Protecting the head ...

[Nick Kew]

New research tells us how to protect the head when engaging
in potentially-risky activities. Could be a useful one when
facing a well-meaning friend who has silly ideas ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6190391.stm

--
not me guv

 

[Tony Raven]

Nick Kew wrote on 24/12/2006 17:20 +0100:
> New research tells us how to protect the head when engaging
> in potentially-risky activities. Could be a useful one when
> facing a well-meaning friend who has silly ideas ...
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6190391.stm
>

Perhaps we can persuade Fat Eric to campaign for a mandatory minimum
blood alcohol level for cyclists. If just one child.....er...no, that
won't work ;-)

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Tony Raven:
> > New research tells us how to protect the head when engaging
> > in potentially-risky activities. Could be a useful one when
> > facing a well-meaning friend who has silly ideas ...
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6190391.stm
> >
>
> Perhaps we can persuade Fat Eric to campaign for a mandatory minimum
> blood alcohol level for cyclists.

<Hint>
And there was talk of a voucher system for helmets, wasn't there?
</Hint>


> If just one child.....er...no, that
> won't work ;-)

Oh, I dunno, though. When the infant me had an upset stomach, my mother
used to give me gripe water, which in those days contained an
appreciable amount of alcohol; and I developed a taste for it. This
laid the foundation for the excellent habit of head-protection which I
continue to this day. Can't be too careful.


--
Mark, UK
better !pout !cry
better watchout
lpr why
santa_claus < north_pole >town

 

[John]

Nick Kew wrote:
> New research tells us how to protect the head when engaging
> in potentially-risky activities. Could be a useful one when
> facing a well-meaning friend who has silly ideas ...
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6190391.stm
>

Thanks for posting this Nick.

I for one was lucky enough to have been very well protected when I
suffered my most serious head injury. Given the severity of that
accident I am in little doubt that I probably wouldn't be here today
without this protection.

So what are your views on compulsion?

 

[[email protected]]

John wrote:
Given the severity of that
> accident I am in little doubt that I probably wouldn't be here today
> without this protection.

www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1019

Iain

 

[LSMike]

On Dec 24, 6:30 pm, John <[email protected]> wrote:
> I for one was lucky enough to have been very well protected when I
> suffered my most serious head injury. Given the severity of that
> accident I am in little doubt that I probably wouldn't be here today
> without this protection.
>
> So what are your views on compulsion?

How do you know that your helmet didn't worsen your injury?

 

[Tony Raven]

LSMike wrote on 25/12/2006 13:21 +0100:
>
> On Dec 24, 6:30 pm, John <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I for one was lucky enough to have been very well protected when I
>> suffered my most serious head injury. Given the severity of that
>> accident I am in little doubt that I probably wouldn't be here today
>> without this protection.
>>
>> So what are your views on compulsion?
>
> How do you know that your helmet didn't worsen your injury?
>

I thought he meant he was well bladdered when he had his accidents. I
would be against compulsory binge drinking for cyclists though ;-)

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[John]

Tony Raven wrote:
> LSMike wrote on 25/12/2006 13:21 +0100:
>>
>> On Dec 24, 6:30 pm, John <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I for one was lucky enough to have been very well protected when I
>>> suffered my most serious head injury. Given the severity of that
>>> accident I am in little doubt that I probably wouldn't be here today
>>> without this protection.
>>>
>>> So what are your views on compulsion?
>>
>> How do you know that your helmet didn't worsen your injury?
>>

I'm certain because I wasn't wearing one.

>
> I thought he meant he was well bladdered when he had his accidents. I
> would be against compulsory binge drinking for cyclists though ;-)
>

Yep, Sigh ;o)

 

[LSMike]

<John Doh> Troll!!! </>

On Dec 25, 1:48 pm, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> LSMike wrote on 25/12/2006 13:21 +0100:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 24, 6:30 pm, John <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I for one was lucky enough to have been very well protected when I
> >> suffered my most serious head injury. Given the severity of that
> >> accident I am in little doubt that I probably wouldn't be here today
> >> without this protection.
>
> >> So what are your views on compulsion?
>
> > How do you know that your helmet didn't worsen your injury?I thought he meant he was well bladdered when he had his accidents. I
> would be against compulsory binge drinking for cyclists though ;-)
>
> --
> Tony
>
> "...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
> wildly inaccurate..."
> Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Al C-F]

