Why the NEED to Lecture Gearless stranger on an EUC?

[Patton250]

40 minutes ago, LanghamP said:

This entire statement by you doesn't advance human knowledge in any way. It's worthless.

If you say something is irresponsible yet make no mention why, then it's a statement with no thought put into it.

If you say these statements sound like those written by an child, yet don't pull out a single fallacy from it, then its a statement meant to insult.

You could just say, "you're stupid because I disagree with you, and I'm not inclined to say why."

Unfortunately, seeing you argue is like seeing a dog on its hind legs praying, the wonder of it all is not that it can pray well, but that it can pray at all. Although, that's probably much too generous.

 You should do a YouTube video where you sit at a table and have a big question out front of the table that says “ I don’t think helmets make you safer change my mind” lol

 You can invite people to sit down and discuss it with you. 

 Your next video can be “ I don’t think seatbelts make you safer change my mind” lol

Next. “ timing watches for diving are unnecessary, change my mind”

Next “ vegetables are not as healthy as people say, change my mind”

 I can do this all day. This is how patently absurd this conversation has gotten. 

 

 Why don’t you just say that you’re willing to take the risk.  I would say cool to that. Your argument that helmets don’t make it safer is freaking ridiculous at this point. I’m embarrassed for you. I’m still assuming you’re not serious. 

 

 Actually I’m embarrassed  for myself that I was stupid enough to engage in this ridiculous conversation.  This is something to eight-year-olds would argue about.  I will now respectfully bow out of this. 

PS- i’m still giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re just messing around here. Either that or you truly are 13 years old. :-)

Edited September 1, 2019 by Patton250

[LanghamP]

4 hours ago, Binh Nam Vu said:

For all the people that gave the stats on helmets being more dangerous, were they wearing the helmets properly? Were they wearing decent helmets, or the cheapest Chinese crap they could get a hold of? I have a feeling most the people in the studies were wearing cheap crap. Also, if not worn properly, the helmet can slide off the head and the strap can pull on your neck to break it.

There's a few things in here that bear repeating.

Expensive helmets don't protect more than cheap helmets.

New helmets don't protect better than old helmets, as helmets' protection doesn't wear out for a measurable time.

People wearing helmets take more risks than when they don't wear helmets. 

Drivers pass closer and hit people more often who are wearing helmets.

For bicyclists, there was no statistical difference between groups wearing helmets versus not wearing helmets.

Personally, I've got a crazy number of helmets, including full face downhillers, but I often wear no protection whatsoever and keep it below 12 mph, and often average just 9 mph on my KS16S.

[LanghamP]

1 minute ago, Patton250 said:

 You should do a YouTube video where you sit at a table and have a big question out front of the table that says “ I don’t think helmets make you safer change my mind” lol

 You can invite people to sit down and discuss it with you. 

 Your next video can be “ I don’t think seatbelts make you safer change my mind” lol

Next. “ timing watches for diving are unnecessary, change my mind”

Next “ vegetables are not as healthy as people say, change my mind”

 I can do this all day. This is how patently absurd this conversation has gotten. 

 

 Why don’t you just say that you’re willing to take the risk.  I would say cool to that. Your argument that helmets don’t make it safer is freaking ridiculous at this point. I’m embarrassed for you. I’m still assuming you’re not serious. 

This is not an argument.

If you said, wearing a helmet reduces peak g forces during a crash, then I could absolutely agree with that metric. We take a ball peen hammer, ram it into the helmet, and measure the peak Gs.

Do you agree with that metric?

[houseofjob]

[Patton250]

4 minutes ago, houseofjob said:

Nah. It’s been a while since my brain hurt this much. Anyway I’d rather talk to you about editing videos on that other thread. 

[houseofjob]

Just now, Patton250 said:

Nah. It’s been a while since my brain hurt this much. Anyway I’d rather talk to you about editing videos on that other thread. 

I'm usual allergic to negativity, but am also right now bored, so, ........

[Patton250]

1 minute ago, houseofjob said:

I'm usual allergic to negativity, but am also right now bored, so, ........

 I have a rack of lamb on the big green egg and some asparagus cooking. Definitely not bored. I most certainly hate negativity. 

[houseofjob]

3 minutes ago, Patton250 said:

 I have a rack of lamb on the big green egg and some asparagus cooking. Definitely not bored. I most certainly hate negativity. 

[LanghamP]

1 hour ago, houseofjob said:

The question everyone asks is, "do helmets help you in a crash?"

This is the wrong question!

There's a branch of applied mathematics called Operations Research (I was first introduced to this in statistics class). It basically consists of asking the right questions.

"Do helmets help in a crash?" should be instead "do helmets keep you safer?"

No, if the protective equipment allows you to engage in more dangerous activities!

And this is easy to measure; because you can compare the history of your groups before the introduction of said safety measures, or two groups with and without the safety measure.

So let's assume introducing helmets into the population makes the population safer, as mesasured by deaths and injuries. We can measure this by looking looking at countries that have mandatory helmet laws (Australia) or the highest rate of helmet usage (USA). We'd expect said countries to have the lowest injury and death rates (however you want to measure it).

Do those two countries have the lowest rates?

The nuance, of course, is the difference between helmets keeping you safer in a crash, and helmets encouraging a crash.

Those laymen (I had to finally put @Patton250 on ignore as he simply couldn't go past insults) wouldn't think there is a difference between those two questions.

[houseofjob]

3 minutes ago, LanghamP said:

The question everyone asks is, "do helmets help you in a crash?"

This is the wrong question!

There's a branch of applied mathematics called Operations Research (I was first introduced to this in statistics class). It basically consists of asking the right questions.

"Do helmets help in a crash?" should be instead "do helmets keep you safer?"

No, if the protective equipment allows you to engage in more dangerous activities!

And this is easy to measure; because you can compare the history of your groups before the introduction of said safety measures, or two groups with and without the safety measure.

So let's assume introducing helmets into the population makes the population safer, as mesasured by deaths and injuries. We can measure this by looking looking at countries that have mandatory helmet laws (Australia) or the highest rate of helmet usage (USA). We'd expect said countries to have the lowest injury and death rates (however you want to measure it).

Do those two countries have the lowest rates?

The nuance, of course, is the difference between helmets keeping you safer in a crash, and helmets encouraging a crash.

Those laymen (I had to finally put @Patton250 on ignore as he simply couldn't go past insults) wouldn't think there is a difference between those two questions.

[LanghamP]

37 minutes ago, houseofjob said:

You should do your own research on whether helmets keep you safer, because conclusions arrived at your own cognizance are more respected than being told how to think.

[Darrell Wesh]

It is true, almost without a doubt for most everyone, that the more gear worn equates to increased likelihood of doing more dangerous things. 

I know I wouldn’t roll down a flight of stairs on my EUC without a full face helmet. And I know on a mountain bike park here I would go very slow without a helmet and I’ve pushed it once I had a helmet on days prior. 

However; data needs to be collected on if a set of people actually get injured more often doing the things that are more risky or if the same set of people get injured just simply from random accidents/crashes doing normal non-risky cruising. 

Edited September 2, 2019 by Darrell Wesh

[Kens]

1 hour ago, houseofjob said:

 

1 hour ago, LanghamP said:

You should do your own research on whether helmets keep you safer, because conclusions arrived at your own cognizance are more respected than being told how to think.

Edited September 2, 2019 by Kens

[LanghamP]

26 minutes ago, Darrell Wesh said:

It is true, almost without a doubt for most everyone, that the more gear worn equates to increased likelihood of doing more dangerous things. 

I know I wouldn’t roll down a flight of stairs on my EUC without a full face helmet. And I know on a mountain bike park here I would go very slow without a helmet and I’ve pushed it once I had a helmet on days prior. 

