#41
|
|||
|
|||
Helmets
I see the helmets as a protection, really.
Protection against what exactly? I'm like you, I have always *instinctively* felt that helmets must be A Good Thing, because it *must* be a good idea to have all that padding on your head, right? Since joining this newsgroup I have somewhat revised my opinion so that I now trust my instinct less and the facts and evidence more. I think we should trust people a bit more, that's all. I *trust* you have some hard evidence to back up the claims you have made in your posts - including the ones about car seatbelts and motorcycle helmets. Yes? d. |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Helmets
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:22:21 +0100, "Vivian"
wrote: I thought that a troll was somebody who insulted other members of the newsgroup. Now, I haven't insulted anyone. Not yet at least! ;-) So, I think you should take it back. Really. Then you misunderstand what trolling is. It has nothing to do with insulting people. Given the recent history of the group, the timing of your post, and your provocative assertion that "Wearing a helmet will become compulsory for under 16's", it had all the hallmarks of a troll. It appears, however, that you are merely a top-poster. -- Dave... Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Helmets
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:22:21 +0100, "Vivian"
wrote: I thought that a troll was somebody who insulted other members of the newsgroup. Now, I haven't insulted anyone. Not yet at least! ;-) So, I think you should take it back. Really. Then you misunderstand what trolling is. It has nothing to do with insulting people. Given the recent history of the group, the timing of your post, and your provocative assertion that "Wearing a helmet will become compulsory for under 16's", it had all the hallmarks of a troll. It appears, however, that you are merely a top-poster. -- Dave... Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Helmets
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:20:33 +0100, "Vivian"
wrote: I see the helmets as a protection, really. So you wear one as a pedestrian then? -- Dave... Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Helmets
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:20:33 +0100, "Vivian"
wrote: I see the helmets as a protection, really. So you wear one as a pedestrian then? -- Dave... Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Helmets
wrote:
posted by Vivian I see the helmets as a protection, really. When wearing seatbelts becase compulsory, did that deter drivers from buying and driving cars? Don't think so. All the contrary by the looks of it!! Did the obligatory use of helmets for motorcyclist reduce their numbers? Nope. I think we should trust people a bit more, that's all. Vivian Vivian claim "Did the obligatory use of helmets for motorcyclist reduce thei numbers? Nope. Are you sure about that, or is that a claim that you would prefer t believe, and that seems credible, and is a claim that you don't expec anyone to be able to refute Well here's a claim that contradicts the assertion that mandator motorcycle helmet laws reduce motorcyclist numbers "It is also proffered that the repeal of mandatory helmet-use laws, b offering individuals a choice in whether to wear protective helmets increases the attractiveness and convenience of motorcycle use. Thi in turn affects miles traveled and sales of motorcycles. For example Kraus, Peek, and Williams (1995) reported that after an unrestricte helmet-use law went into effect in California in 1992, there was substantial decrease in the number of motorcycles observed travelin on roads in various California cities." (page 132* * “BORN TO BE WILD” The Effect of the Repeal of Florida’s Mandator Motorcycle Helmet-Use Law on Serious Injury and Fatality Rates Stolzenberg L.,D'Alessio S.J., Florida International University Evaluation Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, April 2003 131-15 www.ucolick.org/~de/AltTrans/FloridaMHL.pd Vivian's use of analogous 'reasoning' seems silly and is hardl relevant: "When wearing seatbelts becase compulsory, did that dete drivers from buying and driving cars? Don't think so. All the contrar by the looks of it!! I've seen this type of use of analogy in many guises before -wher you can get the sense that the person who has need to resort t coming up with some patently silly and sneering, and irrelevan analogy - is bereft of a good argument and the ability to reason i through. What's more laughable about this is that Vivian i effectively sneering - and (s)he can't see that what he's sneering a his own pathetically silly analogy There seems to be a very strong whiff of self assured smugness an condescension in what Vivian writes - as if to say that we're stupid an that he knows better I don't think the epithet 'troll' is appropriate here - any suggestion for alternative term of endearment - anybody Roge - |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Helmets
wrote:
posted by Vivian I see the helmets as a protection, really. When wearing seatbelts becase compulsory, did that deter drivers from buying and driving cars? Don't think so. All the contrary by the looks of it!! Did the obligatory use of helmets for motorcyclist reduce their numbers? Nope. I think we should trust people a bit more, that's all. Vivian Vivian claim "Did the obligatory use of helmets for motorcyclist reduce thei numbers? Nope. Are you sure about that, or is that a claim that you would prefer t believe, and that seems credible, and is a claim that you don't expec anyone to be able to refute Well here's a claim that contradicts the assertion that mandator motorcycle helmet laws reduce motorcyclist numbers "It is also proffered that the repeal of mandatory helmet-use laws, b offering individuals a choice in whether to wear protective helmets increases the attractiveness and convenience of motorcycle use. Thi in turn affects miles traveled and sales of motorcycles. For example Kraus, Peek, and Williams (1995) reported that after an unrestricte helmet-use law went into effect in California in 1992, there was substantial decrease in the number of motorcycles observed travelin on roads in various California cities." (page 132* * “BORN TO BE WILD” The Effect of the Repeal of Florida’s Mandator Motorcycle Helmet-Use Law on Serious Injury and Fatality Rates Stolzenberg L.,D'Alessio S.J., Florida International University Evaluation Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, April 2003 131-15 www.ucolick.org/~de/AltTrans/FloridaMHL.pd Vivian's use of analogous 'reasoning' seems silly and is hardl relevant: "When wearing seatbelts becase compulsory, did that dete drivers from buying and driving cars? Don't think so. All the contrar by the looks of it!! I've seen this type of use of analogy in many guises before -wher you can get the sense that the person who has need to resort t coming up with some patently silly and sneering, and irrelevan analogy - is bereft of a good argument and the ability to reason i through. What's more laughable about this is that Vivian i effectively sneering - and (s)he can't see that what he's sneering a his own pathetically silly analogy There seems to be a very strong whiff of self assured smugness an condescension in what Vivian writes - as if to say that we're stupid an that he knows better I don't think the epithet 'troll' is appropriate here - any suggestion for alternative term of endearment - anybody Roge - |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Helmets
in message , Vivian
') wrote: I see the helmets as a protection, really. When wearing seatbelts becase compulsory, did that deter drivers from buying and driving cars? No, but the number of people killed in road accidents went up, not down. That's a fact, and you can easily check it. In countries where compulsory helmet laws have been introduced, while the number of people cycling has gone down sharply, the number of cyclists killed or injured has fallen only slightly. In other words cyclists have become _more_ likely to be killed or injured, not less. That's a fact too, and you can check it. What common sense would predict would happen with 'safety' legislation, and what really does happen, are often different. This is particularly the case with cycle helmets, which are much too weak to have any real effect in road-speed collisions. -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ;; Usenet: like distance learning without the learning. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Helmets
in message , Vivian
') wrote: I see the helmets as a protection, really. When wearing seatbelts becase compulsory, did that deter drivers from buying and driving cars? No, but the number of people killed in road accidents went up, not down. That's a fact, and you can easily check it. In countries where compulsory helmet laws have been introduced, while the number of people cycling has gone down sharply, the number of cyclists killed or injured has fallen only slightly. In other words cyclists have become _more_ likely to be killed or injured, not less. That's a fact too, and you can check it. What common sense would predict would happen with 'safety' legislation, and what really does happen, are often different. This is particularly the case with cycle helmets, which are much too weak to have any real effect in road-speed collisions. -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ;; Usenet: like distance learning without the learning. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Helmets
Gonzalez wrote:
Take care! Many so called "facts and evidence" posted on this NG have been grossly distorted or presented in such a way to give a false picture. What, like all of the BHIT ones? The most salient *facts* are helmet compulsion has reduced cycling numbers everywhere it's been introduced and overall safety increases with increased numbers cycling. Pete. -- Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
published helmet research - not troll | patrick | Racing | 1790 | November 8th 04 04:16 AM |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | General | 1927 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | Social Issues | 1716 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
Cricket helmets may slow the brain, says study (D. Telegraph, 15.4.2004) | Scott Leckey | UK | 7 | April 17th 04 08:57 PM |
Compulsory helmets again! | Richard Burton | UK | 526 | December 29th 03 09:19 PM |