Tony Raven wrote:
> LSMike wrote on 25/12/2006 13:21 +0100:
>
>>
>> On Dec 24, 6:30 pm, John <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I for one was lucky enough to have been very well protected when I
>>> suffered my most serious head injury. Given the severity of that
>>> accident I am in little doubt that I probably wouldn't be here today
>>> without this protection.
>>>
>>> So what are your views on compulsion?
>>
>>
>> How do you know that your helmet didn't worsen your injury?
>>
>
> I thought he meant he was well bladdered when he had his accidents. I
> would be against compulsory binge drinking for cyclists though ;-)
>

But perhaps cyclists could be spare the VAT and other duties levied on
the protective elixir.

 

[Buck]

On 12/25/2006 13:21:40 "LSMike" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Dec 24, 6:30 pm, John <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I for one was lucky enough to have been very well protected when I
>> suffered my most serious head injury. Given the severity of that
>> accident I am in little doubt that I probably wouldn't be here today
>> without this protection.

>> So what are your views on compulsion?

> How do you know that your helmet didn't worsen your injury?

This is such a stupid comment, I once stated on here that a motorcycle
helmet had once saved my life in an accident and was shouted down by
the naysayers telling me I could not say that unless I redid the accident
without the helmet, what a purile response, of course if I am dead I cannot
post things that they disagree with.

I think Mike should re-enact John's incident without a helmet to prove how
wrong John is.

We all know that this board is anti-helmet but the prime idiots who shout
people down with foolish responses based on ignorance are not good
representatives of cycling, by all means debate but give stupidity a rest.

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[LSMike]

On Dec 28, 11:30 am, Buck <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/25/2006 13:21:40 "LSMike" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 24, 6:30 pm, John <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I for one was lucky enough to have been very well protected when I
> >> suffered my most serious head injury. Given the severity of that
> >> accident I am in little doubt that I probably wouldn't be here today
> >> without this protection.
> >> So what are your views on compulsion?
> > How do you know that your helmet didn't worsen your injury?This is such a stupid comment, I once stated on here that a motorcycle
> helmet had once saved my life in an accident and was shouted down by
> the naysayers telling me I could not say that unless I redid the accident
> without the helmet, what a purile response, of course if I am dead I cannot
> post things that they disagree with.
>
> I think Mike should re-enact John's incident without a helmet to prove how
> wrong John is.
>
> We all know that this board is anti-helmet but the prime idiots who shout
> people down with foolish responses based on ignorance are not good
> representatives of cycling, by all means debate but give stupidity a rest.
>
> --
>
> Buck
>
> I would rather be out on my Catrike
>
> http://www.catrike.co.uk

LOLLOLLOL!

 

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:30:21 GMT, Buck <> wrote:
> On 12/25/2006 13:21:40 "LSMike" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Dec 24, 6:30 pm, John <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> So what are your views on compulsion?
>
> > How do you know that your helmet didn't worsen your injury?
>
> This is such a stupid comment,

Why?
How _do_ you know that the helmet did not worsen the injury?

> I once stated on here that a motorcycle
> helmet had once saved my life in an accident and was shouted down by
> the naysayers telling me I could not say that unless I redid the accident
> without the helmet,

Which is, of course, a 100% true statement. You don't like people
making true statements?

> people down with foolish responses based on ignorance

Aha. So your assertions are not based on ignorance. We await, with
baited breath, the evidence that supports your claims.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Buck <[email protected]>:
>This is such a stupid comment, I once stated on here that a motorcycle
>helmet had once saved my life in an accident and was shouted down by
>the naysayers telling me I could not say that unless I redid the accident
>without the helmet,

Which is true.

Just because the control experiment isn't feasible doesn't mean it isn't
necessary to reach the conclusion.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruitkonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Ian Smith <[email protected]>:
>On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:30:21 GMT, Buck <> wrote:
>>On 12/25/2006 13:21:40 "LSMike" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Dec 24, 6:30 pm, John <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> So what are your views on compulsion?
>>>How do you know that your helmet didn't worsen your injury?
>>This is such a stupid comment,
>Why?
>How _do_ you know that the helmet did not worsen the injury?