However; data needs to be collected on if a set of people actually get injured more often doing the things that are more risky or if the same set of people get injured just simply from random accidents/crashes doing normal non-risky cruising. 

This idea of risk compensation seems difficult for many forum members to comprehend. Many safety features of cars result in drivers getting into more crashes, not less. ABS equipped cars results in drivers tailgating more, while traction control means more drivers take risks in wet/snowy conditions. However, stability control is a safety feature that does greatly increase driver safety, because stability control doesn't feel safe before, during, and after it kicks in.

Risk compensation can be externalized; that is, the person with the safety equipment is treated with lesser care by others. A classic case is spearing when hard shelled football helmets were introduced. Opposing teams would pick up players, turn them around, then send them head first into the ground while also landing on them, under the mistaken assumption that these newer helmets would reduce the most severe injuries.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

Bicycle helmet usage is positively and strongly related to increase fatalities, not necessarily because bicyclists went faster (they do) but because drivers pass bicyclists closer, and hence collisions occur more frequently. The driver would see the bicyclist wearing a helmet, and thereby make riskier passes.

Going back to the question (the right question), "do helmets keep you safe?", the answer is, of course they do, so long as you aren't around drivers. Wearing a helmet makes drivers hit you!

[Kens]

16 minutes ago, LanghamP said:

Going back to the question (the right question), "do helmets keep you safe?", the answer is, of course they do, so long as you aren't around drivers. Wearing a helmet makes drivers hit you!

r/HolUp 

How about wearing a helmet + reflective vest? Will that negate the effect of car magnet for people that wearing a helmet?

 

Edited September 2, 2019 by Kens

[Darrell Wesh]

1 hour ago, Kens said:

r/HolUp 

How about wearing a helmet + reflective vest? Will that negate the effect of car magnet for people that wearing a helmet?

 

Being visible isn’t the point. There are numerous studies that have been done that point towards helmets causing drivers to drive more carelessly around bikers: passing closer, giving less following distance etc. 

In fact, the more professional you look the more carelessly people will drive around you because they assume you are adept enough to handle yourself in any situation. 

 

Alot of people in this thread are getting butt hurt about people crapping on helmet usage but all they keep reiterating is the same point(it’ll protect you in a fall or crash!) and fail to recognize or acknowledge there are passive factors that undermine the active protective effects of a helmet. 

If you ride at 10mph because you don’t have on a helmet or gear but ride a Gotway Monster at 45mph with a motorcycle helmet and jacket which activity is safer? 

Edited September 2, 2019 by Darrell Wesh

[Kens]

11 minutes ago, Darrell Wesh said:

Being visible isn’t the point. There are numerous studies that have been done that point towards helmets causing drivers to drive more carelessly around bikers: passing closer, giving less following distance etc. 

Ok got it  I believe in studies.

11 minutes ago, Darrell Wesh said:

In fact, the more professional you look (minus reflective vest?) the more carelessly people will drive around you because they assume you are adept enough to handle yourself in any situation. 

In fact, Chooch experience the opposite reaction from drivers when wearing the vest. Watch the video first @ 6:00 mark and let me know if what he experienced is not real.

Don't take the anger and hatred.. Calm down before you type. I really do not intend to offend anyone, just asking question 

[Darrell Wesh]

1 hour ago, Kens said:

Don't take the anger and hatred.. Calm down before you type. I really do not intend to offend anyone, just asking question 

Huh? I merely wrote a comment, there was zero anger in it. Unbelievable how easily people can misread things. 

The reflective vest is in a different category as it doesn’t make you look professional it just makes you look like a construction worker going out on lunch break who forgot to take off the vest. By all means wear it if you can stand the laughs. 

