Head protection - the case against

[Peter Clinch]

Alan Braggins wrote:

> Are there any studies of the relative merits of hairy or bald heads
> in an accident?

At a sample base of 1 level, judges between me having hair and
being a slaphead, when it comes to banging one's head on things
like cupboard doors etc. you are a *lot* better off with hair.

Much easier to wash a bald head and cooler in the summer though.
But OTOH I always need a hat 'cause I burn easily. Bah!

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/

 

[Sue White]

Mike Causer <[email protected]> whizzed past me
shouting
>On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:29:44 +0000, Matt B wrote:
>
>> Whether or not one should wear an artificial device whilst cycling, for
>> the purpose of protecting one's head in the event of an accident, is
>> apparently a controversial issue here.
>>
>> Not having either the appropriate time, resources, knowledge or
>> wherewithal to comprehensively research this subject myself can anyone who
>> has followed this debate please explain for me (concisely and pertinently
>> , the reason(s) that such devices are deemed to be inadvisable.
>
>
>Damn! I knew the Troll-o-Meter had been overstressed recently. Now it's
>completely bust. Got to get a tougher one. Is the Hope titanium one
>worth the money?
>

It's accurate to the nearest millitroll, light and compact, and has
serious amounts of bling. Certain blogs speak highly of it.
It might not be robust enough for off-web use.

The Campagnolo precision steel trollometer is almost as expensive and
incorporates a useful irony meter. I had a Park Tools blue plastic one
which was chewed out of shape by a toddler in a pub garden.
I now measure trolls with a simple device made from an old rigid fork
with aheadset rusted on, a chain whip and a lump hammer.

--
Sue ];)

I've got a recipe for cooking them somewhere too...

 

[Mike Causer]

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:25:13 +0000, Sue White wrote:

> I've got a recipe for cooking them somewhere too...

The traditional "Nail to a plank of hardwood, boil until the wood
is soft, then eat the wood."?



Mike

 

[John Hearns]

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 11:05:22 -0800, ukrc wrote:


> I think most people who have done any research on the topic would
> acknowledge that the helmets issue is VERY political. Many of those
> opposed to helmet compulsion feel that the helmets issue is symptomatic of
> the tendency to place the greatest burden of responsibility for 'road
> safety' on the vulnerable road user.
.....

Thi

 

[John Hearns]

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 11:05:22 -0800, ukrc wrote:

>
> I think most people who have done any research on the topic would
> acknowledge that the helmets issue is VERY political. Many of those
> opposed to helmet compulsion feel that the helmets issue is symptomatic of
> the tendency to place the greatest burden of responsibility for 'road
> safety' on the vulnerable road user.

This is an excellent essay. Could we have it put on a web page somewhere,
for future reference?

 

[Matt B]

"Nobody Here" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Whether or not one should wear an artificial device whilst cycling, for
>> the
>> purpose of protecting one's head in the event of an accident, is
>> apparently
>> a controversial issue here.
>>
>> Not having either the appropriate time, resources, knowledge or
>> wherewithal
>> to comprehensively research this subject myself can anyone who has
>> followed
>> this debate please explain for me (concisely and pertinently , the
>> reason(s) that such devices are deemed to be inadvisable.
>
>
> Jesus F Christ, people, please please just ignore the **** and after a
> while
> he'll **** of back to uk.tosspot or wherever he usually hangs out like
> he did last time.

I visit here whenever I'm inclined - I only tend to participate when I see
something that riles me.

> This is exactly what he did last time he came over here - sat around for a
> bit making a few inane comments

You may consider that the challenging of (pre/mis)conceptions and prejudices
WRT road safety as such, but if you look back you'll see others of this ng
enjoyed the experience

> and eventually he crawled back under
> his bridge. He'd *too busy* to use google, why are some of you not
> *too busy* to pay him the slightest bit of sodding notice???? If he
> spent the time he's apparently got to troll around here he'd be able
> to find out for himself, the moron.

Another urc bully I fear.

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Nobody Here wrote:
>
>> Jesus F Christ, people, please please just ignore the **** and after a
>> while
>> he'll **** of back to uk.tosspot or wherever he usually hangs out like
>> he did last time.
>>
>> This is exactly what he did last time he came over here - sat around for
>> a
>> bit making a few inane comments and eventually he crawled back under
>> his bridge. He'd *too busy* to use google, why are some of you not
>> *too busy* to pay him the slightest bit of sodding notice???? If he
>> spent the time he's apparently got to troll around here he'd be able
>> to find out for himself, the moron.
>>
> Hi there, Sorry I didn't know we had a bona-fide troll here!

