An experiment to prove the helmet law proponants RIGHT (or wrong)



"Not Responding" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Not Responding" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Not Responding" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>DiscoDuck wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Actually it means a lot. It means the risks have been blown
>>>>>>waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of proportion.
>>>>>>According to proponents, I should be dead by now or at least suffered
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>severe head injury. OR at least see legions of victims lying on the
>>>>>>side of the road on a daily basis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How many people do you know that have suffered head injuries as a
>>>>>>result of cycling?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Er, me?
>>>>>
>>>>>The hospital, I'm sure, has me down as "unhelmeted cyclist, head
>>>>>injuries". Fortunately the human skull is made of sterner stuff than
>>>>>polystyrene hats and, scarring and a short mid-road kip aside, I'm
>>>>>fine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You bet! As if a helmet wouldn't have given you some protection. But
>>>>Hey! Go ahead and continue to ride your bike without wearing a helmet
>>>>and maybe next time you will get your just deserts - death. Anyone as
>>>>stupid as you who does not learn from experience does not deserve to
>>>>live, let alone to be posting your nonsense to ARBR.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Damn. Just noticed that this is being crossposted all over the shop.
>>>Including the land of the once-free across the pond.
>>>
>>>But in response to your obviously knee jerk reaction:
>>>
>>>Sure, a helmet would have protected me from the minor injuries I
>>>received. But then, had I been prohibited from cycling without a helmet,
>>>I would have been in the car anyway. Minor injury free myself, but a
>>>liability in terms of public safety.
>>
>>
>> Totally illogical nonsense. I only suspected you were an idiot, but now
>> you have confirmed my suspicion. Congratulations!
>>
>
> Elaborate, please.
>
> What I said was that if I gave up cycling and took up driving there would
> be a net decrease in public safety. Adding another barely trained driver
> and a tonne of metal to the roads would simply increase the sources of
> danger.

Agreed, but protect your noggin with a helmet when you are on a bike. It is
just common sense to do so.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
 
"Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>> Well Hells Bells! Where do you want to die? Timbuktu is a perfect place
>> to
>> die as it is the pit of the universe. The romance of Timbuktu is the very
>> great effort required to get there. Once you are there, you will collapse
>> and die. Yes, I believe I would like to die in Timbuktu. I sure as hell
>> do not want to die in plain old Minnesota.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>
> The only thing this thread suggests to me is what is great about ed? I've
> got a few ideas though: Great fool, Great mouth, Great w****r, but please
> feel free to invent your own.>

Jeez! I bring Timbuktu and Death into the discussion and this is the thanks
I get. No Death in Venice for you, I guess.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
 
"David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BE1E65A5.8347%[email protected]...
> On 27/1/05 9:18 am, in article [email protected],
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Blethering should be blithering.
>
> Blethering is a perfectly acceptable word in this part of the world. see
> http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50023542?query_type=word&queryword=bleth
> ering&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=2&search_id=zTKr-a
> gPdsw-644&hilite=50023542

I can see blather and blither, but not blether. However, the Oxford
Dictionary is the ultimate authority on words. I believe blether is a
variant of blather, but I think we all know that he meant to say blither or
blather, not blether. DiscoDuck is not much for spelling.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
 
Edward Dolan said:
I can see blather and blither, but not blether. However, the Oxford
Dictionary is the ultimate authority on words. I believe blether is a
variant of blather, but I think we all know that he meant to say blither or
blather, not blether. DiscoDuck is not much for spelling.
Click to expand...

So, do you actually RIDE A BIKE???

Sigh. Thought not...
 
"dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>> But everyone notices names. If you have an odd or unusual name, then
>> there are consequences for that. Parents would be well advised to
>> carefully name their children. Have you not heard that Johnny Cash song
>> about a boy named Sue?
>>
>
> Yeah. I have already said I dont entirely disagree here. Some names are
> guarenteed to result in a miserable childhood. Richard Head for example
>
> Tamyka, nah.. its just a little exotic. And what you can call her for
> short I don;t know. Exotic is ok.. Pretensious aint. Tamka in my
> opinion is safely on the right side of that line.
>
> I once met a girl called SHaron who spelt it Charon.. well thats mildly
> amusing but getting marginal. Hell of a girl :)

A name that we used to laugh about was a guy named Harry Butts. The thought
occurs to me that the last name might have been spelled Butz, but it doesn't
matter. It is how the name sounds that is important. I do not have any
patience at all for tricky spellings of names. That reeks of pretension as
far as I am concerned and is never cute. Names are not something to fool
around with. It is serious business.

The thing that gets me is why a person would not change his name if it
becomes a subject for ridicule. If you had a name like Harry Butts, would
you not change it pronto.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
 
> Agreed, but protect your noggin with a helmet when you are on a bike.
> It is just common sense to do so.

Why pick on a relatively safe thing like cycling? _Walking_ is more
dangerous per kilometre.
<URL:http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D7250.xls>
 
Edward Dolan wrote:

> Agreed, but protect your noggin with a helmet when you are on a bike. It is
> just common sense to do so.

No more so than during other activities which the actual statistics that
relate what people actually get hurt at tell us.

Like using stairs, or walking down the street.

Similarly, if cycling is meant to be so dangerous it is equally "common
sense" to wear MTB body armour. After all, it helps shield vital organs
and is designed for use on a bike, so the same argument holds, yet
hardly anyone bothers.

And it is "common sense" that cycle helmets will reduce serious head
injuries sustained by cyclists, yet there is no conclusive evidence that
they make any such difference at all, so to what degree are you
genuinely protecting your head in any case? When it comes to serious
injuries we can see in the data of what *has actually happened* that
there is *no* significant benefit, so if you really want to protect your
head then a cycle helmet has a proven track record of not making any
serious difference, so you should use something else.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> Agreed, but protect your noggin with a helmet when you are on a bike. It
>> is just common sense to do so.
>
> No more so than during other activities which the actual statistics that
> relate what people actually get hurt at tell us.
>
> Like using stairs, or walking down the street.
>
> Similarly, if cycling is meant to be so dangerous it is equally "common
> sense" to wear MTB body armour. After all, it helps shield vital organs
> and is designed for use on a bike, so the same argument holds, yet hardly
> anyone bothers.
>
> And it is "common sense" that cycle helmets will reduce serious head
> injuries sustained by cyclists, yet there is no conclusive evidence that
> they make any such difference at all, so to what degree are you genuinely
> protecting your head in any case? When it comes to serious injuries we
> can see in the data of what *has actually happened* that there is *no*
> significant benefit, so if you really want to protect your head then a
> cycle helmet has a proven track record of not making any serious
> difference, so you should use something else.

Only statisticians can make sense of statistical studies. The rest of us
should stay away from them and never base any real world conduct on them. A
little learning is a dangerous thing. Unless you are expert in the subject
with the proper credentials (Ph.D.) you have no credibly and should not be
making pronouncements about a subject which you do not understand. You are
misleading others and in general making a nuisance of yourself.

If some young person should listen to a nut case like you and then get
himself killed as a result, you would have blood on your hands. I think you
could then be charged with contributing to the death of a minor.There might
well be other charges too as well as a civil suit. I would think twice if I
were you before I would go around giving others bum advice not to wear a
helmet when cycling.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
 
Edward Dolan wrote:

> Only statisticians can make sense of statistical studies. The rest of us
> should stay away from them and never base any real world conduct on them.

You are evidently too stupid to make any sense out of them, but that
doesn't mean that anyone who isn't a professional statistician is
equally incapable.

> little learning is a dangerous thing. Unless you are expert in the subject
> with the proper credentials (Ph.D.) you have no credibly and should not be
> making pronouncements about a subject which you do not understand. You are
> misleading others and in general making a nuisance of yourself.

And you have a PhD in cycle helmet design and/or the biomechanics of
head injuries? Thought not, so following your own arguments above you
should stop misleading others and in general making a nuisance of yourself.

> If some young person should listen to a nut case like you and then get
> himself killed as a result, you would have blood on your hands. I think you
> could then be charged with contributing to the death of a minor.There might
> well be other charges too as well as a civil suit. I would think twice if I
> were you before I would go around giving others bum advice not to wear a
> helmet when cycling.

But there are cases where cycle injuries can /cause/ problems, such as
instances where the greater size means a blow that would miss an
unhelmeted head altogether will strike a helmet, and rotational injuries
made worse by the greater leverage afforded by the extra size of a
helmet. If some young person should listen to a nut case like you and
then get himself killed as a result, you would have blood on your hands.
I think you could then be charged with contributing to the death of a
minor. There might well be other charges too as well as a civil suit.

There is no proven level of protection from a helmet in a case of
serious injury, merely the rather trivial cases the standards they are
designed and built to specify, so such proof as needed in such a court
case either way would not be forthcoming. To quote Brian Walker, one of
the leading experts on the mechanics of helmets, and whose company Head
Protection Evaluations is the principal UK test laboratory for helmets
and head protection systems of all kinds:

"The very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work,
tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting
for either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be
safer wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to so do, stating
that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and
without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the performance of
cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to
be made."

Given the choice of whether Mr. Walker knows what he is talking about,
or you do, the former looks to be a better bet. After all, as you said
yourself you're not qualified to comment on the area.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> Unless you are expert in the subject
> with the proper credentials (Ph.D.) you have no credibly and should not be
> making pronouncements about a subject which you do not understand.
>

I think you might be surprised by the credentials of some of the people
you are arguing with. But since by your criteria above you agree some
of us are qualified to make credible pronouncements, what are your
credentials for gain-saying us?

Tony
 
In article <[email protected]>, Edward Dolan wrote:
> Unless you are expert in the subject
>with the proper credentials (Ph.D.) you have no credibly and should not be
>making pronouncements about a subject which you do not understand. You are
>misleading others and in general making a nuisance of yourself.

Gosh. And you have a Ph.D. in a relevent subject yourself do you? Or is
there some special exemption for you that means you can use your
"common sense" but other people need doctorates?
 
Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> Unless you are expert in the subject
>>with the proper credentials (Ph.D.) you have no credibly and should not be
>>making pronouncements about a subject which you do not understand. You are
>>misleading others and in general making a nuisance of yourself.
>
>
> Gosh. And you have a Ph.D. in a relevent subject yourself do you?

I don't, but I've been involved (e.g. as external assessor) in other
peoples PhD dissertations on the subject, as well as consultancy work
in statistics both for government and blue-chip industries.

Speaking only for myself, nothing Moron Dolan says will induce me to
wear silly headgear whilst cycling. Anecdotally when I came off back in
October, I'd almost certainly have hit my head if it had been encumbered
with a helmet (avoiding the large boulders was .. um .. interesting).
Whether that would have had serious consequences - such as a broken
neck - is anybody's guess.

--
Nick Kew
 
Newsgroups trimmed

"Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
> > Unless you are expert in the subject with the proper
> > credentials (Ph.D.) [...]
>
> Gosh. And you have a Ph.D. in a relevant subject yourself do you? Or is
> there some special exemption for you that means you can use your
> "common sense" but other people need doctorates?

You and the many have been trolled by a baiting master, albeit, one
of seemingly limited repertoire. He's now taken to cross posting.

Jon Meinecke
net.subtle-apteryx

"Don't argue with a fool,-- people may not know the difference..."
 
Notice how propnants of the helmet law get VERY angry when you express
interest in wanting choice for the people/ This is PROOF that they
only want it out of ego and impose thier will upon others.
For example Robert Broughton would get soooooooooooo mad that he would
start calling people "Losertarians"who wanted to choice.

For proponants it is about imposing thier will, not about concern for
well being not saving money. It's like a rapist who who commits this
crime. IT's not about the sex, it's about control.
 
Jon Meinecke said:
Newsgroups trimmed

"Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
> > Unless you are expert in the subject with the proper
> > credentials (Ph.D.) [...]
>
> Gosh. And you have a Ph.D. in a relevant subject yourself do you? Or is
> there some special exemption for you that means you can use your
> "common sense" but other people need doctorates?

You and the many have been trolled by a baiting master, albeit, one
of seemingly limited repertoire. He's now taken to cross posting.

Jon Meinecke
net.subtle-apteryx

"Don't argue with a fool,-- people may not know the difference..."
Click to expand...


Don't you mean a Master Baiter ?
 
aeek wrote:
>
> Jon Meinecke Wrote:
> > Newsgroups trimmed
> >
> > "Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Edward Dolan wrote:
> > > > Unless you are expert in the subject with the proper
> > > > credentials (Ph.D.) [...]
> > >
> > > Gosh. And you have a Ph.D. in a relevant subject yourself do you? Or
> > is
> > > there some special exemption for you that means you can use your
> > > "common sense" but other people need doctorates?
> >
> > You and the many have been trolled by a baiting master, albeit, one
> > of seemingly limited repertoire. He's now taken to cross posting.
> >
> > Jon Meinecke
> > net.subtle-apteryx
> >
> > "Don't argue with a fool,-- people may not know the difference..."
>
> Don't you mean a Master Baiter ?
>
> --
> aeek

*applause*

THAT, my friend, was BRILLIANT!