[LanghamP]

1 hour ago, Darrell Wesh said:

Alot of people in this thread are getting butt hurt about people crapping on helmet usage but all they keep reiterating is the same point(it’ll protect you in a fall or crash!) and fail to recognize

I'm butthurt when people willfully ignore an avalanche of evidence. Present me with a lot of evidence and you can change my mind, or present me with a little evidence where I have little knowledge, and you can convince me. It's unseemly to be willfully ignorant when presented with compelling evidence. For such people, their education has failed them; their first indoctrination is their last.

Still, lots of evidence can convince people otherwise; I find it notable that most people I know are  Liberals, educated, and pro immigration...except for ecologists. Ecologists, who are familiar with population growth, carrying capacity, and invasive species, lean decidedly anti-immigration. This, of course, puts them in conflict with the colleges they work in, so much so that I personally know several that were terminated under questionable circumstances.

 

[Kens]

55 minutes ago, Darrell Wesh said:

Huh? I merely wrote a comment, there was zero anger in it. Unbelievable how easily people can misread things. 

It's just a precaution. I rather being told misread than flammed 

55 minutes ago, Darrell Wesh said:

The reflective vest is in a different category as it doesn’t make you look professional it just makes you look like a construction worker going out on lunch break who forgot to take off the vest. By all means wear it if you can stand the laughs. 

Do they laugh at us though? Off course some will but isn't this just self aware thingy? The e-skaters and OneWheelers could said: "By all means ride EUC if you can stand the laugh" yet most of us are ok with it.. What we experience as an EUC rider actually not as bad as they though right? 

I'm too self aware to wear a reflective vest though 

[Mike Sacristan]

I ended up putting a comment filter on my YouTube channel so that posts containing the word helmet would be held for moderation.
One guy even wrote that I was representing the EUC community badly. I think talking down to others and enforcing ones beliefs on another is representing the community badly.

Yesterday my friend Petra tried my full face helmet and goggles... she hit the 5 beeps on her Tesla on the speedway.
When I wear the full face helmet and goggles I tend to ride faster. Less perception of speed, feeling more invulnerable, etc.. despite not wearing other armour.
This is behavioural though... and therefor defeatable. With alarms for speed.

What does it look like to pedestrians when I am riding with motocross gear on my head?
Does it make it look like I am doing something dangerous?
Who is going to protect them from me?
Do I need it when off roading? Do I need it on the streets?
Do I want to look like a moped or like a bicycle?

In Sweden an EUC is equal to a bicycle and enjoys the same rights and privileges. This means I can ride in nature, on walking paths, through private property as long as I don't disturb anyone. Bicycles also enjoy the right to ride on the streets but not on sidewalks. EUCs are exempt from not being able to ride on the sidewalk as long as it is at walking speed as there is another law that overrides the bicycle law.

When riding I want to spread positivity and good vibes.

I'm off cruising with my wife now. I will go to the speedway and let her try my full face helmet and goggles.
She has never passed 38 kmh on the MSX.
I will let you know how things turn out.

 

[seage]

13 hours ago, Mike Sacristan said:

I ended up putting a comment filter on my YouTube channel so that posts containing the word helmet would be held for moderation.
One guy even wrote that I was representing the EUC community badly. I think talking down to others and enforcing ones beliefs on another is representing the community badly.

Yesterday my friend Petra tried my full face helmet and goggles... she hit the 5 beeps on her Tesla on the speedway.
When I wear the full face helmet and goggles I tend to ride faster. Less perception of speed, feeling more invulnerable, etc.. despite not wearing other armour.
This is behavioural though... and therefor defeatable. With alarms for speed.

What does it look like to pedestrians when I am riding with motocross gear on my head?
Does it make it look like I am doing something dangerous?
Who is going to protect them from me?
Do I need it when off roading? Do I need it on the streets?
Do I want to look like a moped or like a bicycle?

In Sweden an EUC is equal to a bicycle and enjoys the same rights and privileges. This means I can ride in nature, on walking paths, through private property as long as I don't disturb anyone. Bicycles also enjoy the right to ride on the streets but not on sidewalks. EUCs are exempt from not being able to ride on the sidewalk as long as it is at walking speed as there is another law that overrides the bicycle law.

When riding I want to spread positivity and good vibes.

I'm off cruising with my wife now. I will go to the speedway and let her try my full face helmet and goggles.
She has never passed 38 kmh on the MSX.
I will let you know how things turn out.

 

I dont think it represents the community badly. In the longboarding community people would also call out others for not wearing helmets, and the general response and initial impressions of that was that it was a mature and caring community. Basically the opposite of the "punk skater kid" stereotype. I dont think anyone really views it as bad outside of the people being told to wear a helmet over and over, of course, lmao. Im sure its horrible for them. And the more extreme comments like cursing and telling you that you were a bad rep are pretty normal to youtube. Lucky our niche is smaller or we'd all get death threats on our videos if we forgot elbow pads, lmfao. 

As for this, people wearing gear and going mach 10 thing, ive heard it, but ive never done it. I ride fast in general. But when i have my helmet on, i ride within my means. When i dont, i ride below them. If that makes sense. I've never felt invincible. Its like...if im not wearing a seatbelt in a car, i'll reverse off the driveway but thats about as far as im going. Once its on then i'll drive properrly. Do i think its gonna save me if i roll my car 3 times and land in an active volcano? Nah. But i still feel more secure. I've only hit 5 beeps once, and that was last weekend, trying to pass someone on an uphill and almost overleaning. Had nothing to do with the gear as i pass people without it just the same. I do think for some people it does make them feel invincible for sure, but i dont think its a blanket example of what happens to everyone. With all my years of experience riding other things fast, i would never start riding my wheel all crazy just because of a piece of foam between my head and the concrete. Sure im a little less worried about shattering my jaw, but i know i still CAN, and thats what grounds me. Its that my gear MIGHT help. But it also might slip off where its supposed to be. Get snagged, just not be in proper condition, break on impact and i'll still be dead in the water, so i ride within those means.

According to the pedestrians ive met and talked to, most of them thought me being geared up looked really cool. But then i try to style it with my outfit, lmao. Whether im dressed down or geared up, i end up in multiple conversations with everyone, from kids to old folks on almost any ride in the day and sometimes at night. It could be a cultural thing too tho. People do view things differently depending on where they're from and what they relate it to in relation to said culture, so it could totally be that. 

[Binh Nam Vu]

On 9/1/2019 at 5:02 PM, LanghamP said:

The question everyone asks is, "do helmets help you in a crash?"

This is the wrong question!

There's a branch of applied mathematics called Operations Research (I was first introduced to this in statistics class). It basically consists of asking the right questions.

"Do helmets help in a crash?" should be instead "do helmets keep you safer?"

No, if the protective equipment allows you to engage in more dangerous activities!

And this is easy to measure; because you can compare the history of your groups before the introduction of said safety measures, or two groups with and without the safety measure.

So let's assume introducing helmets into the population makes the population safer, as mesasured by deaths and injuries. We can measure this by looking looking at countries that have mandatory helmet laws (Australia) or the highest rate of helmet usage (USA). We'd expect said countries to have the lowest injury and death rates (however you want to measure it).

Do those two countries have the lowest rates?

The nuance, of course, is the difference between helmets keeping you safer in a crash, and helmets encouraging a crash.

Those laymen (I had to finally put @Patton250 on ignore as he simply couldn't go past insults) wouldn't think there is a difference between those two questions.

This from someone that goes max 12mph and 9mph on average?  I was doing 30mph+ completely gearless in shorts, t-shirt, and flip flops for over 2000 miles before getting a helmet I now wear whenever I ride. The helmet didn't increase my max speed because the wheel still beeps at 31mph, so 32-33 is my limit. I also didn't ride more dangerously. I don't know about cars getting closer, but they always went into the bike lanes because they're shit drivers even when I didn't have a helmet.

