How Not To Do It

Dave Fawthrop said:

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:27:34 +0100, "Peter B" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

| Yes, but I'm over 18, if the "facts" are presented to me then providing I
| don't endanger anyone else surely I can decide whether to carry the risk.

Then if you end up a cabbage for years with head injury before you die, the
Good Old National Health Service aka the rest of us pay for your care.

By that bonkers "logic", you should be aiming your criticism at those
who don't cycle and have a massive probability of health problems rather
than non-helmeted cyclists who have an exceedingly tiny risk of head
injury[1].

[1] And for injuries as you describe, no greater probablity than
helmeted cyclists.

"Not Responding" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dave Fawthrop said:

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:27:34 +0100, "Peter B" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

| Yes, but I'm over 18, if the "facts" are presented to me then

providing I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

| don't endanger anyone else surely I can decide whether to carry the

risk.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then if you end up a cabbage for years with head injury before you die,

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Good Old National Health Service aka the rest of us pay for your care.

By that bonkers "logic", you should be aiming your criticism at those
who don't cycle and have a massive probability of health problems rather
than non-helmeted cyclists who have an exceedingly tiny risk of head
injury[1].

[1] And for injuries as you describe, no greater probablity than
helmeted cyclists.

Don't confuse him with facts.

"Tony W" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[1] And for injuries as you describe, no greater probablity than
helmeted cyclists.

Quoted message said:

Don't confuse him with facts.

This week's BMJ has a neat little study showing slightly fewer head
injuries in skiers/snowboarders with helmets and slightly more neck
injuries in the helmeted group...

Of course, snow sports take place in a cool environment and most
participants aren't working against gravity...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

"Dave Fawthrop" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:27:34 +0100, "Peter B" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

| Yes, but I'm over 18, if the "facts" are presented to me then providing
I
| don't endanger anyone else surely I can decide whether to carry the
risk.

Then if you end up a cabbage for years with head injury before you die,
the
Good Old National Health Service aka the rest of us pay for your care.

--
Dave F

But he might end up as a cabbage *because* he has his helmet on, thus
causing us the additional payments you are so concerned about, since there
must be a range of accident conditions for which death would occur without a
helmet, but cabbage existence with one. I presume you wont have any evidence
to show whether helmet or not-helmet would result in a larger preponderance
of cabbage-ness? Until you can produce it, your argument is therefore,
technically, complete bollocks.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

you know? said:

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 12:37:21 +0000, nobody <[email hidden]> wrote
in message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden]

If you publish an address like [email hidden] then it is quite
likely that the owner of [email hidden] will start to receive a
lot of spam. It is very irresponsible to publish [email hidden]
in this way, and I hope that [email hidden] is not deluged with
spam as a result.

Probably not. AFAIK, email harvesting programs look at the
message headers for the addresses, rather than the bodies.
Avoids the pesky download overhead...

Tell you what, let's do an experiment. I've got a domain kicking
around which has never been really used. I'll set up a
non-guessable/non-dictionary email address, and whop it
into agent as a sig. Give it a while and see what turns up.

nobody said:

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 12:43:42 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"

Tell you what, let's do an experiment. I've got a domain kicking
around which has never been really used. I'll set up a
non-guessable/non-dictionary email address, and whop it
into agent as a sig. Give it a while and see what turns up.

Here we go!

[email hidden]

Dave Fawthrop said:

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:27:34 +0100, "Peter B" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

| Yes, but I'm over 18, if the "facts" are presented to me then providing I
| don't endanger anyone else surely I can decide whether to carry the risk.

Then if you end up a cabbage for years with head injury before you die, the
Good Old National Health Service aka the rest of us pay for your care.

And if that happens playing rugby, or climbing up a mountain, or from a
fall getting out of the bath, or any one of countless different causes,
the NHS "aka the rest of us" pays up. The NHS is paid for out of
taxation as a national system to spread the cost of health care across
every taxpayer. That's how insurance operates. Private health insurance
is basically the same: those who need treatment are subsidised by those
who have paid for cover without needing to claim.

So, your point is?

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

nobody said:

nobody said:

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 12:43:42 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"

Tell you what, let's do an experiment. I've got a domain kicking
around which has never been really used. I'll set up a
non-guessable/non-dictionary email address, and whop it
into agent as a sig. Give it a while and see what turns up.

Here we go!

[email hidden]

Shall we all send forged emails to him asking if he wants to buy
viagra? ;-)

Response to JLB:

Quoted message said:

And if that happens playing rugby, or climbing up a mountain, or from a
fall getting out of the bath, or any one of countless different causes,
the NHS "aka the rest of us" pays up.