Support our right to free speech. Ignore the would-be censors. Don't be
afraid to challenge the orthodoxy of this ng.

> Still, thinking about the answer to such questions does hep one to put
> ones
> thoughts in order, so not a totally pointless exercise!

Exactly.

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>>
>> Presumably those, in government, road safety groups, or wherever, who
>> support the use of helmets have a reason for ignoring or disagreeing with
>> the views you express. Presumably they have counter evidence to support
>> their stance, or do you think it is purely political, and with little or
>> no
>> sound reasoning?
>>
>
> I think most people who have done any research on the topic would
> acknowledge that the helmets issue is VERY political.
> ...

Some harsh, but elightening views - thanks!

--
Matt B

 

[John B]

Matt B wrote:

> I visit here whenever I'm inclined - I only tend to participate when I see
> something that riles me.

Now I wonder who started this thread.
Oooh look. A certain Matt B :-(

John B

 

[Matt B]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 15:43:46 -0000, "Clive George"
> <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>Why not read around a bit more? Are you interested in finding out the
>>truth,
>>or merely in having an argument?
>
> (checks MattB's posting history)
>
> The latter.

You are persistent aren't you. Can you not accept that your snap judgement
was mistaken?

Why not give us your take on the issue - you're a convert IIRC, aren't you?

--
Matt B

 

[Dave Larrington]

MartinM <[email protected]> wrote:


> virtually every other rider from this NG that I have personally met
> does not wear a helmet, and the majority of others who I have not met
> but read posts from either do not wear one and / or are vehemently
> anti-compulsion even if they do wear one. In light of this what sort
> of a response did you expect to get with this thread?

I've spotted Martin wearing one, thobut... And as it is now That Time of
Year, I have started to wear one for commuting again, on the grounds of
being a handy, or possibly heady, place to mount a couple of extra lights.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Never tie your shoelaces in a revolving door.

 

[Matt B]

"John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> I visit here whenever I'm inclined - I only tend to participate when I
>> see
>> something that riles me.
>
> Now I wonder who started this thread.
> Oooh look. A certain Matt B :-(

Your point? Is it not valid to start a thread if riled by an issue?

--
Matt B

 

[John B]

Matt B wrote:
>
> "John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Matt B wrote:
> >
> >> I visit here whenever I'm inclined - I only tend to participate when I
> >> see
> >> something that riles me.
> >
> > Now I wonder who started this thread.
> > Oooh look. A certain Matt B :-(
>
> Your point?

You're a troll. So far you haven't contributed anything of note.

John B

 

[Peter Clinch]

Matt B wrote:

> Support our right to free speech. Ignore the would-be censors. Don't be
> afraid to challenge the orthodoxy of this ng.

But numerous challenges to individuals' thoughts are very, very easy to
find with a spot of Googling. It is Usenet orthodoxy to do a bit of
research first, simply because it's polite not to drag things around
unnecessarily. But you won't extend people that common Usenet courtesy,
so it's a rather sad case of double standards for you to complain about
their manners when you don't extend many towards them.

You may like to think of yourself as a free spirited rebel but in point
of fact you just came in and shat on the floor, and your protestations
of "challenging orthodoxy" don't render that good behaviour or take away
the mess and the smell.

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/

 

[Nobody Here]

Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Nobody Here wrote:
>>
>>> Jesus F Christ, people, please please just ignore the **** and after a
>>> while
>>> he'll **** of back to uk.tosspot or wherever he usually hangs out like
>>> he did last time.
>>>
>>> This is exactly what he did last time he came over here - sat around for
>>> a
>>> bit making a few inane comments and eventually he crawled back under
>>> his bridge. He'd *too busy* to use google, why are some of you not
>>> *too busy* to pay him the slightest bit of sodding notice???? If he
>>> spent the time he's apparently got to troll around here he'd be able
>>> to find out for himself, the moron.
>>>
>> Hi there, Sorry I didn't know we had a bona-fide troll here!
>
> Support our right to free speech. Ignore the would-be censors. Don't be
> afraid to challenge the orthodoxy of this ng.

