Contributory Negligence

[JMS]

I understand that a regular poster of urc and URCM has had an accident
(involving a motor vehicle) where he was knocked off his bike
suffered injury, including the fact that he was knocked unconscious
and suffered some head injury.

He was not wearing a helmet.

It has been suggested that the fact that he was not wearing a helmet
may be considered to be contributory negligence at least to his head
injury.

In reality - do people think it will make much difference to any
insurance claim; obviously the lack of helmet cannot have contributed
to the accident or the damage to the bike or other property. I would
have thought that loss of earnings could be affected - or is it
possible that the overall value of the claim could be reduced by a
percentage figure due to contributory negligence.

(I understand his wife has said no more riding unless a helmet is
worn - but that is a different matter :-)

[johnmids2006]

On Jul 4, 11:38*pm, JMS > wrote:
> I understand that a regular poster of urc and URCM has had an accident
> (involving a motor vehicle) *where he was knocked off his bike
> suffered injury, *including the fact that he was knocked unconscious
> and suffered some head injury.
>
> He was not wearing a helmet.
>
> It has been suggested that the fact that he was not wearing a helmet
> may be considered to be contributory negligence at least to his head
> injury.
>
> In reality *- do people think it will make much difference to any
> insurance claim; obviously the lack of helmet cannot have contributed
> to the accident or the damage to the bike or other property. *I would
> have thought that loss of earnings could be affected - or is it
> possible that the overall value of the claim could be reduced by a
> percentage figure due to contributory negligence.
>
> (I understand his wife has said no more riding unless a helmet *is
> worn - but that is a different matter :-)

AFAIAA, this sort of argument has only cropped up in one case. In that
case, a motorcyclist collided with a pedal cyclist and was sued for
damages. The court found the motorcyclist to be 100% responsible for
causing the accident.

The question then was whether the failure of the pedal cyclist to wear
a helmet amounted to contributory negligence. The court decided there
could be contributory negligence by not wearing a helmet, but that in
this case, because a helmet would not have made a difference, there
would be no reduction in damages.

That, however, raises all sorts of other controversial issues. If
failure to follow non-mandatory advice in the Highway Code can amount
to contributory negligence, then there are all sorts of other
situations that might become relevant - like, for example, the advice
that pedestrians should wear reflective armbands at night.

Findings of contributory negligence only affect damages arising from
the corresponding component of the claim.

[The Todal]

"JMS" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> I understand that a regular poster of urc and URCM has had an accident
> (involving a motor vehicle) where he was knocked off his bike
> suffered injury, including the fact that he was knocked unconscious
> and suffered some head injury.
>
> He was not wearing a helmet.
>
> It has been suggested that the fact that he was not wearing a helmet
> may be considered to be contributory negligence at least to his head
> injury.
>
> In reality - do people think it will make much difference to any
> insurance claim; obviously the lack of helmet cannot have contributed
> to the accident or the damage to the bike or other property. I would
> have thought that loss of earnings could be affected - or is it
> possible that the overall value of the claim could be reduced by a
> percentage figure due to contributory negligence.
>
> (I understand his wife has said no more riding unless a helmet is
> worn - but that is a different matter :-)

It is extremely unlikely that any judge would allow a reduction for
contributory negligence merely because of a failure to wear a cycle helmet.

[PhilO]

On Jul 4, 11:38*pm, JMS > wrote:
> I understand that ...
>
> helmet.
>
> It has been suggested ...
>
> In reality *- do people think ...

Judith, You've been over this before and are just stirring it
to make mischief. Do you think this is trolling? It's certainly
not the innocent question you pretend it to be. Have you
not done any research yourself? You've quoted enough
papers and websites on helmet research to know better.

[mileburner]

PhilO wrote:
> On Jul 4, 11:38 pm, JMS > wrote:
>> I understand that ...
>>
>> helmet.
>>
>> It has been suggested ...
>>
>> In reality - do people think ...
>
> Judith, You've been over this before and are just stirring it
> to make mischief.

Ho Ho Ho.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 02:12:03 -0700 (PDT), PhilO >
wrote:

>Judith, You've been over this before and are just stirring it
>to make mischief.

No, really? Who could have predicted that?

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

On 05/07/2010 10:12, PhilO wrote:

> Judith, You've been over this before and are just stirring it
> to make mischief. Do you think this is trolling? It's certainly
> not the innocent question you pretend it to be. Have you
> not done any research yourself? You've quoted enough
> papers and websites on helmet research to know better.

WGACA ... eventually, hopefully.

Her MO, unfortunately is snipe, snide comment, ad hominem, repeat ad
nauseum with minor changes and additions.

Then repeat again for good measure ....

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[The Todal]

"Paul - xxx" > wrote in message
...
> On 05/07/2010 10:12, PhilO wrote:
>
>> Judith, You've been over this before and are just stirring it
>> to make mischief. Do you think this is trolling? It's certainly
>> not the innocent question you pretend it to be. Have you
>> not done any research yourself? You've quoted enough
>> papers and websites on helmet research to know better.
>
> WGACA ... eventually, hopefully.
>
> Her MO, unfortunately is snipe, snide comment, ad hominem, repeat ad
> nauseum with minor changes and additions.
>
> Then repeat again for good measure ....

I thought Judith's question was a perfectly reasonable one, in all possible
respects. Unfortunately, the followups have been from PhilO, mileburner, Guy
and Paul, all of whom seem to think her question is trolling or provocative
or in some way inadmissible.

Since you lot don't seem to have the intellect to discuss questions of law,
can't you just shut the **** up instead of perpetuating your dreary little
feuds? Or avoid crossposting to uk.legal.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 13:51:01 +0100, "The Todal" >
wrote:

>I thought Judith's question was a perfectly reasonable one, in all possible
>respects. Unfortunately, the followups have been from PhilO, mileburner, Guy
>and Paul, all of whom seem to think her question is trolling or provocative
>or in some way inadmissible.

I don't know who the regular is that JMS is discussing as there are
elements of the question that I don't recognise. Perhaps we could have
a name. Obviously it can't be anyone with whom JMS has a long-standing
dispute, since you're so very confident that the question was not
trolling, and that does rather cut down the number of likely
candidates.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[The Todal]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 13:51:01 +0100, "The Todal" >
> wrote:
>
>>I thought Judith's question was a perfectly reasonable one, in all
>>possible
>>respects. Unfortunately, the followups have been from PhilO, mileburner,
>>Guy
>>and Paul, all of whom seem to think her question is trolling or
>>provocative
>>or in some way inadmissible.
>
> I don't know who the regular is that JMS is discussing as there are
> elements of the question that I don't recognise. Perhaps we could have
> a name. Obviously it can't be anyone with whom JMS has a long-standing
> dispute, since you're so very confident that the question was not
> trolling, and that does rather cut down the number of likely
> candidates.

The word "trolling" is meaningless to me, but plainly has a meaning to you.
I think it means "any post that in the opinion of Guy is an attempt to
revive a previous argument". Give a better definition if you like.

I don't care if people ask questions that have been asked before or try to
get a discussion going when it has been debated at length in the past. That
all seems reasonable to me. Those who dislike it can ignore the post. Those
who want to make personal attacks, accusing a poster of trolling or trying
to provoke a poster into an angry response, are boring imbeciles who add
nothing to usenet.

[Clive George]

On 05/07/2010 16:16, The Todal wrote:

> The word "trolling" is meaningless to me

You sure you're not new to usenet?

[Clive George]

On 05/07/2010 16:16, The Todal wrote:

> Those
> who want to make personal attacks, accusing a poster of trolling or trying
> to provoke a poster into an angry response, are boring imbeciles who add
> nothing to usenet.

Like JMS then? Glad we agree about something.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

On 05/07/2010 16:16, The Todal wrote:

> The word "trolling" is meaningless to me, but plainly has a meaning to you.
> I think it means "any post that in the opinion of Guy is an attempt to
> revive a previous argument". Give a better definition if you like.
>
> I don't care if people ask questions that have been asked before or try to
> get a discussion going when it has been debated at length in the past. That
> all seems reasonable to me. Those who dislike it can ignore the post. Those
> who want to make personal attacks, accusing a poster of trolling or trying
> to provoke a poster into an angry response, are boring imbeciles who add
> nothing to usenet.

You obviously don't know the history.

The whole OP from JMS is a direct attack at Guy. This is _exactly_ what
she does all the time, ad nauseum, then repeats it. She's resorted to
cross-posting to uk.legal (have a look, her OP is cross-posted) 'cos, as
you've ably demonstrated, you're a new audience who might see her and
her posts as being somewhat reasonable .. which at first glance they are
unless you know what's gone on. She seems to have a nasty vendetta
against Guy. She has absolutely no interest in actual answers, she's
just prolonging the attacks ... just look at her last paragraph in the
OP, drawing Guys family into the argument when she knows full well that
wasn't what was said.

It also has to be said that some of us, myself included, but probably
Guy especially, don't help the situation by continuing to reply to her.


--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 16:16:13 +0100, "The Todal" >
wrote:

>>>I thought Judith's question was a perfectly reasonable one, in all
>>>possible
>>>respects. Unfortunately, the followups have been from PhilO, mileburner,
>>>Guy
>>>and Paul, all of whom seem to think her question is trolling or
>>>provocative
>>>or in some way inadmissible.

>> I don't know who the regular is that JMS is discussing as there are
>> elements of the question that I don't recognise. Perhaps we could have
>> a name. Obviously it can't be anyone with whom JMS has a long-standing
>> dispute, since you're so very confident that the question was not
>> trolling, and that does rather cut down the number of likely
>> candidates.

>The word "trolling" is meaningless to me, but plainly has a meaning to you.
>I think it means "any post that in the opinion of Guy is an attempt to
>revive a previous argument". Give a better definition if you like.

The usual and commonly understood definition: fishing for a fight.

>I don't care if people ask questions that have been asked before or try to
>get a discussion going when it has been debated at length in the past. That
>all seems reasonable to me. Those who dislike it can ignore the post. Those
>who want to make personal attacks, accusing a poster of trolling or trying
>to provoke a poster into an angry response, are boring imbeciles who add
>nothing to usenet.

I'm comfortable with that. I'm not the one crafting signature blocks
attacking other people, after all.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[The Todal]

"Clive George" > wrote in message
...
> On 05/07/2010 16:16, The Todal wrote:
>
>> The word "trolling" is meaningless to me
>
> You sure you're not new to usenet?

Now you're trolling. Are you? Prove that you aren't.

A month or more ago, I asked the moderators of URCM to define trolling. They
were unable to offer a coherent definition (one which did not involve
guessing the motive of the poster), but they still reject posts if they
believe the poster is trolling. That to me makes a nonsense of their
moderation rules.

[Derek C]

On Jul 5, 7:10*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" >
wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 17:48:19 +0100, "The Todal" >
> wrote:
>
> >Trolling is a term used in angling (fishing). *It involves drawing a baited
> >line through the water. *By analogy, then, the person trolling is a skilled
> >fisherman whose skill we can admire, *and those who rise to the bait are
> >stupid fish.
>
> Some fishermen simply throw dynamite into the lake. That does not make
> them admirable. Maybe you choose to apply a classical and restricted
> definition of troll, I don't. I'm not alone in that. I usually go by
> the "field guide to trolls" which is more inclusive than the
> definition you apparently use.
>
> >People post to usenet because they like to debate a subject, often
> >passionately. *If you choose to characterise that as a "fight" then you
> >exaggerate the importance of what's going on. It's an argument, in a forum
> >where arguments take place. Nobody is forced to reply, nobody is compelled
> >to join in the fight.
>
> JMS has openly admitted that the objective of posting is to spin out
> an argument for as long as possible. That is another reason for
> posting to Usenet. A third reason, also openly admitted by JMS, is the
> destruction of a group of people whose opinions she dislikes. I'm sure
> there are other reasons as well.
>
> >I agree that provocatively worded footers are irritating and antisocial, but
> >if the poster has abandoned the footers it is sensible to encourage that
> >good behaviour.
>
> The poster has not abandoned the practice, but it is used selectively
> when trying to gain support. I do not think you are so credulous as to
> believe that JMS would that post with pure motives. Fortunately I have
> access to two excellent sources of professional legal advice in regard
> to my recent collision, so won't be needing JMS' "help".
>
> Guy

Is JMS (Judith) a female? If so I am wondering if she had an
unrequited crush on Guy, although I can't for the life of me see why.

