H*lmets

Quoted message said:

In todays paper an item regarding a cyclist who died from severe head
injuries after being in collision <1> with a car on a roundabout and an
article re. a motorist who died from severe head injuries after being in
collision with another car.
In the cyclists case mention was made that she wasn't wearing a helmet but
no mention was made of the motorist not wearing a helmet so are we to assume
he was?

Motorists wear a seatbelt. They wear a car, too, if it comes to that.

--
Toby

"Toby Douglass" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In todays paper an item regarding a cyclist who died from severe head
injuries after being in collision <1> with a car on a roundabout and an
article re. a motorist who died from severe head injuries after being in
collision with another car.
In the cyclists case mention was made that she wasn't wearing a helmet

but

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

no mention was made of the motorist not wearing a helmet so are we to

assume

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

he was?

Motorists wear a seatbelt. They wear a car, too, if it comes to that.

Yes but he still died from head injuries every bit as much as the cyclist
did and if it's to be insinuated the cyclist may have survived had she been
wearing a helmet and therefore was in some way irresponsible the same could
be said of the motorist.

And we don't know that the motorist was wearing a seatbelt.

Pete

Quoted message said:

And we don't know that the motorist was wearing a seatbelt.

Pretty likely, though. I think it would have been remarked upon if it
were found that he were not.

--
Toby

Peter B <[email hidden]> wrote:

<Snipped Text>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Motorists wear a seatbelt. They wear a car, too, if it comes to that.

Yes but he still died from head injuries every bit as much as the cyclist
did and if it's to be insinuated the cyclist may have survived had she been
wearing a helmet and therefore was in some way irresponsible the same could
be said of the motorist.

And we don't know that the motorist was wearing a seatbelt.

Doesn't matter, they could still hit the 'A' pillar with their head [1],
and from that the brain can be subject to 200g in a 20mph crash. I doubt
very much that wearing an expanded polystyrene lid is going to help
much.

[1] There has been high speed video footage taken in some of the later,
and perhaps more accurate, crash testing that shows this happening.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online

Peter B said:

In the cyclists case mention was made that she wasn't wearing a helmet but
no mention was made of the motorist not wearing a helmet so are we to assume
he was?
And if he was does this not prove that helmets don't prevent death from
severe head injuries?
One to ponder.

It's rarely, if ever, reported if a cyclist dies while wearing a helmet.
From this we can conclude that either:

1) helmets are 100% effective

or

2) there is a widespread conspiracy to keep evidence of their failure
out of the press.

The police in NZ have actually been caught doing (2)!

And no-one ever mentions the two professional cyclists killed in races
since the UCI made helmets mandatory this year. That's a pretty poor
record considering the number of professional cyclists *ever* killed.
Other racing cyclists died while wearing helmets before they became
compulsory (they've been compulsory for amateur racing in the US and
Britain for some years now).

in message <[email hidden]>, Toby

Douglass (') said:

Quoted message said:

In todays paper an item regarding a cyclist who died from severe head
injuries after being in collision <1> with a car on a roundabout and
an article re. a motorist who died from severe head injuries after
being in collision with another car.
In the cyclists case mention was made that she wasn't wearing a
helmet but no mention was made of the motorist not wearing a helmet
so are we to assume he was?

Motorists wear a seatbelt. They wear a car, too, if it comes to that.

Yet a higher proportion of them suffer serious head injuries than do
cyclists.

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

;; Woz: 'All the best people in life seem to like LINUX.'
;; <URL:http://www.woz.org/woz/cresponses/response03.html>

in message <411efc16.0@entanet>, Zog The Undeniable
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

<boggle>There are actually 19 other people called 'hrothgar' on
Yahoo?</boggle>

Quoted message said:

2) there is a widespread conspiracy to keep evidence of their failure
out of the press.

The police in NZ have actually been caught doing (2)!

Cite, please?

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

Morning had broken, and there was nothing we could do but wait
patiently for the RAC to arrive.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Simon Brooke said:

<boggle>There are actually 19 other people called 'hrothgar' on
Yahoo?</boggle>

Whyever not?

You scots have your traditions, and an identity not least by virtue of
being not-english. But those of us who are english and also happen
to be white might want to reclaim some traditions and identity too.
And calling yourself hrothgar is something you can get away with,
without getting labelled anything nasty by the PC lobby. Yes I know
the original was a Dane, but it's a long-standing shared tradition ...

--
Nick Kew

Peter B said:

In todays paper an item regarding a cyclist who died from severe head
injuries after being in collision <1> with a car on a roundabout and an
article re. a motorist who died from severe head injuries after being in
collision with another car.
In the cyclists case mention was made that she wasn't wearing a helmet but
no mention was made of the motorist not wearing a helmet so are we to assume
he was?

And it says nothing about whether the cyclist had other fatal
injuries, which is likely.

Why not write to the rag in question to try to educate them and their
readers?

Colin McKenzie

--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

"Colin McKenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Why not write to the rag in question to try to educate them and their
readers?

Which is exactly what I should have done rather than start yet another
you-know-what thread here.
Sorry everybody, I really should know better :-(

Pete.

Simon Brooke said:

in message <411efc16.0@entanet>, Zog The Undeniable
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

<boggle>There are actually 19 other people called 'hrothgar' on
Yahoo?</boggle>

Quoted message said:

2) there is a widespread conspiracy to keep evidence of their failure
out of the press.

The police in NZ have actually been caught doing (2)!

Cite, please?

I'll try and find the link. Basically they were told to report head
injuries if the cyclist wasn't helmeted, and to forget it if they were.

Toby Douglass said:

Motorists wear a seatbelt. They wear a car, too, if it comes to that.

--
Toby

I remember a friend saying that motorists shouldn't have to wear helmets in a car because they have to wear seatbelts - and then went on to say that quid pro quo, cyclists should be required to wear seatbelts. Doh!

Roger

Zog The Undeniable said:

Quoted message said:

there is a widespread conspiracy to keep evidence of their failure

out of the press.

The police in NZ have actually been caught doing !

Was it Simon who wanted a citation?
Try this for size:

In New Zealand, sometime in 1994 this report was published in the Manawatu Evening Standard, Palmerston North, which, by the way is the city where I reside and is the home of the infamous Helmet Lady - who's effort resulted in the MHL.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HIGH COURT

Protest publication ban quashed
by Dave Mahoney

A DISTRICT COURT judge's decision to prohibit publication of a protest against the cycle helmet laws has been quashed by the High Court.
Three weeks after the cycle helmet laws came into force, Ashley Garlick, 32 parked himself on the property of Palmerston North’s “Helmet Lady”, Rebecca Oaten, as a protest against the law.

After being warned twice by the police that he was trespassing, when they found him lying down in protest and refusing to move, Garlick was arrested and spent the night in jail.

The next day Garlick appeared before Judge Lynton Laing in the Palrnerston North District Court where be pleaded guilty to a charge of wilful trespass. Judge Laing convicted Garlick, fined him $100 and $95 costs and made an order prohibiting the publication of the reasons for Giarlick's protest.

Garlick then appealed his conviction, sentence and the suppression order to the High Court, which considered the appeal last week in Palmerston North. In his decision, Justice Doogue said the Crown could point to authority or jurisdiction for the judge to impose the order prohibiting publication of the reasons for Garlick's protest.
"I am unaware of any statutory provision which would enable an order of the kind imposed by the District Court judge. There is nothing in the Criminal Justice Act which would entitle the judge to impose such an order." Justice Doogue said in his written judgement.
The order was quashed. Other points of the appeal against conviction and sentence were dismissed.