You don't challenge anything, you just poke away like a small boy with
a stick at an ant's nest, then you walk away having contributed nothing
expect asking a set of asinine and inane questions in your exceedingly
irritating and patronising quasi-didactic manner. That makes you
a moron, in my book.

--
Nobby

 

[Nobody Here]

Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 15:43:46 -0000, "Clive George"
>> <[email protected]> said in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>Why not read around a bit more? Are you interested in finding out the
>>>truth,
>>>or merely in having an argument?
>>
>> (checks MattB's posting history)
>>
>> The latter.
>
> You are persistent aren't you. Can you not accept that your snap judgement
> was mistaken?
>
> Why not give us your take on the issue - you're a convert IIRC, aren't you?

Why on earth do you think he would want to write them all out again? Guy's
views are well known here, and in any case are very readily available
with a quick google. What makes you think you are important enough
for him to do that, even if you are just far too busy twiddling your
know to bother with doing anythign yourself?

Oh, have you learned to masturbate since your last visit here, as was
suggested at the time?

--
Nobby

 

[Tony Raven]

Matt B wrote:
> "John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Matt B wrote:
>>
>>> I visit here whenever I'm inclined - I only tend to participate when I
>>> see
>>> something that riles me.
>> Now I wonder who started this thread.
>> Oooh look. A certain Matt B :-(
>
> Your point? Is it not valid to start a thread if riled by an issue?
>

But that's not how you started the thread. You came in apparently
asking for assistance but it now seems clear that you were not actually
interested in any assistance but wanted it as the trigger to allow you
to vent your views. In my dictionary that is trolling. YMMV

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[Matt B]

"John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>>
>> "John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Matt B wrote:
>> >
>> >> I visit here whenever I'm inclined - I only tend to participate when I
>> >> see
>> >> something that riles me.
>> >
>> > Now I wonder who started this thread.
>> > Oooh look. A certain Matt B :-(
>>
>> Your point?
>
> You're a troll. So far you haven't contributed anything of note.

I don't feel qualified to support or argue for either side of the "head
protection" debate - does that imply I'm a troll?

I am interested in the politics though, and don't you think we all benefit
from it being reiterated?

I do not accept the label. If you despise my style (or lack of it) feel
free to ignore my posts and my thread.

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

"Nobody Here" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Nobody Here wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jesus F Christ, people, please please just ignore the **** and after a
>>>> while
>>>> he'll **** of back to uk.tosspot or wherever he usually hangs out like
>>>> he did last time.
>>>>
>>>> This is exactly what he did last time he came over here - sat around
>>>> for
>>>> a
>>>> bit making a few inane comments and eventually he crawled back under
>>>> his bridge. He'd *too busy* to use google, why are some of you not
>>>> *too busy* to pay him the slightest bit of sodding notice???? If he
>>>> spent the time he's apparently got to troll around here he'd be able
>>>> to find out for himself, the moron.
>>>>
>>> Hi there, Sorry I didn't know we had a bona-fide troll here!
>>
>> Support our right to free speech. Ignore the would-be censors. Don't be
>> afraid to challenge the orthodoxy of this ng.
>
> You don't challenge anything, you just poke away like a small boy with
> a stick at an ant's nest, then you walk away having contributed nothing
> expect asking a set of asinine and inane questions in your exceedingly
> irritating and patronising quasi-didactic manner. That makes you
> a moron, in my book.

Yet you still cannot resist to read and to reply to my posts? Please feel
free to ignore anything posted by me, or in reply to anything posted by me.

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>> "John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Matt B wrote:
>>>
>>>> I visit here whenever I'm inclined - I only tend to participate when I
>>>> see
>>>> something that riles me.
>>> Now I wonder who started this thread.
>>> Oooh look. A certain Matt B :-(
>>
>> Your point? Is it not valid to start a thread if riled by an issue?
>>
> But that's not how you started the thread.

Have you read the first sentence?
Here it is again:
"Whether or not one should wear an artificial device whilst cycling, for the
purpose of protecting one's head in the event of an accident, is apparently
a controversial issue here."

> You came in apparently asking for assistance but it now seems clear that
> you were not actually interested in any assistance but wanted it as the
> trigger to allow you to vent your views. In my dictionary that is
> trolling. YMMV

I've not given any views - your argumment fails - MMDV!

I was hoping for definite, easily digested, pros and cons to help me _form_
a view. I am torn between cowardice/guilt and cavalierism.

--
Matt B