Ziggy wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2007 11:12:01 -0700, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>One must always use the right weapon for the situation. Hence when
>>selecting the appropriate asset thought should be given to the target,
>>range, environment and survivability of the methods under
>>consideration. Clearly when hunting a cyclist the ability to claim,
>>"it was an accident..." is an advantage not to be overlooked.
>
>
> Seems to work almost 100% for motorists.
>
> I wonder if a cyclist got shot they would feel impelled to mention it if they
> were not wearing a helmet?
>
> "A cyclist died today after being shot in the chest by fleeing bank robbers. He
> was not wearing a helmet". It wouldn't surprise me :-(
Ziggy,
After exhaustive experiment and data collection evidence that the
wearing, or not, of cycle helmets mitigates the effect of trauma to
other parts of the body has failed to render any universally accepted
data. What data there is in this regard is the subject of heated debate,
not only amongst scientific researchers but also amongst lay persons.
Anecdotal evidence is often called into the debate but this has proven
to be of little use in assessing the claims of either side in the light
of such evidence as is available which is scientifically valid and
accepted by both pro and anti helmet campaigns.
There is no empirical evidence to support the hypothesis put forward
above and evidence therefore needs to be gathered before any true
evaluation of the efficacy of cycle helmets in the protection of the
wearer from ballistic injury to non protected areas of the body can be
properly assessed.
Accordingly a series of tests have been arranged to gather this material.
In line with health and safety legislation, legal considerations,
ethical concerns and financial restraints it was proposed and seconded
that it would not be fit or proper to employ another person to undertake
such evaluations and that the researcher proposing the theory should
volunteer. This was accepted by all present at the meeting for the
following reasons.
1) None of those present felt they had the time or inclination to commit
themselves to such an arduous series of tests.
2) It raised certain moral questions that none of those present wanted
to answer or consider.
3) Lawyers amongst us felt that by using the researcher proposing the
hypothesis use might be made of the legal loophole of suicide.
4) A volunteer would not need payment and this would free funds for
other purposes.
5) Those involved in conducting the research might require access to
psychiatric help afterward, would need to be relocated, have new
identities and be protected from public prosecution. All of which is
expensive so money saved on a test subject in the form of a volunteer
was money well spent.
6) By volunteering the research subject in such a way reference was made
to the accepted Ratio that this is the normal method of selecting people
in the military and that the researchers conducting the tests felt it
important to maintain previous methodology in the interests of integrity.
A decision was then made as to expenses. It was decided that no funds
would be available to pay your personal expenses and that you should
purchase your own ticket to the test venue and provide yourself with a
packed lunch.
Life insurance was then discussed and a number of companies were
proposed. Enquiries revealed that the cost of insurance was prohibitive
and that the insurers felt that, in the event of their being forced to
pay out, they might spend considerable time and monies trying to locate
anyone willing to claim. As no insurance company seemed willing to
expend such monies or energy in finding persons willing to claim loss
for the death or permanent injury of the researcher the monies which
were payable to insure the researcher have been spent on hotel and
sundry expenses for those conducting the tests.
The research proposer is advised to bring with him his wallet and an
address to which any personal belongings might be donated.
To maintain the impartiality of the testing a number of blind observers
have been employed and their comments will be relied upon in making any
assessment of the data. Their observations will be made available to
reporters following expiration of the 25 year rules.
The tests will last all day and will follow the attached protocols so
that as much data can be gathered from this series of experiments.
Phase 1: Non-Lethal.
Subject will be dressed in normal clothes and progressively beaten with
non lethal implements whilst wearing a cycle helmet.
Reactions will be recorded by the observers.
Phase 1 will then be repeated without the cycle helmet.
Any differences will be noted by the observers.
Phase 2: Non-Lethal.
Subject will be dressed in cycle clothing to ascertain if this has any
effect either on the severity of the trauma suffered or on the
protection offered by wearing a helmet.
Differences will again be noted by the observers.
Phase 3: Mixed Munitions.
After much debate about the use of non lethal munitions it was agreed
that both non lethal and lethal munitions should be used, no decision
was made as to the order in which munitions should be used with some
favouring a mixed round approach and others feeling that it should be
left to the observers to stipulate the order best suited to the tests at
hand on the day. All felt that the use of purely non-lethal munitions
would call into question the validity and integrity of the tests.
Subject will be dressed as in previous phases and various lethal and
non-lethal munitions will be deployed.
Observers will record results as in phases 1 and 2 bearing in mind they
must only record the differences that they observe and not any other
influencing data such as sound.
The subject is reminded that firearms often make loud noises when
discharged and is urged not to duck if startled by such discharge. This
is to maintain the validity of the testing and is crucial at this stage.
If the subject were to duck and the helmet were damaged there may be
questions as to.
1) The validity of any conclusions drawn by the observers.
2) Who would responsible to the sponsor for replacement of the damaged
helmet - at present it is felt that the subject should bear the full
cost of replacement.
Phase 4: Reportage.
After all the physical tests have been completed the next phase would be
the reporting of the findings through the press.
It is proposed the subject be shown to three sets of reporters.
In the first instance One set of reporters will be shown the subjects
body wearing a cycle helmet and will be allowed access to interview the
observers.
The next set of reporters will view the subject wearing cycle clothing
but no cycle helmet they will again be given access to the observers for
comment.
As a control a blind panel of reporters will then view the body. This
panel is to be drawn from a group not connected with the previous two
groups. To make them wholly independent they will not have access to
the observers or any other data from the tests.
Final stage: Evaluation.
Having completed all the above stages the observers will then review the
printed reports from Phase 4 and add their comments.
These reports will then be assessed. The conclusions will be used to
prove or disprove the hypothesis of the researcher and add to the fund
of knowledge available to the debate. Indeed it is hoped that the tests
will be able to show a favourable conclusion to the debate one way or
the other.
In arranging the tests the panel has been minded by the data protection
act and will be advising you of the date time and venue by post.
Instructions for your attendance will be forwarded in a manila envelope
which will carry the legend "On Her Majesties Service".
Failure to attend the tests will render the research subject liable to
the full costs of the research and severe financial and other
constraints may be used to gather said monies and data at a later time.
No warning will be given of any actions taken in this regard.
Yours
