing but your perceived safety. and yes, if a big muther of a rock hits you it hasn't increased your safety, just a prior and fleeting hope of conveyed safety.
but if it might help me i'll use it. maybe after a while i'll be more comfortable on the rock and will feel differently about it, but not right now! ;)
|
|
|
|
|
drkodos
Jun 15, 2003, 12:25 AM
Post #89 of 160
(10723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
reno:
the number of people with over five-years climbing experience having bad accidents is at an all time high. It is not just newbies. Don't misconstrue the point. Here it is: Climbing is being sold as something that can be made safe.
Sport climbing, helmets, gri-gri's. It's always the same issue. Buy something and be safer. Whether or not you choose to see it, doesn't matter. It's happening. People, newbies and veterans alike, are convinced that their own brains and the experiences given are not as important as what someone like Mr Soles comments about a pair of shoes.
The whole idea of posting for advice on the internet proves my point! Why would you come here and take advice from anyone regarding your life is beyond me.
Discourse? Yes.
Argument and exchange of ideas? Of course.
Advice on climbing? The fact that one chooses to even ask for advice marks them as an idiot. Beginner or noob, being unable to determine for themselves what is and isn't safe, makes you unable to even comprehend what the hell is going on. These people should be watching Jerry Springer, not climbing, and not posting on climbing message boards.
Mr Soles....did you ever give anything less than a C in any of your reviews?. Everything you ever commented upon seemed just fine. I guess getting free gear to review doesn't bias your lame ass. Mr Soles, you are too much of a chicken poopie to actually try to refute my points. You just answer by saying you won't answer. Proof positive of your superior pimping skills. Nothing wrong with pimping. I pimp lots of things myself. I'm just honest about who the real master is... $$$$. You are just lame and a tool of forces beyond your scope. I pity you.
Prove to me the gear you reviewed isn't a freebie.
Want me to post your embarassing suck-ups to these manufacturers? There out there, for everyone to read. All your disgusting, saccarhine reviews for gear that has been proven to be tech for tech sake, and does nothing good except generate revenue for some corporation.
How big do you want the flames, before you actaully make a statement that argues the points. Instead, you hide behind some wall of illusion.
Bring it on....
no one has refuted anything I've said. They cut and paste and distort. They adhominem attack. They select various tid bits and take them out of context.
Remember: only one person saw the emperors's new clothes for what they really were.
The rest of you people are polishing the brass on the Titanic
edited for language as per my recent warning. my wrist is still sore, but able to correct
|
|
|
|
|
neadamthal
Jun 15, 2003, 12:31 AM
Post #90 of 160
(10723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2002
Posts: 245
|
In reply to: no one has refuted anything I've said.
i refute that! so burned! ;)
|
|
|
|
|
hooker
Jun 15, 2003, 12:38 AM
Post #91 of 160
(10723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2003
Posts: 173
|
drkodos:
will you be plaing the Human torch in the Fantastic Four movie?
Those are some awesome flames. Which end are they coming from?
your best friend.....
Suzanne
|
|
|
|
|
drkodos
Jun 15, 2003, 12:48 AM
Post #92 of 160
(10723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
In reply to: drkokos, thou art a fool. Still I hope you never have to eat your venomous words.
I eat them all the time.
Like all Americans, I drown them with ketchup...Yum-Yum! Like McDonald's, it all tastes the same, and looks the same when I'm done sucking out the nutrition.
Get over yourself. Get past the bluster and look at the real issue. I do all the time.
So what words do I need to eat? The ones wear I say I use my helmet when guiding? How about the ons where I state that ice climbing is foolish without a helmet.
I just think you have to read everything to really understand the larger points.
Like most, you read enough to think you get it. Once you get offended, you shut your brain off. That's okay. I expect it.
Most are judging with only a glimpse at the real points and issues. That's okay.
You all are so close to convincing me how wrong I am. I am at the crux of changing and being a better person. Won't you please help?
