How to turn a topic about a fatality into an absurd helmet discussion

[PullStrings]

None of you guys that just commented need a helmet.
You know what you are doing.
None of you will end up as a fatality on KF from head collision on land because you will have Quick Released right away.
Freedom at last awaits you.

[bragnouff]

@FlyingSeb, I'm not sure this is the conclusions to draw from those 400+ messages in this discussion. I don't understand it like that, at all, but maybe as a non-native speaker, some subtleties fly over my unprotected head.
Here's my take:

Those who don't wear helmet never advised anyone else to not wear one, or to stop wearing one. They have explained their personal decision because of their risk assessment and their circumstances, which of course include experience, but also local conditions, style of practice, or discomfort in extreme temperatures, or being gifted with a 6 inch thick afro, etc... Some concerns and uncertainties have been raised about effectiveness or side effects of helmets in the case of impacts on water.
No one said that helmet = newbie, but inversely, if you're a newbie, lacking experience, knowledge of local conditions, also lacking finesse in kite control, not bodydragging proficiently enough to ditch their leash, then it is pretty much a very good idea to wear one, because you're less likely to foresee, avoid and defuse the situations where accidents involving hard objects can happen, and where a helmet would likely reduce damage.

On the other hand, there has been some vocal helmet wearer(s) who pushed their views onto everyone, and implying that if you don't wear one, you must be nuts, totally dismissing or disregarding the personal circumstances of everyone. Also implied, were the concepts of fashion and vanity, which were presented as the sole root of all non-helmet-wearing-evilness. Talking about vanity, I've seen quite a few cases where people wear a helmet for the sole purpose of having a fukcin GoPro on their head...

[tautologies]

Those who don't wear helmet never advised anyone else to not wear one, or to stop wearing one.

literally 2 hours before your post:

None of you guys that just commented need a helmet.
You know what you are doing.
None of you will end up as a fatality on KF from head collision on land because you will have Quick Released right away.
Freedom at last awaits you.

[bragnouff]

well it's not exactly the same thing as advising not to use one, is it? PullStrings implied that the kiters he was replying to would likely have QR'ed the danger away in the first place.
And his reply was also in the context of an escalation of argument. You'll find more nuanced posts further back in time...

[Matteo V]

What taughty said!

On the other hand, there has been some vocal helmet wearer(s) who pushed their views onto everyone, .....

It still amazes me that the high point of society with regards to being at least open to hearing opposing views in the form a discussion, was the late 80's to early 90's. Between then and now, something went terribly wrong. Now, any time you discuss something, someone out there gets all triggered and acts like you are forcing them to do something or listen to you.

That

Is

Nuts!

The only way I have to "push" my views upon you, is to try to convince you with logic and reason. I can try to lie to you, but lies are easily exposed in the face of logic and reason. Unfortunately, logic and reason cannot win out against belief, unless those in the conversation truly want move past beliefs toward the reality. Guess I'm just old fashioned.

[bragnouff]

Cool bro, you've had your repeated attempts at convincing people with your logic and reasoning based on facts that you think are relevant. All good.
Jury's out.

[downunder]

FYI There are many helmet "deniers":

https://www.seabreeze.com.au/forums/Kit ... -freestyle

Some of the best riders in AU commented there.

I guess u are not interested so do not bother reading it. Other ppl might. Draw your own conclusions.

And no, its not about me or you at all. Its about readers and spreading fear amongst them...

Did you read through the page your link brings up???

By my count, 16 of the 19 posts are either for helmets or somewhat for helmets. 3 posts questioning helmets.

Thanks for the link and the "self own".

You've missed the point. The bucketing was discussed on that thread.

And what to say about this anti-helmet statement???? I wear one, how many times do I need to tell you? BUT: it's totally superficial protection against rocks.

Case rests.

[Matteo V]

FYI There are many helmet "deniers":

https://www.seabreeze.com.au/forums/Kit ... -freestyle

Some of the best riders in AU commented there.

I guess u are not interested so do not bother reading it. Other ppl might. Draw your own conclusions.

And no, its not about me or you at all. Its about readers and spreading fear amongst them...

Did you read through the page your link brings up???

By my count, 16 of the 19 posts are either for helmets or somewhat for helmets. 3 posts questioning helmets.

Thanks for the link and the "self own".

You've missed the point. The bucketing was discussed on that thread.

And what to say about this anti-helmet statement???? I wear one, how many times do I need to tell you? BUT: it's totally superficial protection against rocks.

Case rests.

Least effective comeback ever! The "case rested" on your self own. Funny!

[Bille]

...

Remember, Im a hypocrite but always riding with my DIY helmet. U dont, as seen. Sorry, enough said.

I rest my case.

That shot was taken 10 years ago ; i'm older and wiser now, and
never ride without a helmet.
WHY ?
Because a runaway kite, hit me in the head, 10 years ago ;
was only blowing 12kt, and it still hurt !! Bad luck, but me or
my kite have bin hit by 3 runaway kites now ; 2 from riders without a
leash, and 1 from a guy practicing unhooked tricks, with a leash,
but it broke. Riding without a leash; could make for another good
Thread.

Bille

[tkaraszewski]

No, you are absolutely not "that much closer to having them come up".

The number of previous rolls and their outcomes does not in any way influence the probability of future roll outcomes.

Lol, funny for him to mention "a pretty big hole in your understanding of statistics" and get it completely wrong.

So explain this to me.

If you roll the dice on this one 100 times, in that hundred times what is the likelihood that the bad number will come up?

Assuming a fair six-sided die, and one of those sides is the "bad" number (let's use 1 as the bad number for this example), the chance that 1 comes up at least once in 100 rolls is 1 - ((5/6)^100)

If you roll the dice 1000 times, what is the likelyhood of that bad number coming up?

1 - ((5/6)^1000)

Now just read on because I know you think you've got me....

But the probabiliylty is the same. Right?

The probability of *any individual roll* coming up a particular number is identical, it's 1/6. This is key. Each individual roll has absolutely nothing to do with any other roll, they're completely individual events.

But in 1000 rolls the number of times that bad number comes up is greater, right? Why?

The probability of any given roll is always 1/6. But you're not asking about any given roll, you're asking about a *particular* roll, the 1000th roll.

What you're asking when you say "What's the chance that 1000 rolls never get a 1?" what you're asking is "What's the chance that I get a 2,3,4,5 or 6 for 1000 rolls in a row?

Well, the chance that you get a 2-6 on the first roll is 5/6. The chance that you get it on the second roll is 5/6. The chance that you get it on the third roll is 5/6, etc.

It's always 5/6 that you don't get a 1. So if you roll it 1000 times in a row, the total chance is (5/6)^1000. So that comes out as a really small chance.

It's because you rolled the dice more times, right?

So the more total times you roll the dice, the greater the chance the bad number has come up inside of those instances, even though the individual roll probability has not changed.

So do you get it? The more chances you take, the greater the number of bad numbers comes up. And pulley's number of chances keeps increasing.

Discuss.

If you *already know* that the first 999 rolls never got a 1, because they happened in the past, it doesn't change the chances for the 1000th roll. It's 5/6 that you don't get a 1. Yes, the chances that you will make it through the next 1000 rolls without getting a 1 are low, but not if you already know you'll make it through the first 999.

If you had to walk across a minefield for a mile, and you made it through the first half of the minefield, it doesn't make the second half of the minefield more dangerous, and if you get all the way across the minefield it doesn't make the final step the most likely one to kill you, it just means you *already made it through* most of the dangerous part, even if you were already lucky when that happened. The last step is not more dangerous than the first one or any of the middle ones.