On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 02:23:50 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Unfortunately, these guys have been arguing that helmets do not reduce
head injuries for years.

Really? Where? If you look at real-world figures they have no
measurable effect on serious and fatal head injuries, but I don't know
anybody who says they don't prevent the trivial cuts and bumps they
are designed for.

Sigh. "Where" is on this newsgroup.

Then it should be a trivial matter for you to cite the posting
references. I'll leave a space here for you to do just that:





It is obvious that you are
trolling, bringing up the discredited "fatality" nonsense yet again
(fatalities are so few in numbers that attempts to use them to
evaluate helmets usually lead to null results due to statistical
noise.)

So you say. It is a curious fact that those you accuse of trolling
consistently cite evidence to support their position, whereas your
"non-trolling", argued at length, very often turns out to be without
evidential basis. In this particular case, for example, I am still
waiting for your cited evidence in regard to high-mileage cyclists.

I'll skip the rest of your missives today - you are just trying to
bring up yet another strawman (and a previously discredited one
at that.)

Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening". And not posting any
evidence, either.

I can now add to the list of eagerly-awaited citations your proof for
the idea that helmets are designed to prevent anything more than cuts
and bruises. Start with the standards and work up, that should be
easy enough for you, they are on the web. I know your library is
closed for July 4.

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