Well, although it has passed well over "Buck"'s head, because John wasn't
wearing one; John was responding to the "alcohol can mitigate head
injuries" story.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruitkonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

 

[Buck]

On 12/28/2006 13:46:19 Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:30:21 GMT, Buck <> wrote:

>> On 12/25/2006 13:21:40 "LSMike" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> On Dec 24, 6:30 pm, John <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>> So what are your views on compulsion?

>>> How do you know that your helmet didn't worsen your injury?

>> This is such a stupid comment,

> Why? How _do_ you know that the helmet did not worsen the injury?

>> I once stated on here that a motorcycle helmet had once saved my life in
>> an accident and was shouted down by the naysayers telling me I could not
>> say that unless I redid the accident without the helmet,

> Which is, of course, a 100% true statement. You don't like people making
> true statements?

>> people down with foolish responses based on ignorance

> Aha. So your assertions are not based on ignorance. We await, with
> baited breath, the evidence that supports your claims.

> regards, Ian SMith

You go and prove it wrong as it is so important to you, go and headbut a transit van at 40mph with no helmet on, easy, you will be no less stupid for the experience.

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Buck]

On 12/28/2006 14:29:05 David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:

> Quoting Ian Smith <[email protected]>:

>> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:30:21 GMT, Buck <> wrote:

>>> On 12/25/2006 13:21:40 "LSMike" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>> On Dec 24, 6:30 pm, John <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>> So what are your views on compulsion?

>>>> How do you know that your helmet didn't worsen your injury?

>>> This is such a stupid comment,

>> Why? How _do_ you know that the helmet did not worsen the injury?

> Well, although it has passed well over "Buck"'s head, because John wasn't
> wearing one; John was responding to the "alcohol can mitigate head
> injuries" story.

I was not responding to John, but that seems to be way over your head my old chummy.

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Phil Cook]

Buck wrote:

>
>On 12/28/2006 13:46:19 Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:30:21 GMT, Buck <> wrote:
>
>>> On 12/25/2006 13:21:40 "LSMike" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> On Dec 24, 6:30 pm, John <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>> So what are your views on compulsion?
>
>>>> How do you know that your helmet didn't worsen your injury?
>
>>> This is such a stupid comment,
>
>> Why? How _do_ you know that the helmet did not worsen the injury?
>
>>> I once stated on here that a motorcycle helmet had once saved my life in
>>> an accident and was shouted down by the naysayers telling me I could not
>>> say that unless I redid the accident without the helmet,
>
>> Which is, of course, a 100% true statement. You don't like people making
>> true statements?
>
>>> people down with foolish responses based on ignorance
>
>> Aha. So your assertions are not based on ignorance. We await, with
>> baited breath, the evidence that supports your claims.

>You go and prove it wrong as it is so important to you, go and headbut a transit van at 40mph with no helmet on, easy, you will be no less stupid for the experience.

What happens when the transit van headbutts you? Does that make a
difference? Before you go jumping to conclusions that is a general you
not a personal one.

Bicycle helmets (also known as plastic hats) are only designed to
protect against certain low-speed accidents. In other situations their
usefullness is debatable at best. Collisions with motor vehicles are
/not/ what they are designed to protect against.

I'm off to indulge in some more head (or is it brain?) protection,
hic!
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

 

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:21:15 GMT, Buck
<[email protected]> wrote:


>
>You go and prove it wrong as it is so important to you, go and headbut a transit van at 40mph with no helmet on, easy, you will be no less stupid for the experience.

a) in such a situation a cycle helmet will be no help at all;
b) cycle helmets in general have a negative impact on public health;

and as for stupidity,

c) people who fail to understand the implications of a) and b) would
not benefit from a cycle helmet even if a) and b) were false.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>
Buck <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
>
> You go and prove it wrong as it is so important to you, go and headbut
> a transit van at 40mph with no helmet on, easy, you will be no less
> stupid for the experience.
>
You're the one claiming that a flimsy piece of plastic provides
protection in a situation that would otherwise cause significant brain
injury - it seems only fair that you should be the one to provide
conclusive proof.