Getting back to the subject, I believe there has been a case where a
cyclist had his damages reduced after an accident because he wasn't
wearing a helmet. Can anybody in the legal profession confirm this? It
would seem to be a sensible principle that riders who don't take
reasonable precautions against injury should get reduced damages.
Having very nearly collided in my car with a couple of cyclists
(separate incidents) who were not carrying lights at night, this
should be another reason for reduced compensation.

Derek C

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 11:50:42 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

>Getting back to the subject, I believe there has been a case where a
>cyclist had his damages reduced after an accident because he wasn't
>wearing a helmet. Can anybody in the legal profession confirm this? It
>would seem to be a sensible principle that riders who don't take
>reasonable precautions against injury should get reduced damages.

Oh look, you're begging the question again. You probably don't even
understand why that's fallacious. Feel free to point out any cyclist
population that can be shown to have reduced injury rates through
increased helmet use. This is at least the third time you've been
asked to justify your assertion by providing that necessary condition,
I don't find any trace that you've done so.

I can cite studies which show *no* change in injury rates with large
changes in helmet use, but of course since you're the one proposing
the intervention, the onus is on you to prove your case. You can start
any time now, you've had a month or so to read up.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Derek C]

On Jul 5, 8:10*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" >
wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 11:50:42 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
>
> > wrote:
> >Getting back to the subject, I believe there has been a case where a
> >cyclist had his damages reduced after an accident because he wasn't
> >wearing a helmet. Can anybody in the legal profession confirm this? It
> >would seem to be a sensible principle that riders who don't take
> >reasonable precautions against injury should get reduced damages.
>
> Oh look, you're begging the question again. You probably don't even
> understand why that's fallacious. Feel free to point out any cyclist
> population that can be shown to have reduced injury rates through
> increased helmet use. This is at least the third time you've been
> asked to justify your assertion by providing that necessary condition,
> I don't find any trace that you've done so.
>
> I can cite studies which show *no* change in injury rates with large
> changes in helmet use, but of course since you're the one proposing
> the intervention, the onus is on you to prove your case. You can start
> any time now, you've had a month or so to read up.
>
> Guy
> --http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
> The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
> to be worth the price paid.

The Police fatal accident report suggests that 10-16% of cyclists who
died principally of serious head injuries would have survived if they
had been wearing a properly fitted cycle helmet. As about 33% of
cyclists wear cycle helmets, that would be more like 25% of those who
don't. How about cycling at night without lights and a reflective
jacket?

Derek C

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:25:18 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

>> >Getting back to the subject, I believe there has been a case where a
>> >cyclist had his damages reduced after an accident because he wasn't
>> >wearing a helmet. Can anybody in the legal profession confirm this? It
>> >would seem to be a sensible principle that riders who don't take
>> >reasonable precautions against injury should get reduced damages.
>>
>> Oh look, you're begging the question again. You probably don't even
>> understand why that's fallacious. Feel free to point out any cyclist
>> population that can be shown to have reduced injury rates through
>> increased helmet use. This is at least the third time you've been
>> asked to justify your assertion by providing that necessary condition,
>> I don't find any trace that you've done so.
>>
>> I can cite studies which show *no* change in injury rates with large
>> changes in helmet use, but of course since you're the one proposing
>> the intervention, the onus is on you to prove your case. You can start
>> any time now, you've had a month or so to read up.

>The Police fatal accident report suggests that 10-16% of cyclists who
>died principally of serious head injuries would have survived if they
>had been wearing a properly fitted cycle helmet. As about 33% of
>cyclists wear cycle helmets, that would be more like 25% of those who
>don't. How about cycling at night without lights and a reflective
>jacket?

You probably don't even understand why that is not an answer to the
question you were asked, so in addition to pointing out that
speculative comments from non-expert police are of no provable value I
will obviously have to explain the question again.

Which cyclist populations can show a provable change in head injury
rates consequent on changes in helmet use?

You do seem to be struggling to understand why this is more important
than the question you would rather answer, so I will explain it again.
Consider a hypothetical device which prevents 10% of injuries in a
collision but makes a collision twice as likely to happen. By your
logic, using that hypothetical device would be a reasonable
precaution. By a rational set of criteria, it would be actively
dangerous. Now, as far as I'm aware, in the case of helmets they make
bugger all difference to the overall causally rate so either the
protective effect is small, or they cause people to behave less
carefully and thus collide more, or they don't protect against the
kinds of crashes that are being measure - or, more likely, some
combination of all three. But at the risk of sounding like a broken
record, you are the one proposing the intervention so the onus is on
you to prove your case.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Derek C]

On Jul 5, 9:01*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" >
wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:25:18 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >> >Getting back to the subject, I believe there has been a case where a
> >> >cyclist had his damages reduced after an accident because he wasn't
> >> >wearing a helmet. Can anybody in the legal profession confirm this? It
> >> >would seem to be a sensible principle that riders who don't take
> >> >reasonable precautions against injury should get reduced damages.
>
> >> Oh look, you're begging the question again. You probably don't even
> >> understand why that's fallacious. Feel free to point out any cyclist
> >> population that can be shown to have reduced injury rates through
> >> increased helmet use. This is at least the third time you've been
> >> asked to justify your assertion by providing that necessary condition,
> >> I don't find any trace that you've done so.
>
> >> I can cite studies which show *no* change in injury rates with large
> >> changes in helmet use, but of course since you're the one proposing
> >> the intervention, the onus is on you to prove your case. You can start
> >> any time now, you've had a month or so to read up.
> >The Police fatal accident report suggests that 10-16% of cyclists who
> >died principally of serious head injuries would have survived if they
> >had been wearing a properly fitted cycle helmet. As about 33% of
> >cyclists wear cycle helmets, that would be more like 25% of those who
> >don't. *How about cycling at night without lights and a reflective
> >jacket?
>
> You probably don't even understand why that is not an answer to the
> question you were asked, so in addition to pointing out that
> speculative comments from non-expert police are of no provable value I
> will obviously have to explain the question again.
>
> Which cyclist populations can show a provable change in head injury
> rates consequent on changes in helmet use?
>
> You do seem to be struggling to understand why this is more important
> than the question you would rather answer, so I will explain it again.
> Consider a hypothetical device which prevents 10% of injuries in a
> collision but makes a collision twice as likely to happen. By your
> logic, using that hypothetical device would be a reasonable
> precaution. By a rational set of criteria, it would be actively
> dangerous. Now, as far as I'm aware, in the case of helmets they make
> bugger all difference to the overall causally rate so either the
> protective effect is small, or they cause people to behave less
> carefully and thus collide more, or they don't protect against the
> kinds of crashes that are being measure - or, more likely, some
> combination of all three. But at the risk of sounding like a broken
> record, you are the one proposing the intervention so the onus is on
> you to prove your case.
>
> Guy

But I am not suggesting an intervention in the form of the compulsory
wearing of helmets. Just that wearing one is a sensible precaution
against minor and serious head injuries, which seem to be very common
in cycling accidents, probably because we travel head first (unless
you ride a recumberant, before you try to pick a hole in my argument
there). I have been thrown over the handlebars twice in my life, once
on a push bike and once on a motorcycle. I was saved from serious
injury in the first case (no helmet) because I landed in somebody's
front garden where there was nothing much to hit, and by a motorcycle
helmet in the second case.

Derek C

[Periander[_2_]]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in
:

> You probably don't even understand why that is not an answer to the
> question you were asked, so in addition to pointing out that
> speculative comments from non-expert police ...

Actually fully qualified police accident/collision investigators *are*
recognised expert witnesses within their field.

--

Regards,


Periander

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Derek C wrote:
>
> The Police fatal accident report suggests that 10-16% of cyclists who
> died principally of serious head injuries would have survived if they
> had been wearing a properly fitted cycle helmet. As about 33% of
> cyclists wear cycle helmets, that would be more like 25% of those who
> don't. How about cycling at night without lights and a reflective
> jacket?
>

Are you sure you're not just an autoresponder bot? Do we have to come
back to PPR446 again? But lets since you've never addressed the point
of how did they derive the 50% helmet effectiveness figure that was used
to calculate the 10-16% figure you quote? I have said it was a complete
guess and cited where in the report it says so. Perhaps you can educate
us as to why I am wrong, how they actually derived the 50% figure and
therefore why we should believe the figure is 10-16% and not 0% or a
negative percentage.

But my prediction is you will not answer that question but come back
with a whole load of obfuscating guff.


--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[Alex Heney]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 17:37:29 +0100, "The Todal" >
wrote:

>
>"Clive George" > wrote in message
...
>> On 05/07/2010 16:16, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> The word "trolling" is meaningless to me
>>
>> You sure you're not new to usenet?
>
>Now you're trolling. Are you? Prove that you aren't.
>
>A month or more ago, I asked the moderators of URCM to define trolling. They
>were unable to offer a coherent definition (one which did not involve
>guessing the motive of the poster), but they still reject posts if they
>believe the poster is trolling. That to me makes a nonsense of their
>moderation rules.
>

Sorry, but that is just a nonsense.

Deciding that a definition is not "coherent" because it involves
guessing at the motive of the poster just means that by your
definition, it is impossible to coherently define something that most
of us know when we see it (and some see when it isn't really there, as
is probably the case in this thread.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
General stupidity error reading drive C:
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

[Alex Heney]

On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 17:42:45 +0100, Clive George
> wrote:

>On 05/07/2010 17:37, The Todal wrote:
>> "Clive > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 05/07/2010 16:16, The Todal wrote:
>>>
>>>> The word "trolling" is meaningless to me
>>>
>>> You sure you're not new to usenet?
>>
>> Now you're trolling. Are you? Prove that you aren't.
>
>I might be. Indeed, you might be.
>
>> A month or more ago, I asked the moderators of URCM to define trolling. They
>> were unable to offer a coherent definition (one which did not involve
>> guessing the motive of the poster), but they still reject posts if they
>> believe the poster is trolling. That to me makes a nonsense of their
>> moderation rules.
>
>I'm not sure about watertight definitions of trolling. However I do
>believe it's possible to see cases where a poster is being deliberately
>unpleasant to another, and JMS's original post in this thread is one of
>those.

Only to somebody who has already decided that her posts are going to
be deliberately unpleasant.

To anybody reading the post with an open mind, it was a perfectly
reasonable question, and there was zero unpleasantness to anybody in
it.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If it's not on fire, it's a software problem.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

[Alex Heney]

On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 16:17:42 +0100, Clive George
> wrote:

>On 05/07/2010 16:16, The Todal wrote:
>
>> Those
>> who want to make personal attacks, accusing a poster of trolling or trying
>> to provoke a poster into an angry response, are boring imbeciles who add
>> nothing to usenet.
>
>Like JMS then? Glad we agree about something.

Liar.

You know perfectly well that nobody without a personal axe to grind
would "agree" with you about that post.

