Rich
just visited this site http://www.bikeforall.net/category.aspx?id=86 and
wrote the following:
Just found your very interesting site, but I am slightly puzzled by your
coverage of helmets.
You have at least one site which tells the truth about helmets, well done,
but then you damn it with faint praise
"
Cycle helmets are not safe...
This anti-compulsion website is not kept terribly up to date but it
links to lots of thought-provoking studies that the site says proves helmet
wearing is not the panacea many compulsionists claim it is.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org
"
As far as I can tell, this site is more up to date than the ones in favour
of compulsion. Nowhere in the blurb about the pro-cumpulsion sites do you
use the phrase "the site says....."indicating doubt about its conclusions.
This site would appear to be more scientifically valid than most, if not
all, of the pro-compulsion sites, but you deliberately cast doubt on it.
Compare this with your comments on the BHIT site: you stick to facts and
cast no doubt about the organisation or the relevance of any data on it,
despite the fact that the site contains statements which BHIT knows are not
true, and for which they were recently taken to the ASA and forced to sign
an undertaking not to repeat those untruths. The fact that the ASA rules do
not apply to websites which are not advertising, is to be regretted, but
that doesn't mean that what BHIT says isn't a lie. You cast no doubt about
the honesty of BHIT: why not?
May I point out that until you address these anomolies, you will be viewed
as instruments of pro-helmet dogmatists, who are unwilling to present issues
truthfully, and treated accordingly. Any other data on your site will be
viewed somewhat askance: if you deliberately skew the way you present the
evidence on helmets, what else are you skewing?
--
cheers
Richard Burton
wrote the following:
Just found your very interesting site, but I am slightly puzzled by your
coverage of helmets.
You have at least one site which tells the truth about helmets, well done,
but then you damn it with faint praise
"
Cycle helmets are not safe...
This anti-compulsion website is not kept terribly up to date but it
links to lots of thought-provoking studies that the site says proves helmet
wearing is not the panacea many compulsionists claim it is.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org
"
As far as I can tell, this site is more up to date than the ones in favour
of compulsion. Nowhere in the blurb about the pro-cumpulsion sites do you
use the phrase "the site says....."indicating doubt about its conclusions.
This site would appear to be more scientifically valid than most, if not
all, of the pro-compulsion sites, but you deliberately cast doubt on it.
Compare this with your comments on the BHIT site: you stick to facts and
cast no doubt about the organisation or the relevance of any data on it,
despite the fact that the site contains statements which BHIT knows are not
true, and for which they were recently taken to the ASA and forced to sign
an undertaking not to repeat those untruths. The fact that the ASA rules do
not apply to websites which are not advertising, is to be regretted, but
that doesn't mean that what BHIT says isn't a lie. You cast no doubt about
the honesty of BHIT: why not?
May I point out that until you address these anomolies, you will be viewed
as instruments of pro-helmet dogmatists, who are unwilling to present issues
truthfully, and treated accordingly. Any other data on your site will be
viewed somewhat askance: if you deliberately skew the way you present the
evidence on helmets, what else are you skewing?
--
cheers
Richard Burton