Send your donations to:
Help drkodos get a life and a clue
PO BOX 69
Lost Wages, Nevada
|
|
|
|
|
hooker
Jun 15, 2003, 12:52 AM
Post #93 of 160
(10723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2003
Posts: 173
|
In reply to: Send your donations to: Help drkodos get a life and a clue PO BOX 69 Lost Wages, Nevada
csoles might not want to admit it, but those last rants were very entertaing, in a "What the heck is wrong with you" kind of way.
|
|
|
|
|
camoaero
Jun 15, 2003, 12:56 AM
Post #94 of 160
(10723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2002
Posts: 48
|
Do you accept VISA Doctor?
|
|
|
|
|
drkodos
Jun 15, 2003, 1:06 AM
Post #95 of 160
(10723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
Mr Soles:
In the June 94 issue of Rock & Ice you wrote an editorial for the magazine.
In the first paragraph you state: "200 representatives from government, non-profit organizations, and outdoor industry came together with the lofty goal of charting the future of human powered recreation in the United States." bold emphasis mine
You state again and again how often you sleep with the governement and the manufacturers in determing the"future" of our sport and then you say you don't pimp? Nowhere in the article do you state that the actual concerns of the invidual climbers were addressed. Only the concerns of larger institutions. This is but one of many pieces where you detail how you and your cronies will outline the course of climbing over the upcomming years.
You can fool most of the people most of the time, Mr Soles. But not me. I've been re-reading your propagandistic shilling for the companies. It's all there for anyone else to read also.. Buried amound dozens of issues in climbing rags, where you outline the path YOU think climbing should take.
I worked as journalist and realize the pressures to write certain things, at certain times and in certain ways. If the newspaper lives off the ad revenues from restaurants, do you trust their restaurant critic? Please address this issue. Can you?
Give me reason to trust the words of a man whose salary came from the revenue of selling ads to the companies whose gear he reviews.
To Pimp, according to Webster's: To entice, allure.
Isn't that exactly the point of your glowing reviews? To encourage people to go spend money on gear. It's certainly the point of a restaurant review. Same too with a movie review.
But not you. You are above this. Your self-appointed "LOFTY" (your words, not mine) perch allows you to be above and beyond reproach? On the contray...the smaller the issue, the larger the body politic.
I am still looking for one negative review in all your years as an editor. Even that shameful suck-up Harry Knowles, on Ain't-it-cool-news doesn't like something once in a while.
Not once do you ever advise to "not buy." It always: it's great! A good deal! Buy! Buy! Buy! Hard to beleive with all the thousand of pieces of gear you were given (for free) to review, that you've never found one that sucks. You certainly never wrote about it.
Please point out your non-bias. I'm still looking and I'm running out of magazines.
Until then, keep hiding from the truth, and I stand by my statements that you are nothing more than a corporate pimp. You just don't realize it.
|
|
|
|
|
smiley
Jun 15, 2003, 1:17 AM
Post #96 of 160
(10723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2003
Posts: 249
|
In reply to: Yeah, but... you know... a helmet makes you look really stupid! It's like... you know... you're afraid or something! It's really sissi of you to use a helmet... you know?... Like... nobody wears a helmet at the crag... and the helmet is huge, it makes the rest of your body look small and weak... If you were climbing and rocks were falling... or worse, rocks were raining, that would be cool because you could knock them away as you climbed! That would be cool!... You know?... it's like... you're surrounded by all those strong climbers with no helmets and you look like a wimp with your helmet on... you know? And i feel SO inferior... :shock:
Yeah, but if you fall, you're not going to care how you look as they're airlifting you off to a medical facility. I'd protect your assets.
|
|
|
|
|
hooker
Jun 15, 2003, 1:34 AM
Post #97 of 160
(10723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2003
Posts: 173
|
In reply to: Mr Soles: In the June 94 issue of Rock & Ice you wrote an editorial for the magazine. In the first paragraph you state: "200 representatives from government, non-profit organizations, and outdoor industry came together with the lofty goal of charting the future of human powered recreation in the United States." bold emphasis mine Give me reason to trust the words of a man whose salary came from the revenue of selling ads to the companies whose gear he reviews. Your self-appointed "LOFTY" (your words, not mine) perch allows you to be above and beyond reproach? Not once do you ever advise to "not buy." It always: it's great! A good deal! Buy! Buy! Buy! Hard to beleive with all the thousand of pieces of gear you were given (for free) to review, that you've never found one that sucks. You certainly never wrote about it.
well....we're waiting......
don't think we'll get a staight answer.