On the other hand, your responses (including the one above) fit the
description perfectly.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I may be fat, but you're ugly. I can lose weight.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

[Alex Heney]

On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 16:51:16 +0100, Paul - xxx
> wrote:

>On 05/07/2010 16:16, The Todal wrote:
>
>> The word "trolling" is meaningless to me, but plainly has a meaning to you.
>> I think it means "any post that in the opinion of Guy is an attempt to
>> revive a previous argument". Give a better definition if you like.
>>
>> I don't care if people ask questions that have been asked before or try to
>> get a discussion going when it has been debated at length in the past. That
>> all seems reasonable to me. Those who dislike it can ignore the post. Those
>> who want to make personal attacks, accusing a poster of trolling or trying
>> to provoke a poster into an angry response, are boring imbeciles who add
>> nothing to usenet.
>
>You obviously don't know the history.

Irrelevant.

>
>The whole OP from JMS is a direct attack at Guy.

Given that nothing in the post attacks anybody,that isn't possible.


> This is _exactly_ what
>she does all the time, ad nauseum, then repeats it. She's resorted to
>cross-posting to uk.legal (have a look, her OP is cross-posted) 'cos, as
>you've ably demonstrated, you're a new audience who might see her and
>her posts as being somewhat reasonable ..

We have seen her before, quite often.

Her posts usually are an awful lot more reasonable than those who
immediately attack her.


--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Oxymoron: Safe Sex.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

[Alex Heney]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:25:18 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

>On Jul 5, 8:10*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" >
>wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 11:50:42 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >Getting back to the subject, I believe there has been a case where a
>> >cyclist had his damages reduced after an accident because he wasn't
>> >wearing a helmet. Can anybody in the legal profession confirm this? It
>> >would seem to be a sensible principle that riders who don't take
>> >reasonable precautions against injury should get reduced damages.
>>
>> Oh look, you're begging the question again. You probably don't even
>> understand why that's fallacious. Feel free to point out any cyclist
>> population that can be shown to have reduced injury rates through
>> increased helmet use. This is at least the third time you've been
>> asked to justify your assertion by providing that necessary condition,
>> I don't find any trace that you've done so.
>>
>> I can cite studies which show *no* change in injury rates with large
>> changes in helmet use, but of course since you're the one proposing
>> the intervention, the onus is on you to prove your case. You can start
>> any time now, you've had a month or so to read up.
>>
>> Guy
>> --http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
>> The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
>> to be worth the price paid.
>
>The Police fatal accident report suggests that 10-16% of cyclists who
>died principally of serious head injuries would have survived if they
>had been wearing a properly fitted cycle helmet.

That is a VERY dubious claim. I'd be interested to see this "Fatal
accident Report" to find out who suggested that figure and where they
got it from.

Cycle helmets (like Ski helmets) are of use principally in reducing
the severity of non fatal accidents.

There are very few where head impact is severe enough to kill where a
cycle helmet would make sufficient difference to avoid that outcome.

>As about 33% of
>cyclists wear cycle helmets, that would be more like 25% of those who
>don't.

And that is a fallacious argument even if the above statistic were
true.


> How about cycling at night without lights and a reflective
>jacket?
>

Having neither of those when cycling on a road is just bloody stupid.

But that is because being seen makes you very much less likely to be
hit.

There is no real evidence that a helmet makes you significantly less
likely to be killed or severely injured in the case of an accident.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Best file compression around: "DEL *.*" - 100% compression.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

[Alex Heney]

On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:24:18 GMT, Periander
> wrote:

>"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in
:
>
>> You probably don't even understand why that is not an answer to the
>> question you were asked, so in addition to pointing out that
>> speculative comments from non-expert police ...
>
>Actually fully qualified police accident/collision investigators *are*
>recognised expert witnesses within their field.

Which is generally the field of what happened".

Not so much "what might have happened instead if...".

And in particular not in the field of "how much impact did the head
actually suffer to cause this death, haw much above the minimum
necessary to kill was it, and how much less impact would it have
suffered with a helmet".

That last is a very specialized field of research.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
"Happiness is a warm puppy", said the anaconda.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

[Alex Heney]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 13:15:31 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

<snip>

>But I am not suggesting an intervention in the form of the compulsory
>wearing of helmets. Just that wearing one is a sensible precaution
>against minor and serious head injuries, which seem to be very common
>in cycling accidents, probably because we travel head first (unless
>you ride a recumberant, before you try to pick a hole in my argument
>there). I have been thrown over the handlebars twice in my life, once
>on a push bike and once on a motorcycle. I was saved from serious
>injury in the first case (no helmet) because I landed in somebody's
>front garden where there was nothing much to hit, and by a motorcycle
>helmet in the second case.
>

A motorcycle helmet is a very different proposition to a bicycle
helmet.

It gives a LOT more protection, at the expense of a lot more weight
(and cost).

But I believe I recall stats that head injury is still the most common
cause of death in motorcycle accidents, even with that level of
protection.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
What do batteries run on?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Alex Heney wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:25:18 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> > wrote:

>> The Police fatal accident report suggests that 10-16% of cyclists who
>> died principally of serious head injuries would have survived if they
>> had been wearing a properly fitted cycle helmet.
>
> That is a VERY dubious claim. I'd be interested to see this "Fatal
> accident Report" to find out who suggested that figure and where they
> got it from.
>

You are right to be dubious. The report you want is by TRL and is
PPR446 which is available free on the web. It basically reviews all the
evidence and says you cannot conclude any figure for helmet effectiveness.

They then take 100 accident case studies and say if we assume helmets
have an effectiveness of 50% and then apply that to the mix of injuries
we see in those 100 cases, about 10-16 of them would not have had the
head injuries they did.

Of course having admitted you cannot estimate any effectiveness figure,
then using a 50% figure can be no more than a complete guess and the
resultant 10-16% figure consequently has no validity either.

Derek does love the report though and thinks its the bee knees despite
this major flaw.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[Derek C]

On Jul 5, 10:00*pm, Alex Heney > wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:25:18 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Jul 5, 8:10 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" >
> >wrote:
> >> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 11:50:42 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >Getting back to the subject, I believe there has been a case where a
> >> >cyclist had his damages reduced after an accident because he wasn't
> >> >wearing a helmet. Can anybody in the legal profession confirm this? It
> >> >would seem to be a sensible principle that riders who don't take
> >> >reasonable precautions against injury should get reduced damages.
>
> >> Oh look, you're begging the question again. You probably don't even
> >> understand why that's fallacious. Feel free to point out any cyclist
> >> population that can be shown to have reduced injury rates through
> >> increased helmet use. This is at least the third time you've been
> >> asked to justify your assertion by providing that necessary condition,
> >> I don't find any trace that you've done so.
>
> >> I can cite studies which show *no* change in injury rates with large
> >> changes in helmet use, but of course since you're the one proposing
> >> the intervention, the onus is on you to prove your case. You can start
> >> any time now, you've had a month or so to read up.
>
> >> Guy
> >> --http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
> >> The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
> >> to be worth the price paid.
>
> >The Police fatal accident report suggests that 10-16% of cyclists who
> >died principally of serious head injuries would have survived if they
> >had been wearing a properly fitted cycle helmet.
>
> That is a VERY dubious claim. I'd be interested to see this "Fatal
> accident Report" to find out who suggested that figure and where they
> got it from.
>
> Cycle helmets (like Ski helmets) are of use principally in reducing
> the severity of non fatal accidents.
>
> There are very few where head impact is severe enough to kill where a
> cycle helmet would make sufficient difference to avoid that outcome.
>
> >As about 33% of
> >cyclists wear cycle helmets, that would be more like 25% of those who
> >don't.
>
> And that is a fallacious argument even if the above statistic were
> true.
>
> > How about cycling at night without lights and a reflective
> >jacket?
>
> Having neither of those when cycling on a road is just bloody stupid.
>
> But that is because being seen makes you very much less likely to be
> hit.
>
> There is no real evidence that a helmet makes you significantly less
> likely to be killed or severely injured in the case of an accident.
> --
> Alex Heney, Global Villager
> Best file compression around: "DEL *.*" - 100% compression.
> To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In answer to your question about the Police fatal accident report, all
the victims had post mortems in which the cause of death was
determined by a medical professional, not PC Plod. This is covered in
TRL PPR446 Appendix H which can be downloaded for free as a PDF if you
claim that it is for academic research. Suggest that you read it.

Derek C

[Periander[_2_]]

Alex Heney > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:24:18 GMT, Periander
> > wrote:
>
>>"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in
:
>>
>>> You probably don't even understand why that is not an answer to the
>>> question you were asked, so in addition to pointing out that
>>> speculative comments from non-expert police ...
>>
>>Actually fully qualified police accident/collision investigators *are*
>>recognised expert witnesses within their field.
>
> Which is generally the field of what happened".
>
> Not so much "what might have happened instead if...".
>
> And in particular not in the field of "how much impact did the head
> actually suffer to cause this death, haw much above the minimum
> necessary to kill was it, and how much less impact would it have
> suffered with a helmet".
>
> That last is a very specialized field of research.

Hence the very extensive and expensive training they have (which of
course is why there are so few of them) and the very large sums of money
they get paid once they've retired and take up work for insurance
companies. It starts of with what was more or less "A" level physics
(that's proper A level physics not the post-socialist everyone's a
winner A levels) and then moves on to what (as I understand it to be) a
degree level internationally recognised qualification. As you may have
picked up from previous posts of mine I don't have a lot of time for
traffic officers generally but credit where it's due.

They are an exception to the rule that with very minor exceptions such
as "He was drunk sir", for Licencing Act Offences, and "It were cannabis
leaf" yer worship" prevents police officers giving opinion evidence

--

Regards,


Periander

[johnmids2006]

I think this is diverging from the point being queried to start with.

A negligently causes an accident which injures B. A was 100% to blame
for the accident. Nothing that B did or didn't do contibuted to the
accident happening.

But B failed to take non-mandatory safety precautions which might have
reduced the injuries sustained.

Assuming that such measures would have lessened the injury, is there a
case for contibutory negligence?

I have trawled through all the cases I can find on this. I cannot find
any case where the court has decided there was contributory
negligence, and reduced damages.

In all of the cases I have found, where there was a failure to adopt
non-mandatory safety precautions, either (a) the court found that the
precautions would not have made a difference, or (b) the defendent
abandoned the contributory negligence argument.

There do not appear to have been any cases where the court decided on
the issue in principle where it actually made a difference to the end
result.

However, it raises a general point. This argument is not confined to
cyclists not wearing helmets. It could apply to any situation where
someone fails to take some sort of non-mandatory precautionary measure
as a result of which injuries sustained in an accident caused
negligently by someone else are more serious than they might otherwise
have been.

There are all sorts of recommendations in the Highway Code that relate
to pedestrians. But it goes further. What if someone cooks up the idea
of safety helmets for pedestrians. Is everyone going to have to wear
one to avoid a contributory negligence reduction in damages where a
drunk driver loses control of their car and mounts the pavement.

I would have thought that the primary manifestation of contributory
negligence is where the claimant did or failed to do something which
contributed to the accident happening to start with. That goes further
to include a situation where failure to comply with a legal
requirement led to injuries being more serious than they otherwise
might have been.

But once you start pointing the finger at possible measures that were
not adopted where there was no requirement to adopt them, you are, in
my opinion, entering dodgy territory.

[Periander[_2_]]

johnmids2006 > wrote in news:b0f0b94b-f62f-4511-a449-
:

> I think this is diverging from the point being queried to start with.
>
> A negligently causes an accident which injures B. A was 100% to blame
> for the accident. Nothing that B did or didn't do contibuted to the
> accident happening.
>
> But B failed to take non-mandatory safety precautions which might have
> reduced the injuries sustained.
>
> Assuming that such measures would have lessened the injury, is there a
> case for contibutory negligence?

No

OK ... next question please

--

Regards,


Periander

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Derek C wrote:
>
> In answer to your question about the Police fatal accident report, all
> the victims had post mortems in which the cause of death was
> determined by a medical professional, not PC Plod. This is covered in
> TRL PPR446 Appendix H which can be downloaded for free as a PDF if you
> claim that it is for academic research. Suggest that you read it.
>

So please explain how they get from those post mortems to the 10-16%
assumptions, what assumptions did they make about helmet effectiveness
to derive them and what was the basis they gave for that helmet
effectiveness.

