Helmet propaganda debunked
 

Scientific journals are finally taking a close look at bogus helmet
claims:

http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=5495

JFJ

writes:

Scientific journals are finally taking a close look at bogus helmet
claims:

http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=5495

Junk article - it quotes a well-known usenet anti-helmet character
who's had an axe to grind for at least a decade, and I presume that
is the major source the author used.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 02:17:49 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Junk article - it quotes a well-known usenet anti-helmet character
who's had an axe to grind for at least a decade, and I presume that
is the major source the author used.

In your haste to shoot the messenger you appear to have forgotten to
read the article. Only one paragraph is a quote from Avery, who did
nothing other than send out a press release.

The article describes a paper published this month in Accident
Analysis and Prevention: http://tinyurl.com/ajtgm. Both Avery and I
have read it in full. I wonder if you have?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

my .02$:

Even if the helmet laws get repealed, people will still wear the silly
things...just like people who are accustomed to riding bare-headed WON'T
wear helmets now...it's all about what you're used to...

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 02:17:49 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Junk article - it quotes a well-known usenet anti-helmet character
who's had an axe to grind for at least a decade, and I presume that
is the major source the author used.

In your haste to shoot the messenger you appear to have forgotten to
read the article. Only one paragraph is a quote from Avery, who did
nothing other than send out a press release.

If he quotes Burdett at all, I've really got to wonder about
the reporter's judgement.

The article describes a paper published this month in Accident
Analysis and Prevention: http://tinyurl.com/ajtgm. Both Avery and I
have read it in full. I wonder if you have?

The question is whether the reporter had (and whether either of you
two "read" it does not impress me in the slightest, since you'll
just see what you want to see.)


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 02:17:49 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Junk article - it quotes a well-known usenet anti-helmet character
who's had an axe to grind for at least a decade, and I presume that
is the major source the author used.

In your haste to shoot the messenger you appear to have forgotten to
read the article. Only one paragraph is a quote from Avery, who did
nothing other than send out a press release.

If he quotes Burdett at all, I've really got to wonder about
the reporter's judgement.

The article describes a paper published this month in Accident
Analysis and Prevention: http://tinyurl.com/ajtgm. Both Avery and I
have read it in full. I wonder if you have?

The question is whether the reporter had (and whether either of you
two "read" it does not impress me in the slightest, since you'll
just see what you want to see.)


So you _haven't_ read it?

"jtaylor" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
ou have?

The question is whether the reporter had (and whether either of you
two "read" it does not impress me in the slightest, since you'll
just see what you want to see.)


So you _haven't_ read it?

I don't answer questions about my reading habits - certain assholes
will simply claim I haven't no matter what. It is one of their
traditional tactics. You can even quote the relevant text from
an article and they will *still* claim you haven't read it. Check
the archives and you can find some examples of this.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 00:26:03 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

In your haste to shoot the messenger you appear to have forgotten to
read the article. Only one paragraph is a quote from Avery, who did
nothing other than send out a press release.

If he quotes Burdett at all, I've really got to wonder about
the reporter's judgement.

In your haste to shoot the messenger you appear to have forgotten to
read the article. See below:

The article describes a paper published this month in Accident
Analysis and Prevention: http://tinyurl.com/ajtgm. Both Avery and I
have read it in full. I wonder if you have?

The question is whether the reporter had (and whether either of you
two "read" it does not impress me in the slightest, since you'll
just see what you want to see.)

Ah, so now it's unnecessary to read the research simply because it is
reported by someone who quotes someone whose views you disagree with.
Fascinating. Not a terribly good basis for informed judgment, though.

Thanks for confirming that you haven't read it, at least we all now
know that it's safe to ignore your views on this study.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
"jtaylor" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
ou have?

The question is whether the reporter had (and whether either of you
two "read" it does not impress me in the slightest, since you'll
just see what you want to see.)


So you _haven't_ read it?

I don't answer questions about my reading habits - certain assholes
will simply claim I haven't no matter what.

Your posts suggests you haven't read it:

"...and I presume that [Avery Burdett] is the major source the author
used..."

and we here, not wishing to jump to any conclusion, asked you to confirm or
deny your reading of that article. Perhaps, if you hadn't, that would be a
case of not seeing what one doesn't wish to see.


It is one of their
traditional tactics. You can even quote the relevant text from
an article and they will *still* claim you haven't read it. Check
the archives and you can find some examples of this.


So merely because the article - which you may or may not have read - was
introduced by someone with whom you have disagreed in the past, you can
claim it is of no value? Less charitable people might call that, well,
"jumping to a conclusion".

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 08:46:43 -0300, "jtaylor"
wrote:

we here, not wishing to jump to any conclusion, asked you to confirm or
deny your reading of that article.

I think it's fairly clear that not only has he failed to read the
paper in question (which is cited in full in the BikeBiz article), but
he didn't even read the BikeBiz article all the way through -
otherwise he'd have known that the authority is not Avery but Bill
Curnow.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound