Cycling UK Forum

Marcus Aurelius wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

Marcus Aurelius wrote:There’s no need for a law, the truths are self evident.

You keep on stating that

The only Truth that is evident is that you have no proof or evidence for the statement

Like I said, there’s no ‘proof or evidence’ about the link between holding one’s breath, and passing out, but most people wouldn’t need such ‘proof or evidence’.

Yet there are those of us who with helmets and other factors, require at least some informed and formal evidence. It is a more structured and sensible approach than listening to someone on the internet stating that research is unnecessary. Do you include the safety and medical professions in your group of "most people wouldn’t need such ‘proof or evidence’"?

I can assure you that evidence and proof are vitally important to these groups, who are making informed decisions as a result..

You state that there is no research - what you mean is that like helmets you have not bothered to look for it, preferring to make meaningless statements.

There are in fact multiple studies on breath-holding and its effects, including those on the effects of deoxygenation, It is used by many safety groups to inform survival, protective equipment, diving, firefighting and a number of other reasons. The research into breath-holding has resulted in less motion in some imaging processes like CT, it has also been shown to be useful in the assessment and review of respiratory disease.

Did you know that the research shows that under certain conditions, it is possible for trained athletes to hold their breath for over 20 minutes?


Your mantra of "the truths are self evident" is once again simply untrue, you are simply avoiding the actual evidence.

As far as I know, most people cannot actually hold their breath until they pass out. If you hold your breath long enough to risk reduced oxygen to the brain, your body will start breathing again automatically.

Although maybe that makes the analogy more suitable then MA realised

Vorpal wrote:As far as I know, most people cannot actually hold their breath until they pass out. If you hold your breath long enough to risk reduced oxygen to the brain, your body will start breathing again automatically.

Although maybe that makes the analogy more suitable then MA realised

You’ll pass out first, then ( providing you don’t go into cardiac arrest ) your body will start breathing again. But you’ll still pass out first. It’s not a clever idea, most people realise it, without ‘studies’ into it.

Most people realise that they pass out if they hold their breath?
I think you are living in Cloud Cuckoo land if you think anyone can actually hold their breath until they pass out.

It's impossible for mere mortals.

Try it, and report back.

Marcus Aurelius wrote:

Vorpal wrote:As far as I know, most people cannot actually hold their breath until they pass out. If you hold your breath long enough to risk reduced oxygen to the brain, your body will start breathing again automatically.

Although maybe that makes the analogy more suitable then MA realised

You’ll pass out first, then ( providing you don’t go into cardiac arrest ) your body will start breathing again. But you’ll still pass out first. It’s not a clever idea, most people realise it, without ‘studies’ into it.

Most Dutch cyclists don't think that helmets are a clever idea.
Even in Australia, with poor facilities, hostile drivers and helmet promotion, two thirds of cyclists did not realise helmets were as essential as breathing so a law had to be passed compelling wearing.
Even now there are protests against the law and other anti-cycling laws.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/aug/24/sydney-australia-war-cyclists-fines

I do not think it has ever been found necessary to pass a law compelling breathing!

The case for helmet wearing is not as obvious as you think.

Mike Sales wrote:

Marcus Aurelius wrote:

Vorpal wrote:As far as I know, most people cannot actually hold their breath until they pass out. If you hold your breath long enough to risk reduced oxygen to the brain, your body will start breathing again automatically.

Although maybe that makes the analogy more suitable then MA realised

You’ll pass out first, then ( providing you don’t go into cardiac arrest ) your body will start breathing again. But you’ll still pass out first. It’s not a clever idea, most people realise it, without ‘studies’ into it.

Most Dutch cyclists don't think that helmets are a clever idea.
Even in Australia, with poor facilities, hostile drivers and helmet promotion, two thirds of cyclists did not realise helmets were as essential as breathing so a law had to be passed compelling wearing.
Even now there are protests against the law and other anti-cycling laws.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/aug/24/sydney-australia-war-cyclists-fines

I do not think it has ever been found necessary to pass a law compelling breathing!

The case for helmet wearing is not as obvious as you think.

I’m not in favour of legal compulsion for helmet wearing, it seems to put people off, which seems to be more about the “no one’s telling me to do nuffink” attitude, than reasonable cognitive stuff. I am all for legal compulsion of breathing though. I think we need a compulsory breathing law. Let’s not forget the furore that compulsory seat belt wearing caused, when that became law. In motorsport the compulsion of HANS devices, was kicked off at, by one particularly high profile NASCAR driver. He referred to at as a “damned noose” ironically he died as the result of injuries suffered in a high speed wreck, which most experts agree, wouldn’t have been quite so severe, if he was using a HANS. The accident happened pre compulsion.

Marcus Aurelius wrote:
I’m not in favour of legal compulsion for helmet wearing, it seems to put people off, which seems to be more about the “no one’s telling me to do nuffink” attitude, than reasonable cognitive stuff. I am all for legal compulsion of breathing though. I think we need a compulsory breathing law. Let’s not forget the furore that compulsory seat belt wearing caused, when that became law. In motorsport the compulsion of HANS devices, was kicked off at, by one particularly high profile NASCAR driver. He referred to at as a “damned noose” ironically he died as the result of injuries suffered in a high speed wreck, which most experts agree, wouldn’t have been quite so severe, if he was using a HANS. The accident happened pre compulsion.

The case for seat belts is much poorer than you think.
I know that you don't like reading evidence which contradicts the received wisdom you have accepted without thought, but you really should have a look at John Adams's posts on the subject on the subject.
I cannot be bothered to precis the abundant material there for you to ignore, but it is convincing, with much evidence.
One significant post is about the paper from the journal of the Statistical Society, Significance. It is from four members of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Trunk Road Safety. In spite of their being seat belt believers they conclude that the seat belt law cost the lives and limbs of cyclists and pedestrians. Clear evidence of risk compensation.

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/category/seat-belts/

An interesting subplot of the seat belt debate is the treatment of the Isles Report.

However within the Department of Transport, the promoters of the seat belt bill, my study had raised concerns. The Department commissioned a critique of my report by J E Isles. His report examined evidence from eight European countries (a subset of the 18 examined in my report) that had passed seat belt laws. He concluded that a law making the wearing of seat belts compulsory “has not led to a detectable change in road death rates”. For promoters of the bill this was an inconvenient truth. The Isles report was dated April 1981, more than three months before the parliamentary debate that led to the passage of the legislation. But it was suppressed. It was not published, and was not allowed to inform that debate. The Isles Report did not see the light of day until its existence was disclosed by New Scientist in an article published on 7 February 1985 – more than three years too late.

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2007/01/04/seat-belt-legislation-and-the-isles-report/

Marcus Aurelius wrote:

Vorpal wrote:As far as I know, most people cannot actually hold their breath until they pass out. If you hold your breath long enough to risk reduced oxygen to the brain, your body will start breathing again automatically.

Although maybe that makes the analogy more suitable then MA realised

You’ll pass out first, then ( providing you don’t go into cardiac arrest ) your body will start breathing again. But you’ll still pass out first. It’s not a clever idea, most people realise it, without ‘studies’ into it.

This is a superb example of why the “most people realise it, without ‘studies’ into it is a dangerous and ridiculous claim


When people make unfounded and ridiculous claims, then claim evidence is unnecessary it is simply ignorance

You will NOT pass out first

You will NOT suffer a cardiac arrest

The evidence is that with the exception of a few extreme cases you will start breathing long before passing out

But why let reality, or evidence interfere with ridiculous claims

Cunobelin wrote:

Marcus Aurelius wrote:

Vorpal wrote:As far as I know, most people cannot actually hold their breath until they pass out. If you hold your breath long enough to risk reduced oxygen to the brain, your body will start breathing again automatically.

Although maybe that makes the analogy more suitable then MA realised

You’ll pass out first, then ( providing you don’t go into cardiac arrest ) your body will start breathing again. But you’ll still pass out first. It’s not a clever idea, most people realise it, without ‘studies’ into it.

This is a superb example of why the “most people realise it, without ‘studies’ into it is a dangerous and ridiculous claim


When people make unfounded and ridiculous claims, then claim evidence is unnecessary it is simply ignorance

You will NOT pass out first

You will NOT suffer a cardiac arrest

The evidence is that with the exception of a few extreme cases you will start breathing long before passing out

But why let reality, or evidence interfere with ridiculous claims

Try it ( the holding your breath till you pass out thing). Come back and tell us how you get on.

Emperor Marcus: I don't believe helmets do much for preventing brain injuries.

You suggested a good experiment to disprove it earlier - could you please now carry that out and report back?

In return I promise to do your breath experiment.

(and after all that, we can have a little chat on How Science Actually Works. But that's for later ...)

Marcus Aurelius wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

Marcus Aurelius wrote:
You’ll pass out first, then ( providing you don’t go into cardiac arrest ) your body will start breathing again. But you’ll still pass out first. It’s not a clever idea, most people realise it, without ‘studies’ into it.

This is a superb example of why the “most people realise it, without ‘studies’ into it is a dangerous and ridiculous claim


When people make unfounded and ridiculous claims, then claim evidence is unnecessary it is simply ignorance

You will NOT pass out first

You will NOT suffer a cardiac arrest

The evidence is that with the exception of a few extreme cases you will start breathing long before passing out

But why let reality, or evidence interfere with breath claims

Try it ( the holding your breath till you pass out thing). Come back and tell us how you get on.

[moderated]
Your claim that if you hold your breath, you will pass out is totally and absolutely wrong, it demonstrates a total ignorance on the subject, unfortunately very common in pro-helmet advocacy

Because of the evidence and proof of the reams of research on this matter (research you deny exists) we know that the average person will only hold their breath until the body overrides that wish and caused the individual to breathe

It is unequivocal that this will happen for the average person. THEY WILL NOT PASS OUT

I do not need to try it to know that this way will happen

As with your test earlier where you proved pedestrians running against a wall may benefit from wearing a helmet, melon or other hard fruit it is an unevidenced, unproven claim totally disproven by reality

Cunobelin wrote:It is unequivocal that this will happen for the average person. THEY WILL NOT PASS OUT

1) this.

2) even if they did, that wouldn't actually be relevant to whether or not helmets are good/bad/indifferent for whatever wearer/situation they might be used in.

And 2) is the more important one, or we run in to one of the main issues with helmet flame wars: distraction away from stuff that might really affect safety in a significant way.

Pete.

Marcus Aurelius wrote:Try it ( the holding your breath till you pass out thing). Come back and tell us how you get on.

I asked YOU first!

Mick F wrote:Most people realise that they pass out if they hold their breath?
I think you are living in Cloud Cuckoo land if you think anyone can actually hold their breath until they pass out.

It's impossible for mere mortals.

Try it, and report back.

Posts with abuse and name-calling have been removed. Please keep it civil.