And all the time I thought this was about helmets being safer?
Awesome thread......
|
|
|
|
|
drkodos
Jun 15, 2003, 1:38 AM
Post #98 of 160
(10723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
All I hear are some crickets chirping.
|
|
|
|
|
climberpunk
Jun 15, 2003, 2:14 AM
Post #99 of 160
(10723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2003
Posts: 171
|
the serious part of my post:
Helmets do not make you safe. The most effective preventive tool to avoid injury is your brain. If you let anything get in the way of that, you're fvcked. If you let a helmet trick u into beliving that you're invincible, you will more than likely get hurt. Helmets are bad in the same way that cams are bad, if you think that they are gaurenteed to save you, they might not. They CAN allure [or pimp, according to websters] you into taking greater risks. However, if you don't give into the false sense of security, and dont take any risks with a helmet you wouldnt take without a helmet, then you will be safer. by "safer" i mean you will have a lowered chance of dying. Wearing a helmet will remove one possible form of injury-small rockfall/dropped gear. OF COURSE you will be safer if you avoid dropped gear and rockfall, but you'd also be safer if you didnt climb at all.
bottom line: If, when you wear a helmet, you allow it to lull you into a false[or perhaps not so false] sense of security, you will have exposed yourself to greater risk. If you remember that a helmet WONT always save you, and treat it as a extra precaution, to supplement your judgement, it COULD save your life in a scenario that was unavoidable [rockfall at a normally solid crag]. And as far as im concerned, thats worth wearing one.
ANTI-FACISM DISCLAIMER Ok. noone call me a facist. I belive, more than anything else in life, that NOONE SHOULD MAKE ANY DECISION FOR ANYONE ELSE. EVER. This is why im anarchist. If you want to flame me for that, then please make a new post, dont clutter this one any further. I belive that anyone should choose wether or not to wear a helmet. I also belive that it makes you safer, and that IN GENERAL its a good idea to wear a helmet, and i encourage it. But if you dont want to, then dont. Im not gonna say i dont care, because i do. ill be sad if you die. but you have every right not to wear a helmet. so dont. just realise that you are making a decision, similar to [but much much less extreme] than deciding to free-solo. whichever you do, remember to have fun! or not, if its not your thing...
my last point, its basically a flame:
In reply to: Most HEAD INJURIES happen at home. Do you wear a helmet there? No. There are many more things that provide much higher danger to your head, but you don't wear a helmet in any of these events. Mr Soles, do you dispute these Facts that most head injuries happen at home? Or in automobile accidents. Next time I see you driving without a helmet, you get two points removed from your rights to publish advise-o-meter.
i realise there are spallin' mahstakees in mah' poost here...correcting them to prove my stupidity is petty and obnoxious. but as always, you're free to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
brianthew
Jun 15, 2003, 3:11 AM
Post #100 of 160
(10723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 1820
|
In the style of the above sig:
^ 1 49r33 \/\/1+|-| +|-|4+ d00d. |-|3l/\/\3+5 4r3 /\/0+ 4 54v3 4ll, ju5+ 4 l1++l3 i/\/5uR4/\/c3 4g4i/\/5t 5u8jec+1\/3 d4/\/g3r5.
Heehee.
/me is a l337 h4x0r!!1
Anyway, I just paged through the recent R&I about free soloing....and there's Mr. Alex Huber free soloing some 18 pitch 5.12....with a helmet. I suppose one could bring up that sponsorship thing here, since he is a sponsored climber, but still...interesting nonetheless. Now I realize that Huber wasn't just cragging here, it was a serious and extremely commiting climb.
Helmets at crags? Meh. Whatever. Wear what you want. But I think we should all read about the benefits of wearing helmets while bouldering!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
