Road Safety Bill

Just zis Guy said:

An amendment has been tabled in the Lords: compulsory plastic hats for
children (but only when cycling, not the equally dangerous walking).

Guy

I resolved some time ago to stay out of H*lmet threads, but you prompt me to
mutter again.....

Why do you insist on weakening and devaluing your strong and valid arguments
against compulsion [Wrong messages, disincentives, health benefits, limited
protection, risk compensation etc] all of which are difficult to argue
against, by twittering on about walking being equally dangerous. I'm not
arguing whether it is or isn't, as that is not the point, which is that by
including it you take the discussion into arguable territory where the case
far far weaker that the other winnable strands of argument.

pk

p.k. said:

Why do you insist on weakening and devaluing your strong and valid arguments
against compulsion [Wrong messages, disincentives, health benefits, limited
protection, risk compensation etc] all of which are difficult to argue
against, by twittering on about walking being equally dangerous.

Simple: it is. I have looked at the hospital admissions data for both
adult and child cyclists taken over a number of years,and the head
injury rate is the same. The dominant cause of head injury is also
the same: collision with a motor vehicle.

The Japanese have even tried an experiment where school children were
made to wear helmets when walking to and form school (with predictable
null results).

So the comparison is perfectly valid and reveals the absurdity of the
proposal.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Quoted message said:

Why do you insist on weakening and devaluing your strong and valid
arguments against compulsion [Wrong messages, disincentives, health
benefits, limited protection, risk compensation etc] all of which are
difficult to argue against, by twittering on about walking being
equally dangerous. I'm not arguing whether it is or isn't, as that is
not the point, which is that by including it you take the discussion
into arguable territory where the case far far weaker that the other
winnable strands of argument.

To me it's a soundbite thingy that stops people in their tracks.

"Cycling is dangerous, helmets should be madantory" can be countered with
"but it's safer than walking, so you're talking bollocks".

in message <[email hidden]>, p.k.

(') said:

Just zis Guy said:

An amendment has been tabled in the Lords: compulsory plastic hats
for children (but only when cycling, not the equally dangerous
walking).

I resolved some time ago to stay out of H*lmet threads, but you prompt
me to mutter again.....

Why do you insist on weakening and devaluing your strong and valid
arguments against compulsion [Wrong messages, disincentives, health
benefits, limited protection, risk compensation etc] all of which are
difficult to argue against, by twittering on about walking being
equally dangerous. I'm not arguing whether it is or isn't, as that is
not the point, which is that by including it you take the discussion
into arguable territory where the case far far weaker that the other
winnable strands of argument.

Don't agree at all. Child pedestrians have many times as many injuries
as child cyclists. So if requiring helmets is a good thing, it's a much
better thing for pedestrians. That's a fact. No-one is going to impose
walking helmets. Consequently, they haven't a leg to stand on[1] when
trying to impose them on cyclists.

[1] deliberate.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

X-no-archive: No, I'm not *that* naive.

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

Why do you insist on weakening and devaluing your strong and valid
arguments against compulsion [Wrong messages, disincentives, health
benefits, limited protection, risk compensation etc] all of which are
difficult to argue against, by twittering on about walking being
equally dangerous. I'm not arguing whether it is or isn't, as that is
not the point, which is that by including it you take the discussion
into arguable territory where the case far far weaker that the other
winnable strands of argument.

To me it's a soundbite thingy that stops people in their tracks.

"Cycling is dangerous, helmets should be madantory" can be countered
with "but it's safer than walking, so you're talking bollocks".

and most who hear you say the sound bite dismiss you as a loony!

pk

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Cycling is dangerous, helmets should be madantory" can be countered
with "but it's safer than walking, so you're talking bollocks".

and most who hear you say the sound bite dismiss you as a loony!

Yes. Not only does it stop them nagging me, it also stops them talking to
me ever again. Marvellous!

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, p.k.
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

Don't agree at all. Child pedestrians have many times as many injuries
as child cyclists. So if requiring helmets is a good thing, it's a much
better thing for pedestrians. That's a fact. No-one is going to impose
walking helmets. Consequently, they haven't a leg to stand on[1] when
trying to impose them on cyclists.

[1] deliberate.

[2] OK, I've deliberated: now what?

in message <[email hidden]>, Rich

(') said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, p.k.
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

Don't agree at all. Child pedestrians have many times as many
injuries as child cyclists. So if requiring helmets is a good thing,
it's a much better thing for pedestrians. That's a fact. No-one is
going to impose walking helmets. Consequently, they haven't a leg to
stand on[1] when trying to impose them on cyclists.