T
 
Jon Meinecke wrote:

> Newsgroups trimmed
>
> "Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>>Unless you are expert in the subject with the proper
>>>credentials (Ph.D.) [...]
>>
>>Gosh. And you have a Ph.D. in a relevant subject yourself do you? Or is
>>there some special exemption for you that means you can use your
>>"common sense" but other people need doctorates?
>
>
> You and the many have been trolled by a baiting master, albeit, one
> of seemingly limited repertoire. He's now taken to cross posting.

Ed Dolan trolling for arguments! Say it ain't so! ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Earth
 
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> Only statisticians can make sense of statistical studies. The rest of us
>> should stay away from them and never base any real world conduct on them.
>
> You are evidently too stupid to make any sense out of them, but that
> doesn't mean that anyone who isn't a professional statistician is equally
> incapable.

You are too incredibly stupid to even know what you are talking about.

>> little learning is a dangerous thing. Unless you are expert in the
>> subject with the proper credentials (Ph.D.) you have no credibly and
>> should not be making pronouncements about a subject which you do not
>> understand. You are misleading others and in general making a nuisance of
>> yourself.
>
> And you have a PhD in cycle helmet design and/or the biomechanics of head
> injuries? Thought not, so following your own arguments above you should
> stop misleading others and in general making a nuisance of yourself.

You are too incredibly stupid to even know what you are talking about.

>> If some young person should listen to a nut case like you and then get
>> himself killed as a result, you would have blood on your hands. I think
>> you could then be charged with contributing to the death of a minor.There
>> might well be other charges too as well as a civil suit. I would think
>> twice if I were you before I would go around giving others bum advice not
>> to wear a helmet when cycling.
>
> But there are cases where cycle injuries can /cause/ problems, such as
> instances where the greater size means a blow that would miss an
> unhelmeted head altogether will strike a helmet, and rotational injuries
> made worse by the greater leverage afforded by the extra size of a helmet.

You are too incredibly stupid to even know what you are talking about.

If some young person should listen to a nut case like you and
> then get himself killed as a result, you would have blood on your hands. I
> think you could then be charged with contributing to the death of a minor.
> There might well be other charges too as well as a civil suit.

> There is no proven level of protection from a helmet in a case of serious
> injury, merely the rather trivial cases the standards they are designed
> and built to specify, so such proof as needed in such a court case either
> way would not be forthcoming. To quote Brian Walker, one of the leading
> experts on the mechanics of helmets, and whose company Head Protection
> Evaluations is the principal UK test laboratory for helmets and head
> protection systems of all kinds:
>
> "The very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work,
> tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting for
> either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be safer
> wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to so do, stating that
> they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without
> cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the performance of cycle helmets
> is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to be made."

You are too incredibly stupid to even know what you are talking about.

> Given the choice of whether Mr. Walker knows what he is talking about, or
> you do, the former looks to be a better bet. After all, as you said
> yourself you're not qualified to comment on the area.

You are too incredibly stupid to even know what you are talking about.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
 
"Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Edward Dolan wrote:
>> Unless you are expert in the subject
>>with the proper credentials (Ph.D.) you have no credibly and should not be
>>making pronouncements about a subject which you do not understand. You are
>>misleading others and in general making a nuisance of yourself.
>
> Gosh. And you have a Ph.D. in a relevent subject yourself do you? Or is
> there some special exemption for you that means you can use your
> "common sense" but other people need doctorates?

Statistics is a very esoteric subject which most people cannot understand.
The fact is that you almost do a need a Ph.D in the subject to know what you
are talking about. One thing is for sure. I do not want to hear what anyone
has to say on the subject unless they have at least a Master's degree in the
field. Otherwise, it is just idiots talking to idiots.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cfsmtb
Now this may prove to be interesting
Replies
4
Views
943
Australia and New Zealand
BT Humble
B
H
Just to prove that strange people..
Replies
5
Views
364
Australia and New Zealand
DRS
D
RMITStu
[RESEARCH PROGRAM] Helmet's safety
Replies
0
Views
1K
Australia and New Zealand
RMITStu
RMITStu
B
Cyclocross: Sandy Point SICX (Helmet VIDEO)
Replies
0
Views
747
Australia and New Zealand
boisestate
B
F
Have helmet laws put the skids on Australia’s bike share scheme?
Replies
8
Views
1K
Australia and New Zealand
Jono L
Jono L
Top Bottom Back