Simply ignoring these questions will not make them not be there.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[Clive George]

On 05/07/2010 21:51, Alex Heney wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 16:17:42 +0100, Clive George
> > wrote:
>
>> On 05/07/2010 16:16, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> Those
>>> who want to make personal attacks, accusing a poster of trolling or trying
>>> to provoke a poster into an angry response, are boring imbeciles who add
>>> nothing to usenet.
>>
>> Like JMS then? Glad we agree about something.
>
> Liar.

Ahem. No.

> You know perfectly well that nobody without a personal axe to grind
> would "agree" with you about that post.

No I don't. In fact I rather strongly disagree with your belief there.

> On the other hand, your responses (including the one above) fit the
> description perfectly.

JMS's post was designed to provoke Guy into an angry response.

[Squashme]

On 5 July, 21:53, Alex Heney > wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 16:51:16 +0100, Paul - xxx
>
> > wrote:
> >On 05/07/2010 16:16, The Todal wrote:
>
> >> The word "trolling" is meaningless to me, but plainly has a meaning to you.
> >> I think it means "any post that in the opinion of Guy is an attempt to
> >> revive a previous argument". *Give a better definition if you like.
>
> >> I don't care if people ask questions that have been asked before or try to
> >> get a discussion going when it has been debated at length in the past. That
> >> all seems reasonable to me. Those who dislike it can ignore the post. Those
> >> who want to make personal attacks, accusing a poster of trolling or trying
> >> to provoke a poster into an angry response, are boring imbeciles who add
> >> nothing to usenet.
>
> >You obviously don't know the history.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>
>
> >The whole OP from JMS is a direct attack at Guy.
>
> Given that nothing in the post attacks anybody,that isn't possible.

You think that because you don't know the history. It is relevant. I
would suggest that you familiarise yourself with her postings in URC,
if I did not think that even you might end up tearing at your own
flesh.

>
> > This is _exactly_ what
> >she does all the time, ad nauseum, then repeats it. *She's resorted to
> >cross-posting to uk.legal (have a look, her OP is cross-posted) 'cos, as
> >you've ably demonstrated, you're a new audience who might see her and
> >her posts as being somewhat reasonable ..
>
> We have seen her before, quite often.
>
> Her posts usually are an awful lot more reasonable than those who
> immediately attack her.
>

Yes, she is good at appearances. And her attackers regularly fall into
the same old traps.

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 13:15:31 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

>> >> >Getting back to the subject, I believe there has been a case where a
>> >> >cyclist had his damages reduced after an accident because he wasn't
>> >> >wearing a helmet. Can anybody in the legal profession confirm this? It
>> >> >would seem to be a sensible principle that riders who don't take
>> >> >reasonable precautions against injury should get reduced damages.
>>
>> >> Oh look, you're begging the question again. You probably don't even
>> >> understand why that's fallacious. Feel free to point out any cyclist
>> >> population that can be shown to have reduced injury rates through
>> >> increased helmet use. This is at least the third time you've been
>> >> asked to justify your assertion by providing that necessary condition,
>> >> I don't find any trace that you've done so.
>>
>> >> I can cite studies which show *no* change in injury rates with large
>> >> changes in helmet use, but of course since you're the one proposing
>> >> the intervention, the onus is on you to prove your case. You can start
>> >> any time now, you've had a month or so to read up.
>> >The Police fatal accident report suggests that 10-16% of cyclists who
>> >died principally of serious head injuries would have survived if they
>> >had been wearing a properly fitted cycle helmet. As about 33% of
>> >cyclists wear cycle helmets, that would be more like 25% of those who
>> >don't. *How about cycling at night without lights and a reflective
>> >jacket?
>>
>> You probably don't even understand why that is not an answer to the
>> question you were asked, so in addition to pointing out that
>> speculative comments from non-expert police are of no provable value I
>> will obviously have to explain the question again.
>>
>> Which cyclist populations can show a provable change in head injury
>> rates consequent on changes in helmet use?
>>
>> You do seem to be struggling to understand why this is more important
>> than the question you would rather answer, so I will explain it again.
>> Consider a hypothetical device which prevents 10% of injuries in a
>> collision but makes a collision twice as likely to happen. By your
>> logic, using that hypothetical device would be a reasonable
>> precaution. By a rational set of criteria, it would be actively
>> dangerous. Now, as far as I'm aware, in the case of helmets they make
>> bugger all difference to the overall causally rate so either the
>> protective effect is small, or they cause people to behave less
>> carefully and thus collide more, or they don't protect against the
>> kinds of crashes that are being measure - or, more likely, some
>> combination of all three. But at the risk of sounding like a broken
>> record, you are the one proposing the intervention so the onus is on
>> you to prove your case.

>But I am not suggesting an intervention in the form of the compulsory
>wearing of helmets. Just that wearing one is a sensible precaution
>against minor and serious head injuries, which seem to be very common
>in cycling accidents, probably because we travel head first (unless
>you ride a recumberant, before you try to pick a hole in my argument
>there). I have been thrown over the handlebars twice in my life, once
>on a push bike and once on a motorcycle. I was saved from serious
>injury in the first case (no helmet) because I landed in somebody's
>front garden where there was nothing much to hit, and by a motorcycle
>helmet in the second case.

Error 1: Just because you are not proposing mandatory use does not
mean that your (immediately adjacent) proposal of an intervention is
any less a proposal of an intervention.

Error 2: You have yet to post any credible evidence that cycling is
unusually productive of head injuries compared to other activities for
which you do not propose this intervention.

Error 3: You are both begging the question and reversing the burden of
proof.

Error 4: Hasty generalisation. Only drop-bar bikes truly travel "head
first", town bikes for example are typically upright.

Error 5: Speculation, you have precisely no idea whatsoever how
serious your injuries would have been in either case with or without a
helmet.

Error 6: You are still ignoring the effect of a very noticeable
intervention on the probability of the crash happening in the first
place.

I'm sure there are other errors but those will do to be going on with.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Derek C]

On Jul 5, 10:48*pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
>
> > In answer to your question about the Police fatal accident report, all
> > the victims had post mortems in which the cause of death was
> > determined by a medical professional, not PC Plod. This is covered in
> > TRL PPR446 Appendix H which can be downloaded for free as a PDF if you
> > claim that it is for academic research. Suggest that you read it.
>
> So please explain how they get from those post mortems to the 10-16%
> assumptions, what assumptions did they make about helmet effectiveness
> to derive them and what was the basis they gave for that helmet
> effectiveness.
>
> Simply ignoring these questions will not make them not be there.
>
I am sure that they could calculate the energy absorbing properties of
a cycle helmet and then decide whether or not it would have changed
the outcome of a given fatal injury from the severity of that injury.

Derek C

[Peter Parry]

On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 22:53:19 +0100, Clive George
> wrote:

>JMS's post was designed to provoke Guy into an angry response.

That is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel using a 20mm canon. It
isn't exactly a challenge.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 11:50:42 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> > wrote:
>
>> Getting back to the subject, I believe there has been a case where a
>> cyclist had his damages reduced after an accident because he wasn't
>> wearing a helmet. Can anybody in the legal profession confirm this?
>> It would seem to be a sensible principle that riders who don't take
>> reasonable precautions against injury should get reduced damages.
>
> Oh look, you're begging the question again. You probably don't even
> understand why that's fallacious. Feel free to point out any cyclist
> population that can be shown to have reduced injury rates through
> increased helmet use. This is at least the third time you've been
> asked to justify your assertion by providing that necessary condition,
> I don't find any trace that you've done so.
>
> I can cite studies which show *no* change in injury rates with large
> changes in helmet use, but of course since you're the one proposing
> the intervention, the onus is on you to prove your case. You can start
> any time now, you've had a month or so to read up.

Missing the point again. It doesn't matter what you helmet deniers think.
Its what a judge thinks that matters.

And a judge may well think failure to wear protective headgear with a BS
Kitemark (I assume they have it) is cause to reduce damages. Indeed they
already have - and also reduced the sentence of a driver involed in a
collision with a cyclist.

Helmet denial is of course not based on scientific facts, but on the
cyclists natural aversion to any form of regulation.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 14:45:25 -0700 (PDT), johnmids2006
> wrote:

>But B failed to take non-mandatory safety precautions which might have
>reduced the injuries sustained.

The issue is, as I understand it, what a reasonably prudent person
might do.

Now, I like to think that I am a reasonably prudent person. For
example, I routinely obtain each new copy of the Highway Code as it is
released (and in fact was invited to comment as part of the
consultation process for the last revision). I carry two lights each
front and rear, all year round, to ensure that I can see and be seen
if I happen to be delayed leaving work and to be compliant with the
lighting regulations (on which, incidentally, I was also invited to
comment at the last revision). I have bought Cyclecraft, the standard
text on skilled adult cycling techniques, on which the National
Standards are based. I've subsequently become personally acquainted
with the author, have discussed cycle safety with him extensively, and
my copy of the new edition was a gift from the author. I have studied
risk theory, and am now a friend of the author of one of the standard
texts on the subject. I have studied the literature on bicycle
helmets, collecting and reading something over 200 papers on the
subject. I have read texts on road safety, road design - well, I am
an enthusiast, and this is a subject that interests me. Suffice it to
say that I have probably read more source material on cycle safety
than easily 95% of cyclists out there. Read it, understood most of it,
corresponded with the authors where I needed to.

I think it's fair to say that my choices, when riding, are informed
choices. I think it would be reasonable to characterise any difference
between the advice offered by some parties and what I actually do on
the roads every day, as legitimate and informed differences of
opinion. For example, the Highway Code, a document written by the
Driving Standards Agency primarily for motorists, makes certain
assertions in respect of cycle paths and cycle lanes which I often do
not follow because my studies and experience lead me to believe that
they will increase, not decrease, the risks of that journey.

For example, I would rather ride along The Highway than along the
parallel Cable Street cycle route, because experience indicates that
the multiple crossings of side turnings and access routes, with
priority given to me or to other traffic more or less at random, often
riding on the footway against the direction of motor traffic flow,
results in confusion and danger. The Highway is a straighter route
with better sightlines and I have priority at every junction. This is
a judgment shared with a large number of other cyclists who work in
the same area, so it's not some eccentricity or caprice on my part.
But the Highway Code recommends I use the signed cycle route. I think
in this case it is wrong, vigorously opposed a proposed strengthening
of that recommendation in the last revision and was, like many
cyclists' groups, disappointed when the Driving Standards Agency chose
to leave it unchanged instead of making it intelligent. Where there is
conflict between Cyclecraft and the Driving Standards Agency's more
generic document, I will go with Cyclecraft, because it is more
specific to my use case.

I know that the contributory negligence angle has been tried many
times. It prompted the creation of the Cyclists' Defence Fund. I know
it will be attempted in my case. I will contest it vigorously. But my
case cannot be the case JMS is discussing because there are elements
of the case JMS cites which do not fit.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 14:17:57 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

>In answer to your question about the Police fatal accident report, all
>the victims had post mortems in which the cause of death was
>determined by a medical professional, not PC Plod.

The cause of death does not, of course, address in any way the purely
speculative basis on which it is asserted that x% of said deaths would
not have happened otherwise.

Why is that important? In one study of fatal cyclist collisions it was
found that all but one of the cyclists who had recorded cause of death
as head injury, had other mortal injuries as well.

That one cyclist, the only one whose head injuries were the only
mortal injuries suffered, was wearing a helmet.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Derek C wrote:
>
> I am sure that they could calculate the energy absorbing properties of
> a cycle helmet and then decide whether or not it would have changed
> the outcome of a given fatal injury from the severity of that injury.
>

You are sure they could or you are sure they did? Whichever please tell
me which pages and paragraphs of the report cover where they did that.

