Cycle helmets: please can we leave this alone now

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 01:27:04 +1100, Danmac
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Lets agree to disagree, it apears that the whole opinion is split down
>the middle, people will believe what they want to believe and no amount
>of debate apears to change that.

Please take this to your MP and ask them to get the Department for
Transport to adopt a similar policy. Until they do, we can't.

As to point 2, I offer exhibit A: Me.

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

 

[Pete Bentley]

Tim <[email protected]> wrote:
> Emacs vs vi! Oh no, that's a different group

However the statistics on helmets preventing head injury
whilst using emacs are very encouraging...

Pete.

 

[Richard]

Pete Bentley wrote:
> However the statistics on helmets preventing head injury
> whilst using emacs are very encouraging...

Quite. If I use emacs, I tend to wear a helmet because I know that
before long I'll be banging my head against the desk.

R.

 

[Dave Larrington]

Pete Bentley wrote:

> However the statistics on helmets preventing head injury
> whilst using emacs are very encouraging...

True. All that banging of one's head on the keyboard would take a terrible
toll otherwise. E&OE.

NB: We do not guarantee that the wearing of a h+lm+t while a-tolchocking
your gulliver against a piece of babbagery will achieve anything other than
make you look Very Foolish Indeed. The Mgt.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 16:33:07 -0000, "Epetruk" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>It looks to me here then as though this is being done for political reasons
>than for anything else, i.e. if there is a large enough number of people
>already wearing helmets, then if they are made compulsory it means that
>people are less likely to complain.

More that people are unlikely to be terribly keen to divert
substantial police resources to enforcing a law which is,
fundamentally, not about protecting the public.

Anyone who thinks cycling is too risky is free to leave their bike at
home, after all.

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

 

[shokhead]

Danmac wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> I've never gotten involved in one of the cycle helmet debates yet let
> alone started one, but i just want to say one thing.
>
> Lets agree to disagree, it apears that the whole opinion is split down
> the middle, people will believe what they want to believe and no amount
> of debate apears to change that.

This is Usenet, the whole point is to debate. It is a subject that
should be discussed.

IMVAIO, the key to preventing compulsory helmet laws is to base the
argument against such laws on defensible concepts. These include the
freedom to accept small risks, and the relative safety of bicycling as
an activity. It's an acceptable risk to ride without a helmet because
the likelihood of being involved in an accident where it would provide
protection is very small.

Those that disregard and rationalize the wealth of ER studies which
conclusively prove the value of a helmet _when an accident involving a
blow to the head occurs_, do damage in the battle against compulsion,
because they are dismissed as fools by the politicians.

The side-issue-specialists, also do the cause no good.

Most of use are trying to say is this is a repeating thread so if somebody needs to talk about it,do a search and chose from a looooooooooooooooooooong list.

 

[Richard Bates]

On 7 Dec 2004 17:31:04 GMT, [email protected] (Pete Bentley) wrote:

>Dave Larrington <[email protected]> wrote:
>>True. All that banging of one's head on the keyboard would take a terrible
>>toll otherwise. E&OE.
>
>I think you mipslet "troll". Hope this helps.
>
>Pete, trying to think of a "bi-something" word to describe a person who uses
>both of those editors on a daily basis.

Bitexual.
--
Amazon: "If you are interested in 'Asimov's I-Robot',
you may also be interested in 'Garfield - The Movie'.
... erm, how do they figure that one out?

 

[Pete Bentley]

Dave Larrington <[email protected]> wrote:
>True. All that banging of one's head on the keyboard would take a terrible
>toll otherwise. E&OE.

I think you mipslet "troll". Hope this helps.

Pete, trying to think of a "bi-something" word to describe a person who uses
both of those editors on a daily basis.

 

[JLB]

Danmac wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> I've never gotten involved in one of the cycle helmet debates yet let
> alone started one, but i just want to say one thing.

You have said at least four things as well as your initial statement.
>
> Lets agree to disagree, it apears that the whole opinion is split down
> the middle, people will believe what they want to believe and no amount
> of debate apears to change that.

If you've actually been reading these threads you would have noticed
that some people do change their minds after considering the arguments.
>
> I wear a helmet I feel safer with one, and I know people who can safely
> say that their life was probably saved by them (MTB admittedly) but I
> don't believe in compultion.

If you've actually been reading these threads you would have noticed
that anecdotes about "a helmet saved my life" do not amount to evidence
of anything, and you would have noticed references to the helmet
manufacturers themselves avoiding such claims.
>
> the main thing for me in this debate is that until there are stronger
> figures for either case then choice is the main factor. If you want to
> wear a helmet then wear one if you don't, then don't. Simple as that.

If you've actually been reading these threads you would have noticed
there are strong arguments why that should not be adequate.
>
> I'm just starting to get sick of reading the petty squabbles that erupt
> from this subject. I hope this thread does not cause such a response.

If you did not look for a response why did you post?

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

 

[Tony Raven]

Brian G wrote:
> Danmac wrote:
>
>> I'm just starting to get sick of reading the petty squabbles that erupt
>> from this subject. I hope this thread does not cause such a response.
>
>
> Then why repeat the sort of inane lines that always elicit the response
> you're "sick" of?
>

As posted elsewhere I perceive a pattern of the same thread-starting
post again and again in recent days, each time by a different new
poster, starting with John Doe. Wouldn't be surprised if BsHIT aren't
getting their friends to go on the attack.

Tony

 

[Zog The Undeniable]

Peter Clinch wrote:

> Not necessarily, but in the case of lids the DfT have stated that one of
> the main reasons they don't think they can make them compulsory as yet
> is that wearing rates need to be high to start with before such a
> measure will be complied with.

