How many cyclists not wearing helmets have been killed?



Buck wrote:
> Helmets do provide some decelleration on impact, a little is better than
> non in my opinion,

Well, I think that about sums up your position on the matter. A largely
meaningless statement followed by an inference that you admit to be
opinion.

Anthony
 
In article <[email protected]>, Phil Armstrong wrote:
>Ingo Keck <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Btw, has someone had a closer look at the lates declaration of Hagel in
>> Injury Prevention
>> (http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/12/6/353?ct)? Unfortunately
>> I can not get hold of it very easily (none of the libraries in my
>> vicinity has the journal and I doubt that the editoral is worth the 12$
>> they want for it), but the response from Peter W Ward sounds as if Hagel
>> as editor of the journal asks for censorship in this case. Is that true?
>
>No, at least not to my reading. I think I can reasonably quote the
>last paragraph of the editorial:
>
> "As the author of several pro-helmet papers I make no bones about my
> conviction that enforced legislation is an effective preventive
> measure. Does this bias permit me, however, as Editor, to suppress
> eletters that I disagree with or even those I judge to be
> scientifically wrong? No matter how frustrating or irritating I
> might find them, I cannot. I wish I could because I find the
> repeated, almost boilerplate arguments, tiresome and suspect many
> readers share that view. But no self-respecting Editor can allow
> his or her views to influence what they publish, even in the large
> grey zone of eletters."
>
>IOW, he would prefer to not publish these letters, but believes that
>he is required to do so by his editorial standards.

I'm slightly surprised by the implication that he doesn't have any wish
to suppress tiresome repeated, almost boilerplate arguments that agree
with his position, only those he disagrees with.
 
Anthony Jones wrote:
> Buck wrote:
>> Here you go Alan.
>>
>> http://www.rmd.dft.gov.uk/project.asp?intProjectID=10083
>
> When others link to numerous different studies with varying conclusions, you
> say they are "idiots" with "a vested interest". Could you explain why
> anyone should rely on your link to a single study?

Especially when that study is both referenced /and/ critiqued on the
www.cyclehelmets.org site.

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/
 
On 01/17/2007 10:31:14 Anthony Jones <[email protected]> wrote:

> Buck wrote:

>>>> I don't have any problem making my mind up, I do have a problem however
>>>> using the "evidence", provided by people with a vested interest, in
>>>> order to make my mind up,

>>> So which evidence *do* you use, and how do you decide whether anyone
>>> involved has a vested interest?

> Are you not going to answer this then?

>>>> you obviously just agree with whoever shouts you down first.

>>> Obviously. Do you even know my opinion on the matter?

>>> Anthony

>> As much as you know mine, what's wrong don't like me treating you like
>> you treat me? Nice double standards, now get back in your box.

> I was commenting on what you'd said in your previous post. You were
> commenting on something I'd said nothing about. See the difference?

> Anthony

Actually you commented on my ability to make up my own mind, which was irrelevant to the post, do you see your error?
--

Buck

Give a little person a little power and create a big problem.

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
On 01/17/2007 10:32:40 Anthony Jones <[email protected]> wrote:

> Buck wrote:

>> Helmets do provide some decelleration on impact, a little is better than
>> non in my opinion,

> Well, I think that about sums up your position on the matter. A largely
> meaningless statement followed by an inference that you admit to be
> opinion.

> Anthony

Or a meaningful statement followed by my own opinion, if you want to argue
at least try to be a little less purile.

--

Buck

Give a little person a little power and create a big problem.

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
On 01/17/2007 10:48:27 Anthony Jones <[email protected]> wrote:

> Buck wrote:

>> Here you go Alan.

>> http://www.rmd.dft.gov.uk/project.asp?intProjectID083

> When others link to numerous different studies with varying conclusions,
> you say they are "idiots" with "a vested interest". Could you explain why
> anyone should rely on your link to a single study?

> Anthony

Oh look I have a stalker!

--

Buck

Give a little person a little power and create a big problem.

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
Buck wrote:
>> When others link to numerous different studies with varying conclusions,
>> you say they are "idiots" with "a vested interest". Could you explain
>> why anyone should rely on your link to a single study?
>
>> Anthony
>
> Oh look I have a stalker!

Well you'll be pleased to know that I won't bother 'stalking' (aka replying)
anymore, since you have clearly have no interest in answering (or perhaps
ability to answer) any of the questions that I've posed.

Anthony
 
> I'm slightly surprised by the implication that he doesn't have any
> wish to suppress tiresome repeated, almost boilerplate arguments that
> agree with his position, only those he disagrees with.

And that he publishes ones that are wrong (even if they are 'only
scientifically wrong'). Numpty.
 
Lots of snipping:

>>> Helmets do provide some decelleration on impact, a little is better
>>> than non in my opinion,
>
>> A largely meaningless statement

> Or a meaningful statement

Um, well concrete prolly provides better (faster) decelleration on impact
than polystyrene. What you prolly meant was something like 'slows the
decelleration of headbutting the ground' or something. Maybe.
 
On 01/17/2007 13:10:11 Anthony Jones <[email protected]> wrote:

> Buck wrote:

>>> When others link to numerous different studies with varying conclusions,
>>> you say they are "idiots" with "a vested interest". Could you explain
>>> why anyone should rely on your link to a single study?

>>> Anthony

>> Oh look I have a stalker!

> Well you'll be pleased to know that I won't bother 'stalking' (aka
> replying) anymore, since you have clearly have no interest in answering
> (or perhaps ability to answer) any of the questions that I've posed.

> Anthony

Excellent, you are right that I have no interest in anything you say.

--

Buck

Give a little person a little power and create a big problem.

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
Quoting Buck <[email protected]>:
>On 01/17/2007 10:48:27 Anthony Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>>When others link to numerous different studies with varying conclusions,
>>you say they are "idiots" with "a vested interest". Could you explain why
>>anyone should rely on your link to a single study?
>Oh look I have a stalker!

Technically speaking, reading your drivel in a newsgroup Mr Jones reads
anyway isn't much in the way of stalking. Are you going to answer the
question, or just keep evading it?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Monday, January.
 
in message <[email protected]>, Buck
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Helmets do provide some decelleration on impact, a little is better than
> non in my opinion,

True. But they also aggravate rotational moment, which is more dangerous in
head injury than simple impact. Which effect is more significant depends
on the speed of the impact, and this area has not been adequately
researched. All you can say with any certainty is that when more cyclists
wear helmets, the number of deaths and serious injuries per billion
cyclist kilometres goes up, not down.

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

;; I'll have a proper rant later, when I get the time.
 
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:49:30 GMT, Buck
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>On 01/17/2007 13:10:11 Anthony Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Buck wrote:
>
>>>> When others link to numerous different studies with varying conclusions,
>>>> you say they are "idiots" with "a vested interest". Could you explain
>>>> why anyone should rely on your link to a single study?
>
>>>> Anthony
>
>>> Oh look I have a stalker!
>
>> Well you'll be pleased to know that I won't bother 'stalking' (aka
>> replying) anymore, since you have clearly have no interest in answering
>> (or perhaps ability to answer) any of the questions that I've posed.
>
>> Anthony
>
>Excellent, you are right that I have no interest in anything you say.


Especially as it

a) contradicts your assertion about the value of cycle helmets;

b) is supported by the evidence; and

c) is presented in a reasonable and polite fashion.
 
Buck wrote:
> On 01/16/2007 23:08:51 Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Buck wrote on 16/01/2007 22:46 +0100:
>>> I can only dream of being as
>>> competent as you Tony, maybe in 60 years or so eh? If i get to
>>> drink out of enough alluminium containers anyway.
>
>> Drinking from alluminium (sic) containers won't help you open your
>> eyes.
>
> Woosh!

In the opposite direction to that which you thought.
--
A
 
"Buck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> On 01/17/2007 10:48:27 Anthony Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Buck wrote:
>
>>> Here you go Alan.
>
>>> http://www.rmd.dft.gov.uk/project.asp?intProjectID083
>
>> When others link to numerous different studies with varying conclusions,
>> you say they are "idiots" with "a vested interest". Could you explain
>> why
>> anyone should rely on your link to a single study?
>
>> Anthony
>
> Oh look I have a stalker!

Lucky you, I wish I had one, but she should be in her twenties, and
absolutely gagging for it!:)-)

Alan
 
Alan Holmes wrote on 17/01/2007 14:43 +0100:
>
> Lucky you, I wish I had one, but she should be in her twenties, and
> absolutely gagging for it!:)-)
>

You appear to be a very frustrated old man Alan.


--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 
On 01/17/2007 13:57:37 David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:

> Quoting Buck <[email protected]>:

>> On 01/17/2007 10:48:27 Anthony Jones <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> When others link to numerous different studies with varying conclusions,
>>> you say they are "idiots" with "a vested interest". Could you explain
>>> why anyone should rely on your link to a single study?

>> Oh look I have a stalker!

> Technically speaking, reading your drivel in a newsgroup Mr Jones reads
> anyway isn't much in the way of stalking. Are you going to answer the
> question, or just keep evading it?

Can you tell me where I said this single study should be relied upon? It is just one of many and is as valid as any other, in fact I think it is quite balanced, it leans in neither direction.

Mr Jones was merely digging at me through two seperate thread branches because I identified him as a hypocrit, which he knows he is, and your backing him up because you cannot be bothered to get the facts straight and you want to be in on the argument, did mummy not give you enough attention today tweedle poo?

--

Buck

Give a little person a little power and create a big problem.

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
On 01/17/2007 14:03:45 Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> in message <[email protected]>, Buck
> ('[email protected]') wrote:

>> Helmets do provide some decelleration on impact, a little is better than
>> non in my opinion,

> True. But they also aggravate rotational moment, which is more dangerous
> in head injury than simple impact. Which effect is more significant
> depends on the speed of the impact, and this area has not been adequately
> researched. All you can say with any certainty is that when more cyclists
> wear helmets, the number of deaths and serious injuries per billion
> cyclist kilometres goes up, not down.

Which I said in my post before you cropped it, so what gives?
--

Buck

Give a little person a little power and create a big problem.

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
How many cyclists to change the Highway Code?
Replies
0
Views
248
UK and Europe
Ian Smith
I
L
We have many kinds of brand sports shoes and Handbags
Replies
0
Views
266
UK and Europe
[email protected]
L
E
Because you can never have too many...
Replies
5
Views
395
UK and Europe
Roger Merriman
R
Z
Many motorists cannot be prosecuted.
Replies
60
Views
547
UK and Europe
_
?
M
slime is great and 'how many helmets ?'
Replies
54
Views
2K
UK and Europe
_
?
Top Bottom Back