AFAICT they simply said lets guess that half the head injuries would
have been prevented. No calculations, no justification, just a lets
guess a number.


--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[Squashme]

On 5 July, 23:13, Peter Parry > wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 22:53:19 +0100, Clive George
>
> > wrote:
> >JMS's post was designed to provoke Guy into an angry response.
>
> That is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel using a 20mm canon. *It
> isn't exactly a challenge.

It would be challenging for such a tiny priest. How would he even hold
a weapon, assuming that his calling would permit this?

[Derek C]

On Jul 5, 11:04*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 13:15:31 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >> >> >Getting back to the subject, I believe there has been a case where a
> >> >> >cyclist had his damages reduced after an accident because he wasn't
> >> >> >wearing a helmet. Can anybody in the legal profession confirm this? It
> >> >> >would seem to be a sensible principle that riders who don't take
> >> >> >reasonable precautions against injury should get reduced damages.
>
> >> >> Oh look, you're begging the question again. You probably don't even
> >> >> understand why that's fallacious. Feel free to point out any cyclist
> >> >> population that can be shown to have reduced injury rates through
> >> >> increased helmet use. This is at least the third time you've been
> >> >> asked to justify your assertion by providing that necessary condition,
> >> >> I don't find any trace that you've done so.
>
> >> >> I can cite studies which show *no* change in injury rates with large
> >> >> changes in helmet use, but of course since you're the one proposing
> >> >> the intervention, the onus is on you to prove your case. You can start
> >> >> any time now, you've had a month or so to read up.
> >> >The Police fatal accident report suggests that 10-16% of cyclists who
> >> >died principally of serious head injuries would have survived if they
> >> >had been wearing a properly fitted cycle helmet. As about 33% of
> >> >cyclists wear cycle helmets, that would be more like 25% of those who
> >> >don't. How about cycling at night without lights and a reflective
> >> >jacket?
>
> >> You probably don't even understand why that is not an answer to the
> >> question you were asked, so in addition to pointing out that
> >> speculative comments from non-expert police are of no provable value I
> >> will obviously have to explain the question again.
>
> >> Which cyclist populations can show a provable change in head injury
> >> rates consequent on changes in helmet use?
>
> >> You do seem to be struggling to understand why this is more important
> >> than the question you would rather answer, so I will explain it again.
> >> Consider a hypothetical device which prevents 10% of injuries in a
> >> collision but makes a collision twice as likely to happen. By your
> >> logic, using that hypothetical device would be a reasonable
> >> precaution. By a rational set of criteria, it would be actively
> >> dangerous. Now, as far as I'm aware, in the case of helmets they make
> >> bugger all difference to the overall causally rate so either the
> >> protective effect is small, or they cause people to behave less
> >> carefully and thus collide more, or they don't protect against the
> >> kinds of crashes that are being measure - or, more likely, some
> >> combination of all three. But at the risk of sounding like a broken
> >> record, you are the one proposing the intervention so the onus is on
> >> you to prove your case.
> >But I am not suggesting an intervention in the form of the compulsory
> >wearing of helmets. Just that wearing one is a sensible precaution
> >against minor and serious head injuries, which seem to be very common
> >in cycling accidents, probably because we travel head first (unless
> >you ride a recumberant, before you try to pick a hole in my argument
> >there). I have been thrown over the handlebars twice in my life, once
> >on a push bike and once on a motorcycle. I was saved from serious
> >injury in the first case (no helmet) because I landed in somebody's
> >front garden where there was nothing much to hit, and by a motorcycle
> >helmet in the second case.
>
> Error 1: Just because you are not proposing mandatory use does not
> mean that your (immediately adjacent) proposal of an intervention is
> any less a proposal of an intervention.
>
> Error 2: You have yet to post any credible evidence that cycling is
> unusually productive of head injuries compared to other activities for
> which you do not propose this intervention.
>
> Error 3: You are both begging the question and reversing the burden of
> proof.
>
> Error 4: Hasty generalisation. Only drop-bar bikes truly travel "head
> first", town bikes for example are typically upright.
>
> Error 5: Speculation, you have precisely no idea whatsoever how
> serious your injuries would have been in either case with or without a
> helmet.
>
> Error 6: You are still ignoring the effect of a very noticeable
> intervention on the probability of the crash happening in the first
> place.
>
> I'm sure there are other errors but those will do to be going on with.
>
> Guy

So you accept that there may be some benefit for cyclists riding bikes
with dropped handlesbars (Error 4). I suppose that might at least be a
start! Many of the keener cyclists ride racing bikes with dropped
handlebars and therefore travel somewhat head first.

Derek C

[Matt B]

On 05/07/2010 22:53, Clive George wrote:
> On 05/07/2010 21:51, Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 16:17:42 +0100, Clive George
>> > wrote:
>>
>> You know perfectly well that nobody without a personal axe to grind
>> would "agree" with you about that post.
>
> No I don't. In fact I rather strongly disagree with your belief there.
>
>> On the other hand, your responses (including the one above) fit the
>> description perfectly.
>
> JMS's post was designed to provoke Guy into an angry response.

Why do you suppose that she might want to do that then?

--
Matt B

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

On 05/07/2010 21:53, Alex Heney wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 16:51:16 +0100, Paul - xxx
> > wrote:
>
>> On 05/07/2010 16:16, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> The word "trolling" is meaningless to me, but plainly has a meaning to you.
>>> I think it means "any post that in the opinion of Guy is an attempt to
>>> revive a previous argument". Give a better definition if you like.
>>>
>>> I don't care if people ask questions that have been asked before or try to
>>> get a discussion going when it has been debated at length in the past. That
>>> all seems reasonable to me. Those who dislike it can ignore the post. Those
>>> who want to make personal attacks, accusing a poster of trolling or trying
>>> to provoke a poster into an angry response, are boring imbeciles who add
>>> nothing to usenet.
>>
>> You obviously don't know the history.
>
> Irrelevant.

It absolutely is relevant. With knowledge of the history between JMS
and Guy, the precise wording of her OP is designed to attack him and
provoke a response, especially the last paragraph.

>> The whole OP from JMS is a direct attack at Guy.
>
> Given that nothing in the post attacks anybody,that isn't possible.

Not directly and without naming and does look at face value a rather
disingenuous post aimed at getting an answer to a question ... it's
what's surrounding the question that is the attack.

>> This is _exactly_ what
>> she does all the time, ad nauseum, then repeats it. She's resorted to
>> cross-posting to uk.legal (have a look, her OP is cross-posted) 'cos, as
>> you've ably demonstrated, you're a new audience who might see her and
>> her posts as being somewhat reasonable ..
>
> We have seen her before, quite often.
>
> Her posts usually are an awful lot more reasonable than those who
> immediately attack her.

No worries, different viewpoints, I've said all I will.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010, johnmids2006 > wrote:
>
> There are all sorts of recommendations in the Highway Code that
> relate to pedestrians. But it goes further. What if someone cooks
> up the idea of safety helmets for pedestrians. Is everyone going to
> have to wear one to avoid a contributory negligence reduction in
> damages where a drunk driver loses control of their car and mounts
> the pavement.

They don't need to 'cook up' the idea - it already exists. Japan has
walking helmets for schoolchioldren - some schools mandate them (and
you can find scientific papers evaluating effectiveness).

Or look at www.thudguard.com.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Ian Smith wrote:
>
> They don't need to 'cook up' the idea - it already exists. Japan has
> walking helmets for schoolchioldren - some schools mandate them (and
> you can find scientific papers evaluating effectiveness).
>

I'm not sure they are mandated or even used these days in Japan outside
of volcanic areas like the villages on Sakurajima, where they are hard
hats against falling rocks, not walking helmets against falling children.

But yes they did try the experiment on a whole city for a number of
years and found the effectiveness of the helmets in preventing head
injuries was, would you believe it, zero (and this comes about as close
to Derek's perfect experiment as you can by comparing two identical
populations, one that wore helmets and one that didn't)
http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/jpeds.html

The Danes on the other hand.....
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/08/walking-helmet-is-good-helmet.html




--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[The Todal]

"Alex Heney" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 17:37:29 +0100, "The Todal" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Clive George" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 05/07/2010 16:16, The Todal wrote:
>>>
>>>> The word "trolling" is meaningless to me
>>>
>>> You sure you're not new to usenet?
>>
>>Now you're trolling. Are you? Prove that you aren't.
>>
>>A month or more ago, I asked the moderators of URCM to define trolling.
>>They
>>were unable to offer a coherent definition (one which did not involve
>>guessing the motive of the poster), but they still reject posts if they
>>believe the poster is trolling. That to me makes a nonsense of their
>>moderation rules.
>>
>
> Sorry, but that is just a nonsense.
>
> Deciding that a definition is not "coherent" because it involves
> guessing at the motive of the poster just means that by your
> definition, it is impossible to coherently define something that most
> of us know when we see it (and some see when it isn't really there, as
> is probably the case in this thread.

No, I'd say that nobody knows trolling when they see it. However, the more
paranoid and suspicious you are, the more trolling you will see. It makes
for a rubbish moderation policy. "I am rejecting your post because although
it looks innocuous I think you are trying to make trouble, based on various
things you have said in the past". That sort of thing.

[The Todal]

Derek C wrote:
> On Jul 5, 7:10 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" >
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 17:48:19 +0100, "The Todal" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Trolling is a term used in angling (fishing). It involves drawing a
>>> baited line through the water. By analogy, then, the person
>>> trolling is a skilled fisherman whose skill we can admire, and
>>> those who rise to the bait are stupid fish.
>>
>> Some fishermen simply throw dynamite into the lake. That does not
>> make them admirable. Maybe you choose to apply a classical and
>> restricted definition of troll, I don't. I'm not alone in that. I
>> usually go by the "field guide to trolls" which is more inclusive
>> than the definition you apparently use.
>>
>>> People post to usenet because they like to debate a subject, often
>>> passionately. If you choose to characterise that as a "fight" then
>>> you exaggerate the importance of what's going on. It's an argument,
>>> in a forum where arguments take place. Nobody is forced to reply,
>>> nobody is compelled to join in the fight.
>>
>> JMS has openly admitted that the objective of posting is to spin out
>> an argument for as long as possible. That is another reason for
>> posting to Usenet. A third reason, also openly admitted by JMS, is
>> the destruction of a group of people whose opinions she dislikes.
>> I'm sure there are other reasons as well.

Jeez, why can't some of you get a life and ignore posts you dislike? Help,
help, JMS is spinning the argument out for as long as possible!

>>
>>> I agree that provocatively worded footers are irritating and
>>> antisocial, but if the poster has abandoned the footers it is
>>> sensible to encourage that good behaviour.
>>
>> The poster has not abandoned the practice, but it is used selectively
>> when trying to gain support. I do not think you are so credulous as
>> to believe that JMS would that post with pure motives. Fortunately I
>> have access to two excellent sources of professional legal advice in
>> regard to my recent collision, so won't be needing JMS' "help".

I had no idea that you were involved in a recent collision. I certainly hope
that your damages are not reduced for contributory negligence, because I
don't think they ought to be.

>
> Is JMS (Judith) a female? If so I am wondering if she had an
> unrequited crush on Guy, although I can't for the life of me see why.

Absolutely right. There are relatively few female posters in usenet, and
they are mainly lesbians, man-haters and bunny-boilers. It has been proved
with statistics.

>
> Getting back to the subject, I believe there has been a case where a
> cyclist had his damages reduced after an accident because he wasn't
> wearing a helmet. Can anybody in the legal profession confirm this?

That must be off topic. Surely we were discussing trolling and JMS? So much
more ****ing interesting.