For evidence see http://www.peeble.com/bikes/letter1.jpg and
http://www.peeble.com/bikes/letter2.jpg

 

[Zog The Undeniable]

Epetruk wrote:

> Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>>Epetruk wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Helen, please explain this. Are you saying that just because lots of
>>>people do something, there is a tendency for it to be made
>>>compulsory? Would this apply to drinking at the pub, for example?
>>
>>Not necessarily, but in the case of lids the DfT have stated that one
>>of the main reasons they don't think they can make them compulsory as
>>yet is that wearing rates need to be high to start with before such a
>>measure will be complied with.
>
>
> It looks to me here then as though this is being done for political reasons
> than for anything else, i.e. if there is a large enough number of people
> already wearing helmets, then if they are made compulsory it means that
> people are less likely to complain. I don't know whether this means that the
> DfT would *like* to make them compulsory but is just waiting for a magic
> percentage to be exceeded by which time it believes there will be not much
> fuss about the introduction.
>
>
>>In some exercises they have done they /have/ assumed that a helmeted head
>
> is a vote for > compulsion, and yes, it is really dumb, but this is what
> seems to have happened.
>
> Is there any link to this? If this has been posted before, let me know and
> I'll google it up.

Well, here's evidence of the DfT's numbers game:

http://www.peeble.com/bikes/letter1.gif
http://www.peeble.com/bikes/letter2.gif

 

[Peter B]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> More that people are unlikely to be terribly keen to divert
> substantial police resources to enforcing a law which is,
> fundamentally, not about protecting the public.
>

Our local rag recently reported on a "crack down" on car occupants not
wearing seatbelts.
Personally I couldn't give a fig if an adult wants to exit via the
windscreen <1> and would rather the police "crack down" on those drivers who
might drive into me (or even someone else).
<1> Except the remote possibility that after departure said adult lands on
me.

Pete

 

[Epetruk]

Zog The Undeniable wrote:
> Epetruk wrote:
>
>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>
>>> Epetruk wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Helen, please explain this. Are you saying that just because lots
>>>> of people do something, there is a tendency for it to be made
>>>> compulsory? Would this apply to drinking at the pub, for example?
>>>
>>> Not necessarily, but in the case of lids the DfT have stated that
>>> one
>>> of the main reasons they don't think they can make them compulsory
>>> as yet is that wearing rates need to be high to start with before
>>> such a measure will be complied with.
>>
>>
>> It looks to me here then as though this is being done for political
>> reasons than for anything else, i.e. if there is a large enough
>> number of people already wearing helmets, then if they are made
>> compulsory it means that people are less likely to complain. I don't
>> know whether this means that the DfT would *like* to make them
>> compulsory but is just waiting for a magic percentage to be exceeded
>> by which time it believes there will be not much fuss about the
>> introduction.
>>
>>
>>> In some exercises they have done they /have/ assumed that a
>>> helmeted head
>>
>> is a vote for > compulsion, and yes, it is really dumb, but this is
>> what seems to have happened.
>>
>> Is there any link to this? If this has been posted before, let me
>> know and I'll google it up.
>
> Well, here's evidence of the DfT's numbers game:
>
> http://www.peeble.com/bikes/letter1.gif
> http://www.peeble.com/bikes/letter2.gif

Thanks, Zog.

From the second letter:

"Our position has been that compulsion at current wearing rates would cause
enforcement difficulties..."

which confirms what I thought.

 

[Tim]

In article <[email protected]>, Pete Bentley wrote:
> Tim <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Emacs vs vi! Oh no, that's a different group
>
> However the statistics on helmets preventing head injury
> whilst using emacs are very encouraging...
>
> Pete.

Not only for the users. Scientific studies show that helmets
are effective in reducing grease smears on CRTs caused by users banging
their heads

It was observed however that a helmet with a peak could cause
greater damage to an LCD screen than a blunt unhelmeted head.
--
Tim.

 

[Brian Storer]

crikey - this is a thread that runs and runs - should be a west end hit -
'Helmet' - the musical
"Mark Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Hello everybody,
>
> Whilst I like to read a well crafted troll as much as anyone else your
> effort was disappointing and unimaginative.
>
> I did like the little 'I know people who say that their life was probably
> saved by them but I don't believe in compulsion'. If cycling really were
> that dangerous and helmets that effective then we'd all be for compulsion!

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 17:52:06 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>As posted elsewhere I perceive a pattern of the same thread-starting
>post again and again in recent days, each time by a different new
>poster, starting with John Doe. Wouldn't be surprised if BsHIT aren't
>getting their friends to go on the attack.

Given that they are not capable of sending out a press release without
getting the numbers wrong, mis-spelling Rivara, or indeed using bcc to
hide the distribution list, I think you might be overestimating their
levels of competence ;-)

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

 

[Patrick Herring]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

| Patrick Herring wrote:
|
| > I have to say helmet threads have an impressively low Thread Drift
| > Quotient, so if you ignore any thread with "helmet" in the Subject you
| > won't miss anything, apart from your own posts that is.
|
| On recent form, discussion of the fallibility of the Pope and nature of
| mathematics! ;-)

Yebbut they changed the Subject, voluntarily and without prodding,
unheard of since the Elder Days.

Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk/ph.html

 

[Chris Malcolm]

Danmac <[email protected]> writes:

>I'm just starting to get sick of reading the petty squabbles that erupt
>from this subject.

Do you ask your local public library to remove from its shelves the
books you don't like, because you hate having to read them? But you
don't have to read all the books in the library! You can choose. And
you don't have to read any discussions here you don't like either.
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[bugbear]

Danmac wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> I've never gotten involved in one of the cycle helmet debates yet let
> alone started one, but i just want to say one thing.

"Troll! In the dungeon! Thought you ought to know."

Professor Quirrell (AKA BugBear)