 

I could see how people would be willing to attempt more dangerous things, but that's besides the point. People will continue to do dangerous things regardless of how safe they are. Look at all the texting and driving. Look at all the driving drunk. Sometimes idiots need to know that they're being idiots, and if you can't stop them from being an idiot, the least you could do is try to help the idiot survive their idiotic ways. Helmets, seatbelts, airbags, etc. But nobody has the right to force someone to protect themselves. If you want to die or get severely injured, that's your choice. You choose to ride slower unprotected and I'll choose to ride faster and hopefully keep my brain in tact at least. Lol

[ir_fuel]

On 9/2/2019 at 4:38 AM, LanghamP said:

This idea of risk compensation seems difficult for many forum members to comprehend.

Yes but that's not the point.

What is safer? Riding an euc without a helmet, riding an euc with a helmet, or not riding an euc?

There are people that would refuse to ride an euc without using protective equipment, so of course these people would be safer if they couldn't get their hands on protective equipment, because it would exclude them from doing this dangerous activity.

 

Safety equipment indeed makes people do activities they wouldn't otherwise do. I would never go on a race track in a car without a 6 point harness, a rollcage, wearing a FIA approved helmet + HANS. But that doesn't make it safer for me compared to someone who simply does not engage in that activity at all.

I think it's hard to get decent statistics in our use case, as we have people going 25mph or hitting tilt back without any safety equipment, on their euc. Wouldn't they be safer going that same 25mph with safety equipment? Can't go much harder than hitting tilt back anyway.

If we go from the 10mph flip-flop wearer riding a V5F to that same person becoming fully geared up 30mph rider riding an MSX, well of course that person exposes himself to more risk. But if we are wanting to take that risk, should we take it with a helmet on our head or not?

Also what's the risk of head injuries in cars vs euc's, if we don't compare miles driven but hours driven? For some it's apples to oranges, but my life here is defined by the amount of years I walk around and the amount of hours I participate in certain activities (walking, riding, driving ...), and not in the mileage I have done. 

Also all the comparisons are made with bicycles, but we have to agree that euc riding is a lot more dangerous than bicycle riding (since, for starters, we only have one wheel and we (can) go a lot faster).

 

And then the final question: what are you protecting against? Other traffic, or yourself crashing? For protecting against other traffic there are lots of stories to be told. The best example being the Netherlands, where NOBODY wears a bicycle helmet, and I'm pretty sure accident rates are a lot lower than in surrounding countries. Why? Because their entire infrastructure is built around cycling.

 

The only conclusion I see from these last couple of pages is that the safest thing to do is to ditch our gear, ditch our euc, and get back in our cars.

[Darrell Wesh]

13 hours ago, seage said:

According to the pedestrians ive met and talked to, most of them thought me being geared up looked really cool. But then i try to style it with my outfit, lmao. Whether im dressed down or geared up, i end up in multiple conversations with everyone, from kids to old folks on almost any ride in the day and sometimes at night. It could be a cultural thing too tho. People do view things differently depending on where they're from and what they relate it to in relation to said culture, so it could totally be that. 

Very bias days because those are the people that actually wanted to talk to you. Think of all the mothers, elderly, and females you scare being that visibly geared up.

Compare that to a guy wearing body armor underneath a button down or blazer; everyone suddenly wants to be YOU because it looks cool and they’re not worrying about how dangerous it is. 

The image of this hobby is absolutely affected by how much gear we show. 

3 hours ago, ir_fuel said:

think it's hard to get decent statistics in our use case, as we have people going 25mph or hitting tilt back without any safety equipment, on their euc. Wouldn't they be safer going that same 25mph with safety equipment? Can't go much harder than hitting tilt back anyway.

I will say this: if I suddenly had to wear zero gear in order to ride my Nikola you can bet I’d sell it. No thank you.