The case in point is Smith v Finch where the judge declared that he could
discount the damages for contributory negligence if the evidence was there,
but based on the evidence before him, which was that in the particular
circumstances of the case the helmet would probably not have prevented the
injuries, he would not make a finding of contributory negligence.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/53.html

JMS makes a very good point when she queries whether a deduction for
contributory negligence would also affect his claim for the damage to the
bike. I am not sure that every lawyer would necessarily spot that. The
usual approach by lawyers and judges is to calculate the value of the claim
in total, then apply the percentage discount for contributory negligence.
But presumably the helmet would not have prevented the damage to the bike,
and even if it had reduced the extent of the physical injury it might not
have prevented a period of absence from work. So it would be important for a
claimant to query this with his lawyers. Good advice, JMS, even if the
****wits dismiss it as trolling.

> It
> would seem to be a sensible principle that riders who don't take
> reasonable precautions against injury should get reduced damages.
> Having very nearly collided in my car with a couple of cyclists
> (separate incidents) who were not carrying lights at night, this
> should be another reason for reduced compensation.

Needless to say, a cyclist who rides without lights or goes the wrong way
down a one way street or who ignores traffic signals (which I witness in
London just about every day) would have their damages reduced or
extinguished by a finding of contributory negligence. That's true, even if
Guy has been involved in a cycling accident.

[The Todal]

johnmids2006 wrote:
> I think this is diverging from the point being queried to start with.
>
> A negligently causes an accident which injures B. A was 100% to blame
> for the accident. Nothing that B did or didn't do contibuted to the
> accident happening.
>
> But B failed to take non-mandatory safety precautions which might have
> reduced the injuries sustained.
>
> Assuming that such measures would have lessened the injury, is there a
> case for contibutory negligence?
>
> I have trawled through all the cases I can find on this. I cannot find
> any case where the court has decided there was contributory
> negligence, and reduced damages.
>
> In all of the cases I have found, where there was a failure to adopt
> non-mandatory safety precautions, either (a) the court found that the
> precautions would not have made a difference, or (b) the defendent
> abandoned the contributory negligence argument.

So far the only reported case on the subject of cycling helmets is
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/53.html

However there have been thousands of cases where damages were reduced
because of a failure to wear a seatbelt. There are also many cases where a
motorcyclist's damages have been reduced for his failure to wear a helmet
(though that would be rare indeed these days, as presumably the police would
arrest a motorcyclist who isn't wearing a helmet). See eg Capps v Miller
1988.

>
> There do not appear to have been any cases where the court decided on
> the issue in principle where it actually made a difference to the end
> result.
>
> However, it raises a general point. This argument is not confined to
> cyclists not wearing helmets. It could apply to any situation where
> someone fails to take some sort of non-mandatory precautionary measure
> as a result of which injuries sustained in an accident caused
> negligently by someone else are more serious than they might otherwise
> have been.

Yes, yes. On seatbelts the law goes back to Froom v Butcher, 1974. In fact
a bit earlier if one looks hard, eg MacDonnell v Kaiser in 1968 which looks
to have been in Nova Scotia.

>
> There are all sorts of recommendations in the Highway Code that relate
> to pedestrians. But it goes further. What if someone cooks up the idea
> of safety helmets for pedestrians. Is everyone going to have to wear
> one to avoid a contributory negligence reduction in damages where a
> drunk driver loses control of their car and mounts the pavement.

No.

>
> I would have thought that the primary manifestation of contributory
> negligence is where the claimant did or failed to do something which
> contributed to the accident happening to start with. That goes further
> to include a situation where failure to comply with a legal
> requirement led to injuries being more serious than they otherwise
> might have been.

Agreed.

>
> But once you start pointing the finger at possible measures that were
> not adopted where there was no requirement to adopt them, you are, in
> my opinion, entering dodgy territory.

The first instance decision in Froom v Butcher, by the High Court Judge, was
that it would be an invasion of freedom of choice to find a person guilty of
contributory negligence by failing to wear a seatbelt. The Court of Appeal
decided differently. Good old Lord Denning.
"This is the first case to reach this court about seat belts. But there have
been a dozen or more cases in the lower courts; and they have disclosed a
remarkable conflict of opinion. Half the judges think that, if a person does
not wear a seat belt, he is guilty of contributory negligence and his
damages ought to be reduced. The other half think that it is not
contributory negligence and they ought not to be reduced...[snip] Everyone
knows, or ought to know, that when he goes out in a car he should fasten the
seat belt. It is so well known that it goes without saying, not only for the
driver, but also the passenger. If either the driver or the passenger fails
to wear it and an accident happens-and the injuries would have been
prevented or lessened if he had worn it-then his damages should be reduced.
Under the Highway Code a driver may have a duty to invite his passenger to
fasten his seat belt, but adult passengers possessed of their faculties
should not need telling what to do. If such passengers do not fasten their
seat belts, their own lack of care for their own safety may be the cause of
their injuries. In the present case the injuries to the head and chest would
have been prevented by the wearing of a seat belt and the damages on that
account might be reduced by 25 per cent. The finger would have been broken
anyway and the damages for it not reduced at all.".

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 16:10:05 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

>So you accept that there may be some benefit for cyclists riding bikes
>with dropped handlesbars (Error 4). I suppose that might at least be a
>start! Many of the keener cyclists ride racing bikes with dropped
>handlebars and therefore travel somewhat head first.

You're begging the question and reversing the burden of proof again;
this time you're also introducing a distraction fallacy. You really
are not terribly good at this.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 10:46:13 +0100, "The Todal" >
wrote:

>However there have been thousands of cases where damages were reduced
>because of a failure to wear a seatbelt. There are also many cases where a
>motorcyclist's damages have been reduced for his failure to wear a helmet
>(though that would be rare indeed these days, as presumably the police would
>arrest a motorcyclist who isn't wearing a helmet). See eg Capps v Miller
>1988.

Seat belts are designed and tested to protect car occupants in motor
collisions. Motorcycle helmets are designed to protect motorcyclists
in motor collisions. Cycle helmets are designed and specified to
withstand the equivalent of a fall fro a stationary or slow-moving
bicycle, but the cases which come to court almost always involve a
motor vehicle. Cycle helmets are *not* designed to protect in
collisions involving motor vehicles and there is no credible evidence
that they provide meaningful protection in such collisions. According
to one of the labs that tests helmets (of all kinds), the forces
involved in such collisions routinely exceed the protective capacity
of competition motor racing helmets.

So the precedent of Froom v. Butcher cannot be said to justly apply in
this case, because the device in question is not designed for
collisions of that magnitude.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Adrian]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

> Seat belts are designed and tested to protect car occupants in motor
> collisions. Motorcycle helmets are designed to protect motorcyclists in
> motor collisions. Cycle helmets are designed and specified to withstand
> the equivalent of a fall fro a stationary or slow-moving bicycle, but
> the cases which come to court almost always involve a motor vehicle.
> Cycle helmets are *not* designed to protect in collisions involving
> motor vehicles and there is no credible evidence that they provide
> meaningful protection in such collisions. According to one of the labs
> that tests helmets (of all kinds), the forces involved in such
> collisions routinely exceed the protective capacity of competition motor
> racing helmets.

Sorry - let's just go over that again, can we?

A motorcycle helmet is designed to protect the wearer when they're hit by
a motor vehicle at closing speeds which can be up to 100mph+

A competition motor racing helmet is a similar design to a motorcycle
helmet, but tested to higher standards, yet can't withstand protecting
the wearer when hit by a motor vehicle at much lower speeds...?

I can see that a motorcycle-style helmet would be ridiculous overkill on
a bicycle, but that doesn't mean that there isn't some kind of midway
point. Of course, the typical motorcyclist also wears protective clothing
over the rest of their body, too. Which, again, would be massive overkill
on a bicycle. Again, some kind of midway point could well be perfectly
appropriate.

But it seems to me that your argument is that, since the current crop of
cycle helmets aren't perfect, they're utterly pointless. That seems
ridiculous to me.

Surely a better use of time and energy would be in proactively working to
improve the current equipment, rather than trying to make it go away
entirely?

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On 6 Jul 2010 10:14:10 GMT, Adrian > wrote:

>> Seat belts are designed and tested to protect car occupants in motor
>> collisions. Motorcycle helmets are designed to protect motorcyclists in
>> motor collisions. Cycle helmets are designed and specified to withstand
>> the equivalent of a fall fro a stationary or slow-moving bicycle, but
>> the cases which come to court almost always involve a motor vehicle.
>> Cycle helmets are *not* designed to protect in collisions involving
>> motor vehicles and there is no credible evidence that they provide
>> meaningful protection in such collisions. According to one of the labs
>> that tests helmets (of all kinds), the forces involved in such
>> collisions routinely exceed the protective capacity of competition motor
>> racing helmets.

>Sorry - let's just go over that again, can we?

>A motorcycle helmet is designed to protect the wearer when they're hit by
>a motor vehicle at closing speeds which can be up to 100mph+

Very unlikely. A motorcycle helmet is designed to protect a motorcycle
rider in crashes involving powered vehicles.

>A competition motor racing helmet is a similar design to a motorcycle
>helmet, but tested to higher standards, yet can't withstand protecting
>the wearer when hit by a motor vehicle at much lower speeds...?

More or less, yes. A lot of it is about the restraint around the
driver - if a race driver was not enclosed in a pretty strong frame
then I doubt many would survive collisions.

>I can see that a motorcycle-style helmet would be ridiculous overkill on
>a bicycle, but that doesn't mean that there isn't some kind of midway
>point. Of course, the typical motorcyclist also wears protective clothing
>over the rest of their body, too. Which, again, would be massive overkill
>on a bicycle. Again, some kind of midway point could well be perfectly
>appropriate.

Froom v. Butcher was about seat belts, which are designed to restrain
car occupants in car crashes. That's the precedent cited in the only
recent case regarding cycle helmets. It is an invalid precedent as
cycle helmets are not designed or specified to protect cyclists in
collisions involving motor traffic.

>But it seems to me that your argument is that, since the current crop of
>cycle helmets aren't perfect, they're utterly pointless. That seems
>ridiculous to me.

Pointless? I don't think I said that. My issue is with the idea that
failure to wear one constitutes contributory negligence in collisions
with motor traffic. In New Zealand in 1994 they introduced a helmet
law that increased helmet wearing rates from about 40% to about 95% in
a single year - the head injury rate of the cyclist population
remained unchanged. That suggests that cycle helmets are not relevant
in the cases causing the serious and fatal injuries that are recorded
and which form the basis for public policy. In fact, there is no
cyclist population in the world that can show an improvement in
cyclist safety due to increases in helmet use.

>Surely a better use of time and energy would be in proactively working to
>improve the current equipment, rather than trying to make it go away
>entirely?

No, a much better use of time and energy is focusing on things which,
unlike helmets, do seem to make a difference to cyclist safety.
Training and education, for example. "Helmets make no observable
difference therefore we need better helmets" looks to me like a
religious position not a sound basis for policy.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Matt B]

On 06/07/2010 11:04, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 10:46:13 +0100, "The >
> wrote:
>
>> However there have been thousands of cases where damages were reduced
>> because of a failure to wear a seatbelt. There are also many cases where a
>> motorcyclist's damages have been reduced for his failure to wear a helmet
>> (though that would be rare indeed these days, as presumably the police would
>> arrest a motorcyclist who isn't wearing a helmet). See eg Capps v Miller
>> 1988.
>
> Seat belts are designed and tested to protect car occupants in motor
> collisions. Motorcycle helmets are designed to protect motorcyclists
> in motor collisions.

The former, possibly yes. The latter, no, they are designed to
withstand certain types and speeds of impact.

> Cycle helmets are designed and specified to
> withstand the equivalent of a fall fro a stationary or slow-moving
> bicycle,

No, they are designed to withstand certain types and speeds of impact.

