Buck wrote on 16/01/2007 10:58 +0100:
>> You (apparently) don't.
>
> People don't actually, they have heard from the idiots on both sides but
> have yet to hear from balanced sources, both sides so far have started
> with the solutions they wished to reach, then followed with "research"
> to prove their requirements, both arguments are flawed so we are no
> further forward.
>
Confirming you don't. Most of us here started from the long held
assumption that helmets were good - I wore one for years thinking it
protected my head. Many of us have also had scientific training and at
some point or other something triggered us to look into the research.
The result of that review is that most of us stopped wearing helmets.
So to say we started from solutions we wished to reach is absolutely
wrong. We started from a long held opposite position and were convinced
by the evidence that we had been wrong. The evidence is now collated
out there on cyclehelmets.org for you to read and make up your own mind.
For some reason a number of people don't want to do that which is
their perogative but don't expect to get an easy ride from those of us
that have done the detailed study if you then spout uninformed nonsense
here.
--
Tony
"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