[1] deliberate.

[2] OK, I've deliberated: now what?

Try walking.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken. I found a rather battered tube of Araldite
resin in the bottom of the toolbag.

Rich said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, p.k.
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

Don't agree at all. Child pedestrians have many times as many injuries
as child cyclists. So if requiring helmets is a good thing, it's a much
better thing for pedestrians. That's a fact. No-one is going to impose
walking helmets. Consequently, they haven't a leg to stand on[1] when
trying to impose them on cyclists.

[1] deliberate.

[2] OK, I've deliberated: now what?

[3] Go North

Tim

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Rich

(') said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, p.k.
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

Don't agree at all. Child pedestrians have many times as many
injuries as child cyclists. So if requiring helmets is a good thing,
it's a much better thing for pedestrians. That's a fact. No-one is
going to impose walking helmets. Consequently, they haven't a leg to
stand on[1] when trying to impose them on cyclists.

[1] deliberate.

[2] OK, I've deliberated: now what?

Try walking.

Tried walking but deliberating was more fun.

Actually I imprisoned some people :-)

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 23:05:54 +0100,

Tim Hall said:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:02:20 GMT, "Rich"

Quoted message said:

[2] OK, I've deliberated: now what?

[3] Go North

You are in a maze of twisty tunnels all alike. What do you want to do?

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

"Tim Hall" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Rich said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, p.k.
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

Don't agree at all. Child pedestrians have many times as many injuries
as child cyclists. So if requiring helmets is a good thing, it's a much
better thing for pedestrians. That's a fact. No-one is going to impose
walking helmets. Consequently, they haven't a leg to stand on[1] when
trying to impose them on cyclists.

[1] deliberate.

[2] OK, I've deliberated: now what?

[3] Go North

[4] Only too true mate! We leave for Ediburgh at 9:15.

Quoted message said:

Tim

Tim Woodall said:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 23:05:54 +0100,

Tim Hall said:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:02:20 GMT, "Rich"

Quoted message said:

[2] OK, I've deliberated: now what?

[3] Go North

You are in a maze of twisty tunnels all alike. What do you want to do?

Get spoon.

Al C-F said:

Quoted message said:

You are in a maze of twisty tunnels all alike. What do you want to do?

Get spoon.

You pick up spoon.

The horse panics and runs off.

Mike

Al C-F said:

Tim Woodall said:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 23:05:54 +0100,

Tim Hall said:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:02:20 GMT, "Rich"

>[2] OK, I've deliberated: now what?
>

[3] Go North

You are in a maze of twisty tunnels all alike. What do you want to do?

Get spoon.

There is no spoon

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

"p.k." <[email hidden]> wrote in news:d9hdgh$jc$1
@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:

Quoted message said:

and most who hear you say the sound bite dismiss you as a loony!

Yes, but if people knew of the facts, then any sound bite spouting pro-
helmet-compulsionist would also be considered a loony. Unfortunately, to
get anywhere these days it seems you have to talk in sound bites or
peoples' attention wanders off. It's easy to say "helmets save lives" and
for people to assume you're right, after all, that's what they're designed
for isn't it? It's much harder to condense anti-compulsion statements to
sound bites as they often go against "common sense" despite being backed up
by hard data rather than emotions.

Graeme

On 27 Jun 2005 03:36:53 GMT, Graeme <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It's easy to say "helmets save lives" and
for people to assume you're right, after all, that's what they're designed
for isn't it?

Precisely. A perfect example of Lenin's "big lie" technique in
action, since as we all know they are designed for no such thing.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy said:

On 27 Jun 2005 03:36:53 GMT, Graeme <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It's easy to say "helmets save lives" and
for people to assume you're right, after all, that's what they're designed
for isn't it?

Precisely. A perfect example of Lenin's "big lie" technique in
action, since as we all know they are designed for no such thing.

Guy

Lenin?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie#Goebbels.27_uncited_quote
--
Chris

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:04:41 +0100, Chris Slade <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Precisely. A perfect example of Lenin's "big lie" technique in
action, since as we all know they are designed for no such thing.

Quoted message said:

Lenin?

Ah, muddled memory of another Usenet argument: Lenin said "a lie told
often enough becomes the truth", [censored] said "The great masses of the
people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small
one."

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound