On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:50:13 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:39:32 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

Do you think on balance that a cycle helmet is more likely to reduce
the risk of injuries to the head in case of an accident, or do you
think that it would increase the risk of injuries?
I must admit I do not know why they cannot answer this question.

That's because it's the wrong question to ask: it's too narrow.

Indeed. And it's not that people /can't/ answer the question, it's
more that they won't, and for good reason. Paul Smith was fond of
asking "would you rather be passed too close or too fast".

Not comparable question at all. Would you rather be passed at high
speed or low speed is what you are looking for



The logical fallacy known as begging the question. In his case the
problem was a false dilemma - those are not the only options - but in
the case of helmets it's more subtle, as the question embodies the
assumption that wearing a helmet has no effect on the risk of
crashing.

Another wriggler.

How come you can ask anyone outside of urc this question - and at
least they will answer it.

Ask it in here - and it's much too difficult for them.

Go for it Guy - tell us all about Risk Compensation.

Ask 5 children if they ride faster when wearing a helmet.

If 4 of them say yes - then this proves that they take Risk
Compensation. and helmets may not be a good thing!!

That was the research which you peddle is it not?

You really are a prat.

I still do not know how you can tell your kids one thing and then say
the exact opposite here.


--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I pointed out the web page
He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for
years.