On 19 Apr, 22:39, Tom Crispin
wrote:
There are many people here who will not answer a very simple question:

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.

At a whole population level, do you think that a manatory helmet law
for cyclists would have a positive or negative effect on the health of
the nation?

Others may have a better way to phrase the question, but I think that
I have caught the essence of what should be asked. *In answering that
broader question other questions may need to be asked, including your
question above, but your question alone will lead to a Straw Man - but
you know this already. *It is a credit to this group that *everyone*
has seen through it and no one will fall for it. *It is a discredit to
you that you have so far been unable to set up a Straw Man that works.
But keep trying... some of us, at least, are amused by your
incompetent efforts.

The fact that someone asks you a question, does not of course place
you under any obligation to answer it. But, why is it the 'wrong'
question and too narrow? It is a perfectly valid and reasonable
question per se.

I personally think (indeed know) on balance that a cycle helmet is
more likely to reduce the risk of injuries to the head in case of an
accident.

I hadn't the slightest difficulty in answering the question as
specified. The fact that you have another question to phrase in
another way is irrelevant and the question you've phrased addresses
different issues. That in no way invalidates the original question.

You might want to modify your reference to *everyone* ; There are
several members of this group, including me, who are not controlled by
the thought police who obsessively stalk this group, and who exhibit
some capacity for independent thought.

Toom