Not to mention not taking enough exercise, not eating your five portions
of veg a day, eating too much sugar, all the other dumb things everybody
does which are on balance more likely to result in years of being a
burden to the state.

Given the paucity of evidence that cycle helmets will do more good than
harm, it seems perverse to pick on them; but as so often, it depends on
which portion of the moral high ground one wishes to occupy. ;-)

--
Mark, UK.

"I like also the men who study the Great Pyramid, with a view to
deciphering its mystical lore. Many great books have been
written on this subject, some of which have been presented to me
by their authors. It is a singular fact that the Great Pyramid
always predicts the history of the world accurately up to the
date of publication of the book in question, but after that date
it becomes less reliable."

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 14:59:33 +0000, Mike Causer
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I understand it is the work of a lone zealot, and not really an official
WHO site.

Quoted message said:

However the real WHO are in favour of them...
"... and overwhelming evidence in favour of bicycle helmet programmes..."

I detect the dead hand of the lone zealot in there - his name is
Graitcer, as Tony noted above. I would like to see how they count
Australia and New Zealand as "overwhelmingly" in favour of helmet
initiatives, since their transportation safety bodies now admit the
laws are irrelevant as a road safety measure ;-)

Quoted message said:

"Who are the road users most likely to be injured in crashes?
... for each kilometer travelled on a road in the European Union, a
person on a bicycle is eight times more likely to be killed than a
person in a car..."

Ah yes, let's just conveniently forget about the pedestrians shall we?
And indeed the cause of the injuries...

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:27:34 +0100, "Peter B" <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

"Requiring helmet wearing - by law - is an effective strategy to increase
helmet use and to reduce death and injury".

Looks lie an excellent example of the "complex question" logical
fallacy to me ;-)

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:24:43 +0000, Dave Fawthrop
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Then if you end up a cabbage for years with head injury before you die, the
Good Old National Health Service aka the rest of us pay for your care.

And if it happens because you were taking more risks because you were
wearing a helmet?

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

Dave Fawthrop said:

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:27:34 +0100, "Peter B" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

| Yes, but I'm over 18, if the "facts" are presented to me then providing I
| don't endanger anyone else surely I can decide whether to carry the risk.

Quoted message said:

Then if you end up a cabbage for years with head injury before you die, the
Good Old National Health Service aka the rest of us pay for your care.

If this is what you're worried about, then you'd have to show that
helmets don't make this worse by turning what would have been nice
clean kills without helmets into cabbages. After all, if they do any
good at all, then they must do that some of the time. The question is
how the statistics balance out, and the answer is far from obvious.
--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Tony Raven said:

Be fair, it does say you should not wear the helmet so as to obstruct
your vision. I'm sure its important that kids know not to strap it on
the front of their face.

Unless they want to look like Jason Voorhees and scare the bejeesus out
of their friends, when it might be quite effective.

in message <[email hidden]>, Dave Fawthrop

(') said:

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:27:34 +0100, "Peter B" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

| Yes, but I'm over 18, if the "facts" are presented to me then
| providing I don't endanger anyone else surely I can decide whether
| to carry the risk.

Then if you end up a cabbage for years with head injury before you
die, the Good Old National Health Service aka the rest of us pay for
your care.

Just as we do if he does wear a helmet. And seeing that the evidence is
that helmets do not make any difference at all to serious injury rates,
it seems to me he's perfectly entitled to make his choice.

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

;; MS Windows: A thirty-two bit extension ... to a sixteen bit
;; patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a
;; four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that
;; can't stand one bit of competition -- anonymous

you know? said:

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:24:43 +0000, Dave Fawthrop
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Then if you end up a cabbage for years with head injury before you die, the
Good Old National Health Service aka the rest of us pay for your care.

And if it happens because you were taking more risks because you were
wearing a helmet?

....they say it was his own stupid fault and let him die...

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

Quoted message said:

Until you can produce it, your argument is therefore,

Quoted message said:

technically, complete bollocks.

ever so slightly ot, but possibly amusing: came across a new word definition
the other day "testiculating" defined as waving your arms and talking
bollocks.

In article said:

nobody said:

nobody said:

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 12:43:42 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"

Tell you what, let's do an experiment. I've got a domain kicking
around which has never been really used. I'll set up a
non-guessable/non-dictionary email address, and whop it
into agent as a sig. Give it a while and see what turns up.

Here we go!

[email hidden]

Shall we all send forged emails to him asking if he wants to buy
viagra? ;-)

Surely you mean v14gr4? 🙂
--
Tim.