From: JMS jmsmith2010 on
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:29:55 +0100, David Hansen
<SENDdavidNOhSPAM(a)spidacom.co.uk> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 02:21:15 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Derek C
><del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote this:-
>
>>Do you have any proof that cycle helmets increase the risk of neck
>>injuries, and if so how serious are the neck injuries.



OK - so you haven't any proof - thanks


>You are not able to use the search link on www.cyclehelmets.org ?


No - I wouldn't -as I don't read it.

Neither do I read the Daily Mail or the Sun.



>http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=neck+injuries&btnG=Google+Search&domains=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cyclehelmets.org&sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cyclehelmets.org
>offers evidence. I think it demonstrates proof too, but that is
>something one could debate.


If a list of "possible" "evidence" is all that you can produce after a
search in cyclehelmets.org - then I for one will assume that there is
nothing substantial.

I can guarantee that if there was one research paper worth its salt
that concluded what you beleive, then you would be shouting from the
roof-tops.

I can't hear you.

Thanks for the confirmation.




--

"wearing helmets can sometimes increase the chance of a cyclist being
involved in an accident."

That august body The CTC

(They've already had a slap for lying by the ASA)
From: Nick Finnigan on
Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <hq263p$qna$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, at 17:28:31 on
> Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> And there is some proof that Risk Compensation is applicable to
>>>> cyclists wearing helmets somewhere is there?
>>> It applies to all situations where a risk is assessed.
>>
>> Road users don't assess risks
>
> Of course they do.

No, they don't.

And sometimes they get it wrong... like this morning
> when I saw a collision for the first time in as long as I can remember -
> car slowly pulled out of a side turning into a slow-moving queue of
> traffic, neither them gave way and the two met at 90 degrees, headlight
> to headlight <crunch>. But I bet they both decided it was a risk worth
> taking (that the other would give way).

No evidence of any risk assessment there.
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:49:34 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message
><e3815405-1876-47f1-aacd-6ccc18c0044d(a)z6g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, at
>02:33:29 on Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk>
>remarked:
>>Do you mean that website that is dedicated to proving that cycle
>>helmets don't work? Hardly an unbiased source!
>
>But even an allegedly biassed source can do no more than quote those
>studies which prove its point (and ignore those which don't). Your turn:
>which are the contradictory studies that site failed to mention?


Roland - it may have escaped you - but a list of "possible"
references is not proof by any stretch of the imagination.

Why don't you just point out the single most credible paper that
supports your view.

Perhaps you haven't actually found one - hence the vague list of
"possibles".


--
Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.

The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)

From: Roland Perry on
In message <8ib9s5p5ngu9vttbrmrnan6uls415bra9f(a)4ax.com>, at 18:50:02 on
Tue, 13 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked:
>>>Perhaps you can give us a reference - you seem to attach much
>>>significance to this claim.
>>
>>See the answer I gave earlier.
>
>So the only reference is a book that you once read.
>
>so nothing to do with cycling, and no serious peer reviewed research
>to back up your claim.

Same answer again. You seem to have a very narrow view of the world,
don't you find it a bit of a trial?
--
Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on
In message <umb9s51npffqagugg6loi9irq9ln0dcl92(a)4ax.com>, at 18:56:07 on
Tue, 13 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked:
>On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:01:21 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
><snip>

>>OK, I don't mind you moving the goalposts away from discussing *serious*
>>head injuries...
>
>Not really - you didn't seem to able contribute anything.

On the contrary, you don't seem to be able to accept contributions.

>>>Do you think that the wearing of a cycle helmet - by the average
>>>cyclist - will most likely reduce or increase the level of injury if
>>>they are involved in an accident?
>>
>>Depends on the nature of the accident. For example, it'll mitigate a few
>>very low level bruises and scrapes, at the risk of triggering a neck
>>injury.
>
>Forget about the nature of *the* accident - I am talking about "on
>average" - do you understand what that means in this context?
>
>You may have another go at answering the question - will it reduce or
>increase the level of injury?

There's no one answer to the question because it depends on the
circumstances.

--
Roland Perry