Toom Tabard wrote:
On 20 Apr, 19:49, Peter Clinch wrote:

You continue to show little knowledge of the currently available
literature on the subject, or indeed much indication that you have
even been bothered to try and keep abreast of it. Consequently
your opinions, even though you tend to see them too much as facts,
are actually far less informed than you appear to think.

Mere supposition by you, and totally incorrect.

I merely judge you by what you reveal. When I suggested the responses
to the 2006 BMJ to Hagel et al and Robinson were instructive your reply
strongly suggested you hadn't read them and had no intention of doing so
("the papers you mention are a few in a sea of publications, and
trawling through the responses resolves little"). When I made points
yesterday that were based on, amongst other work, Hewson's 2005 pieces
you dismissed it as "your specious twaddle" with no reference to the
problems you have with the original work even though you /ought/ to be
highly familiar with it if you really are well informed on the matter.
So not mere supposition, working from what you say yourself.

So, the fact that I state I think (indeed know) that it is safer for
me to wear a helmet when cycling
is an 'opinion' with holes, and

I wasn't addressing that particular point, more your posts in general,
such as yesterday's vague arm-waving to "explain" why casualty savings
fail to show up with increased helmet wearing. I pointed out some
holes, where my basis of argument was peer reviewed literature, and you
did some more vague dismissive arm-waving because you either can't or
won't address the issues.

But as it happens, the above is incorrectly stating an opinion as fact
(again...) because you don't have properly quantified information about
how your helmet affects the behaviour of those around you, or how a
bigger, heavier head will increase your chances of striking it against
something at all.

since you know better than I what I
think and know, the holes in my opinion can be filled by you writing
about the possible advantages of wearing a helmet in the home?

I don't know better than you what you think. I do have a good idea from
what you say that what you think and actuality are probably not as
closely aligned as you appear to believe.

The point about wearing a helmet at home is it /may/ make you safer,
just as your cycle helmet /may/ make you safer. Yet you do not behave
identically despite a similar mitigation of similar risks, so I'm just
pointing out logical inconsistencies in your position to demonstrate
it's not on the firmest of ground.

What have you done to deserve me? Like asking what the Emperor did to
deserve some kid saying he had no clothes on... he showed up with no
clothes on.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/