The speed of the impact is not solely determined by the speed that the
bike (or any other involved vehicle) is travelling, but also by the
direction of the impact. You may fly off a bike at 30 mph, but unless
you hit a hard obstacle full on, you will likely hit the ground with a
glancing blow, and if the angle of the "glance" is less than about 24
degrees, then the "speed" of the impact will be within the design
capability of the helmet.

> but the cases which come to court almost always involve a
> motor vehicle. Cycle helmets are *not* designed to protect in
> collisions involving motor vehicles

They are designed to accept a certain type and level of impact, which
may well result if your head hits the ground as the result of a
collision with a car.

> and there is no credible evidence
> that they provide meaningful protection in such collisions.

So you say, but lack of such evidence is certainly not evidence that
they don't.

> According
> to one of the labs that tests helmets (of all kinds), the forces
> involved in such collisions routinely exceed the protective capacity
> of competition motor racing helmets.

But even in those collisions they may absorb enough of the impact to
make a worthwhile difference to the resulting injury.

> So the precedent of Froom v. Butcher cannot be said to justly apply in
> this case, because the device in question is not designed for
> collisions of that magnitude.

As we have seen, it isn't necessarily the speed of the collision that is
significant. If a car travelling at 30 mph crosses in front of you, and
you hit it broadside at 20 mph, by the time your head hits the ground
the impact speed may be well within the capabilities of a helmet.

There will, of course, be exceptions.

--
Matt B

[Adrian]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

>>> Seat belts are designed and tested to protect car occupants in motor
>>> collisions. Motorcycle helmets are designed to protect motorcyclists
>>> in motor collisions. Cycle helmets are designed and specified to
>>> withstand the equivalent of a fall fro a stationary or slow-moving
>>> bicycle, but the cases which come to court almost always involve a
>>> motor vehicle. Cycle helmets are *not* designed to protect in
>>> collisions involving motor vehicles and there is no credible evidence
>>> that they provide meaningful protection in such collisions. According
>>> to one of the labs that tests helmets (of all kinds), the forces
>>> involved in such collisions routinely exceed the protective capacity
>>> of competition motor racing helmets.

>>Sorry - let's just go over that again, can we?
>
>>A motorcycle helmet is designed to protect the wearer when they're hit
>>by a motor vehicle at closing speeds which can be up to 100mph+

> Very unlikely. A motorcycle helmet is designed to protect a motorcycle
> rider in crashes involving powered vehicles.

Apart from the subtle detail that that doesn't differ from what I said,
if you **** your head on tarmac on the way off a two-wheeled conveyance,
how does whether you fell off on your own or were knocked off by a motor
vehicle make the slightest bit of difference?

>>A competition motor racing helmet is a similar design to a motorcycle
>>helmet, but tested to higher standards, yet can't withstand protecting
>>the wearer when hit by a motor vehicle at much lower speeds...?

> More or less, yes. A lot of it is about the restraint around the driver

So commenting upon helmets in that context is an utter irrelevance, then,
is it?

> - if a race driver was not enclosed in a pretty strong frame then I
> doubt many would survive collisions.

I think you might've forgotten something...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvqrwrQRGjA
He was winded, and probably gained some impressive bruising - but
otherwise uninjured.

>>I can see that a motorcycle-style helmet would be ridiculous overkill on
>>a bicycle, but that doesn't mean that there isn't some kind of midway
>>point. Of course, the typical motorcyclist also wears protective
>>clothing over the rest of their body, too. Which, again, would be
>>massive overkill on a bicycle. Again, some kind of midway point could
>>well be perfectly appropriate.

> Froom v. Butcher was about seat belts, which are designed to restrain
> car occupants in car crashes. That's the precedent cited in the only
> recent case regarding cycle helmets. It is an invalid precedent

Yes, it is - but...

> as cycle helmets are not designed or specified to protect cyclists in
> collisions involving motor traffic.

....not for that reason. The correct reason is that cycle helmets and
seatbelts are completely different things designed to do completely
different jobs. Comparing to motorcycle helmets makes much more sense.

>>But it seems to me that your argument is that, since the current crop of
>>cycle helmets aren't perfect, they're utterly pointless. That seems
>>ridiculous to me.

> Pointless? I don't think I said that. My issue is with the idea that
> failure to wear one constitutes contributory negligence in collisions
> with motor traffic.

I'd have said it depends. Clearly, nobody but a monomaniac or a fool
would attempt to apply it to injuries anywhere but the head.

Even if current helmets make little difference to head injuries, assuming
an inherent extrapolation to "no helmet will make any difference" is a
bit too big a step for me.

> In New Zealand in 1994 they introduced a helmet law
> that increased helmet wearing rates from about 40% to about 95% in a
> single year - the head injury rate of the cyclist population remained
> unchanged. That suggests that cycle helmets are not relevant

IN THEIR CURRENT FORM

> in the cases causing the serious and fatal injuries that are recorded
> and which form the basis for public policy. In fact, there is no cyclist
> population in the world that can show an improvement in cyclist safety
> due to increases in helmet use.

IN THEIR CURRENT FORM

>>Surely a better use of time and energy would be in proactively working
>>to improve the current equipment, rather than trying to make it go away
>>entirely?

> No, a much better use of time and energy is focusing on things which,
> unlike helmets, do seem to make a difference to cyclist safety. Training
> and education, for example.

I don't see that they are necessarily different - and helmets can be a
very effective route to introduce the concept. Clearly no helmet will
ever protect the muppet who decides to go down the left of an HGV at
lights. Nor will it protect a leg in the event of a t-boning.

> "Helmets make no observable difference therefore we need better
> helmets"

Except, of course, that isn't what I said. What I actually said was "If
_CURRENT_ helmets make no difference, we may need better helmets".

> looks to me like a religious position not a sound basis for policy.

Almost as much - from where I'm sitting - as "Helmets in their current
form make no observable difference, therefore we don't need any helmets".

As ever, there are religious monomaniacs on both sides of the debate. As
ever, they prevent the issues being discussed sensibly, and do more harm
than good.

[The Todal]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> Froom v. Butcher was about seat belts, which are designed to restrain
> car occupants in car crashes. That's the precedent cited in the only
> recent case regarding cycle helmets. It is an invalid precedent as
> cycle helmets are not designed or specified to protect cyclists in
> collisions involving motor traffic.

No, it's a valid precedent if the insurers are able to demonstrate that most
sensible people use cycle helmets and that the helmet would have reduced the
injury. The fact that the helmet is not "designed" (or guaranteed) to
protect cyclists in collisions with cars, is not conclusive. Not unless
most reasonable cyclists take their helmets off when entering traffic and
put them on again when out of traffic.

You may feel very strongly that it would be unreasonable to penalise a
cyclist for failing to wear a helmet. However, if you are involved in
litigation and you go to court you would have to be prepared for the
possibility that the judge would make a finding of contributory negligence,
and he wouldn't necessarily be interested in your own personal reasons for
not wearing a helmet (if you put forward such arguments to him) any more
than he would be interested in a motorist's arguments that he never wore a
seatbelt because his own studies had revealed that they were as likely to
cause an injury as prevent it. The judge would be interested only in the
consensus view, presented by witnesses whom he regarded as expert and
objective.

I see there have been a couple of other cases before the courts, which are
worth bearing in mind. They are not binding precedents. They are merely
snapshots of what a judge thought at a particular time based on the evidence
presented to him. Possibly the evidence six years later might be different.

A (A Child) v Shorrock
A, aged 14 at the date of the accident, was injured whilst riding his
brother's cycle, with which he was familiar, on his way from his home to his
part time job as a paper delivery boy at about 6am. He came out of a
pedestrian shopping area, through one of three arches, across the pavement,
and on to the road at a speed of approximately 10 to 15 mph into the path of
S, a serving police officer, who was driving his camper van home from work
after having completed a 12 hour shift.
Held, giving judgment for the defendant, that the cycle was so close to the
camper van when it emerged on to the road that S had no opportunity to
brake, steer or avoid an impact. S had been driving at a speed between 20
mph and 25 mph and the distance between the two vehicles was 20 feet. There
was a defect in the steering of the camper van, although this had no
relevance to the accident. There was no evidence that S was unduly tired
after his shift or that his reactions were dulled by fatigue and, in any
event, not even the most alert and quickest at reacting could have stopped
in time. If the judge had found for A on liability, A would have been held
50 per cent to blame on the basis that he was familiar with the layout of
the roads having followed that route for over a year, and he rode out on to
the road without stopping at the kerb or checking to see if the road was
clear. He would not however have found contributory negligence based upon
A's failure to wear a safety helmet as there was no statutory requirement
for him to do so, and he was not engaged in any particularly hazardous kind
of driving during which it might be thought prudent to wear a helmet.
Court: (QBD) Queen's Bench Division
Judge: Judge Brown
Judgment date: March 19, 2001


Swinton v Annabel's (Berkeley Square) Ltd
The claimant (C) brought an action against the defendant dog walking company
(D) for damages for personal injury sustained when a dog being walked by D's
representative ran into the path of C knocking him off his bicycle. C had
been cycling along the outer carriage drive of Battersea Park in London when
the collision happened. D admitted liability, but alleged contributory
negligence for C's failure to wear a cycle helmet. D claimed that C should
have worn a helmet as advised by the Highway Code and that his reason for
not doing so, namely that he would have felt silly, was not a good one,
Froom v Butcher [1976] Q.B. 286, [1975] C.L.Y. 2295 cited. C argued that
contributory negligence was inappropriate on the facts. Alternatively, that
any reduction should be small as it was less blameworthy not to wear a cycle
helmet as compared to a seat belt given that it was not a legal requirement.
Held, granting judgment for the C, that there was no contributory negligence
on C's part in not wearing a cycle helmet. Whilst it was recommended by the
Highway Code, it was not a legal requirement. The public campaign for the
wearing of cycle helmets had not reached a level comparable to that for the
wearing of seat belts at the time that Froom was decided, Froom
distinguished. There was no plan to make cycle helmets compulsory. C was an
experienced cyclist who for several years had been cycling in the confined
and sanitised environment of Battersea Park, away from the traffic. To wear
a cycle helmet would have been over cautious, although it might have been
different had the accident taken place on the road. Alternatively, as
contributory negligence would only affect that part of the general damages
relating to the head injury, agreed to be only a few hundred pounds at most,
any deduction for contributory negligence of 10 or 15 per cent would have
reduced the damages by only GBP 20 or GBP 30. As that was a de minimis
reduction, the court would have refused to make it in any event.
Court: (CC (Lambeth)) County Court (Lambeth)
Judge: Judge Cox
Judgment date: July 8, 2004

[Alex Potter]

On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 10:46:13 +0100, The Todal wrote:

[Lord Denning]
> The finger would have been broken
> anyway and the damages for it not reduced at all.".

Presumably, like the finger, the damages for a bent bike could not be
reduced? Or is that a matter of opinion?

--
Alex

[JMS]

On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 19:10:22 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

<snip>


>JMS has openly admitted that the objective of posting is to spin out
>an argument for as long as possible. That is another reason for
>posting to Usenet. A third reason, also openly admitted by JMS, is the
>destruction of a group of people whose opinions she dislikes. I'm sure
>there are other reasons as well.



I apologise for responding after I said that I would not and also for
causing this outbreak of lunacy in to uk.legal - ( follow-ups to urc)

However - I cannot let these outright incorrect accusations stand.

I have never said anything of the sort with regards to the objective
of me posting is to spin out the argument nor the destruction of any
group.

Feel free to back up (in uk.rec.cycling) these accusations

People may see now why I despise you so much

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On 6 Jul 2010 10:51:02 GMT, Adrian > wrote:

>>>A motorcycle helmet is designed to protect the wearer when they're hit
>>>by a motor vehicle at closing speeds which can be up to 100mph+

>> Very unlikely. A motorcycle helmet is designed to protect a motorcycle
>> rider in crashes involving powered vehicles.

>Apart from the subtle detail that that doesn't differ from what I said,
>if you **** your head on tarmac on the way off a two-wheeled conveyance,
>how does whether you fell off on your own or were knocked off by a motor
>vehicle make the slightest bit of difference?

Just for the avoidance of doubt, I do not consider this a significant
part of the reason why Froom v. Butcher is invalid in the case of
cycle helmets.

However: a motorcycle helmet is designed to protect the head (FSVO
protect) in collisions at the kinds of speeds at which motorcycles
travel. I would not expect it to provide any meaningful protection in
a head-on collision, or indeed if the biker rides into a tree on the
Cat & Fiddle.

For my money the principal difference is that the motorcyclist is not
engaging in aerobic exercise and has the power of decomposed dead
plants to draw on, so the helmet can be bigger, heavier and stronger
without seriously impacting on the rider's ability to ride (albeit
that some riders dispute this, and for all I know they may be right,
it did certainly seem to be the case that US states that repealed
their helmet laws experienced better motorcyclist injury trends than
those which did not).

>>>A competition motor racing helmet is a similar design to a motorcycle
>>>helmet, but tested to higher standards, yet can't withstand protecting
>>>the wearer when hit by a motor vehicle at much lower speeds...?
>
>> More or less, yes. A lot of it is about the restraint around the driver
>
>So commenting upon helmets in that context is an utter irrelevance, then,
>is it?

It's relevant only in as much as it points out one of the reasons why
they are apparently irrelevant in such collisions.

>> Froom v. Butcher was about seat belts, which are designed to restrain
>> car occupants in car crashes. That's the precedent cited in the only
>> recent case regarding cycle helmets. It is an invalid precedent
>
>Yes, it is - but...
>
>> as cycle helmets are not designed or specified to protect cyclists in
>> collisions involving motor traffic.
>
>...not for that reason. The correct reason is that cycle helmets and
>seatbelts are completely different things designed to do completely
>different jobs. Comparing to motorcycle helmets makes much more sense.

They are different in a lot of ways, one of which is fitness for the
type of collisions under consideration. Froom v. Butcher is cited as
the relevant precedent, so tat's what we have to go by.

>>>But it seems to me that your argument is that, since the current crop of
>>>cycle helmets aren't perfect, they're utterly pointless. That seems
>>>ridiculous to me.

>> Pointless? I don't think I said that. My issue is with the idea that
>> failure to wear one constitutes contributory negligence in collisions
>> with motor traffic.

>I'd have said it depends. Clearly, nobody but a monomaniac or a fool
>would attempt to apply it to injuries anywhere but the head.

Here we have the potential to go off at a massive tangent. Old lags in
urc will know what I mean if I mention TR&T.

>Even if current helmets make little difference to head injuries, assuming
>an inherent extrapolation to "no helmet will make any difference" is a
>bit too big a step for me.

I don't think I did that. I do say, based on long term population
trends and other time series analyses, that the use or otherwise of
cycle helmets appears to be an irrelevance, at least as far as serious
and fatal injuries in road crashes goes. Whatever it is that makes
cycling safer, helmets is not it. Luckily cycling does not appear to
be a particularly high risk activity.

>> In New Zealand in 1994 they introduced a helmet law
>> that increased helmet wearing rates from about 40% to about 95% in a
>> single year - the head injury rate of the cyclist population remained
>> unchanged. That suggests that cycle helmets are not relevant
>
>IN THEIR CURRENT FORM

Well, yes, I suppose one could base arguments on some hypothetical
future helmet, but I believe that's out of scope here.

>> No, a much better use of time and energy is focusing on things which,
>> unlike helmets, do seem to make a difference to cyclist safety. Training
>> and education, for example.
>
>I don't see that they are necessarily different - and helmets can be a
>very effective route to introduce the concept. Clearly no helmet will
>ever protect the muppet who decides to go down the left of an HGV at
>lights. Nor will it protect a leg in the event of a t-boning.

I think that you are utterly and completely wrong there. The way
helmets are promoted is to assert that cycling is dangerous (which
deters cycling), to raise the spectre of Scary Brain Injuries (when
actually the vast majority of brain injuries are simple concussions
from which the patient makes a full recovery), and to present helmets
as a magic panacea to fix it.

The result is schools running "cycle safety" presentations that
consist of "wear a helmet". This maximises the chances of people
massively overestimating the protective effect of helmets, so taking
more risks when helmeted, fails to tackle the root cause of danger
(motor vehicles cause 10% of all child injury admissions but 50% of
injury deaths, most of these children are not cycling), fails to teach
or encourage proper cycling skills and in sundry other ways encourages
people to believe that by wearing a foam hat they have done all that
is necessary to make a "risky" activity "safe".

As far as anyone can tell (well, anyone who is not starting from the
position of "how can we make these pesky cyclists wear helmets",
anyway) helmet use is not at the top of the list of cycle safety
issues. RoSPA put it last, in combination with other factors, and that
was being generous. It appears to be, from the objective data gathered
around the world, completely irrelevant. So using helmets as some sort
of route to deliver better cycle safety is a bit like using St.
Christopher medallions or lucky rabbit's feet: start by focusing your
attention on something that has no obvious correlation with overall
risk and hope that somewhere along the line people will recognise that
the thing you started talking about is actually the least important of
all the things you might have been talking about.

I've seen scouts turn up for rides with brakes that do not work at
all, tyres that are bald and splitting, wheels that are not correctly
attached to the bike, handlebars loose and all kinds of other
problems. But they are all Perfectly Safe (TM) because they all have
the magic hats. Sorry, but I think the promotion of helmets is the
single biggest distraction from cycle safety. But don't take my word
for it, conduct a survey. Ask a hundred people, cyclists and
non-cyclists, what's the most important safety advice you could give a
cyclist. See how many come up with "never ride up the inside of a
large vehicle, especially at a junction". That's what caused over half
of all cyclist fatalities in London last year.

>> "Helmets make no observable difference therefore we need better
>> helmets"
>
>Except, of course, that isn't what I said. What I actually said was "If
>_CURRENT_ helmets make no difference, we may need better helmets".

A philosophical debate about some purported future helmet that does
make a provable difference is not something that is going to be
especially relevant to me right now.

>> looks to me like a religious position not a sound basis for policy.
>
>Almost as much - from where I'm sitting - as "Helmets in their current
>form make no observable difference, therefore we don't need any helmets".

No, that's a provable fact based on studies of multiple cyclist
populations. Feel free to cite evidence that shows a population which
can demonstrate improvements in injury rates consequent on increases
in helmet use, there are plenty of people who will thank you for it.

>As ever, there are religious monomaniacs on both sides of the debate. As
>ever, they prevent the issues being discussed sensibly, and do more harm
>than good.

Placing it in the religious context, the helmet promoters might be
characterised as believers, the (incredibly rare) individuals who
would like to see them banned are atheists, and those of us who are
sceptical are the agnostics.

Scepticism is the default in the scientific method, as you know.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 12:18:49 +0100, "The Todal" >
wrote:

>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>
>> Froom v. Butcher was about seat belts, which are designed to restrain
>> car occupants in car crashes. That's the precedent cited in the only
>> recent case regarding cycle helmets. It is an invalid precedent as
>> cycle helmets are not designed or specified to protect cyclists in
>> collisions involving motor traffic.
>
>No, it's a valid precedent if the insurers are able to demonstrate that most
>sensible people use cycle helmets and that the helmet would have reduced the
>injury. The fact that the helmet is not "designed" (or guaranteed) to
>protect cyclists in collisions with cars, is not conclusive. Not unless
>most reasonable cyclists take their helmets off when entering traffic and
>put them on again when out of traffic.

I think it's invalid for a number of reasons, first being that of
fitness for purpose, but also the fact that in Froom v. Butcher the
claimant's car was fitted with a seat belt, whereas bicycles are not
fitted with helmets, and of course there's the documented fact that
the majority of cyclists do not wear them.

>You may feel very strongly that it would be unreasonable to penalise a
>cyclist for failing to wear a helmet. However, if you are involved in
>litigation and you go to court you would have to be prepared for the
>possibility that the judge would make a finding of contributory negligence,
>and he wouldn't necessarily be interested in your own personal reasons for
>not wearing a helmet (if you put forward such arguments to him) any more
>than he would be interested in a motorist's arguments that he never wore a
>seatbelt because his own studies had revealed that they were as likely to
>cause an injury as prevent it. The judge would be interested only in the
>consensus view, presented by witnesses whom he regarded as expert and
>objective.

Yes, I understand that. The question is, as I understand it, what
would a reasonable person do. I believe I can show that a reasonable
person might well make a determination either way, that informed
opinion is divided. In particular, one of the foremost experts on
cycle safety in the UK is distinctly sceptical.

>I see there have been a couple of other cases before the courts, which are
>worth bearing in mind. They are not binding precedents. They are merely
>snapshots of what a judge thought at a particular time based on the evidence
>presented to him. Possibly the evidence six years later might be different.

>A (A Child) v Shorrock [...]
>Swinton v Annabel's (Berkeley Square) Ltd [...]

Both interesting and directly relevant, thank you.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Alex Heney]

On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 22:53:19 +0100, Clive George
> wrote:

>On 05/07/2010 21:51, Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 16:17:42 +0100, Clive George
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/07/2010 16:16, The Todal wrote:
>>>
>>>> Those
>>>> who want to make personal attacks, accusing a poster of trolling or trying
>>>> to provoke a poster into an angry response, are boring imbeciles who add
>>>> nothing to usenet.
>>>
>>> Like JMS then? Glad we agree about something.
>>
>> Liar.
>
>Ahem. No.
>

You made a statement that you *must* have been well aware was false.

Whatever you may think of Judith, it was very clear that The Todal was
not agreeing with you about her.


>> You know perfectly well that nobody without a personal axe to grind
>> would "agree" with you about that post.
>
>No I don't. In fact I rather strongly disagree with your belief there.
>

OK.

You certainly should be well aware of it. You appear to be allowing
personal animosity cloud your judgment of this particular posy.

>> On the other hand, your responses (including the one above) fit the
>> description perfectly.
>
>JMS's post was designed to provoke Guy into an angry response.

If she really intended that then she must believe him to be an
imbecile.

But your response here doesn't say anything about the point you
appeared to be responding to.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Reformat Hard Drive! Are you SURE (Y/Y)?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

[Alex Heney]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 14:45:25 -0700 (PDT), johnmids2006
> wrote:

>I think this is diverging from the point being queried to start with.
>
>A negligently causes an accident which injures B. A was 100% to blame
>for the accident. Nothing that B did or didn't do contibuted to the
>accident happening.
>
>But B failed to take non-mandatory safety precautions which might have
>reduced the injuries sustained.
>
>Assuming that such measures would have lessened the injury, is there a
>case for contibutory negligence?
>

In theory there *could* be.

But it would have to be shown that the safety precautions were such
that it would actually be considered *negligent* to not take them.

Something that has little proven benefit, and which only a fairly
small proportion of participants do is unlikely to be considered
negligent to not do, IMO.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Beware of Geeks bearing gifs.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

[Alex Heney]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 14:17:57 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

>On Jul 5, 10:00*pm, Alex Heney > wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:25:18 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Jul 5, 8:10 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" >
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 11:50:42 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
>>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >Getting back to the subject, I believe there has been a case where a
>> >> >cyclist had his damages reduced after an accident because he wasn't
>> >> >wearing a helmet. Can anybody in the legal profession confirm this? It
>> >> >would seem to be a sensible principle that riders who don't take
>> >> >reasonable precautions against injury should get reduced damages.
>>
>> >> Oh look, you're begging the question again. You probably don't even
>> >> understand why that's fallacious. Feel free to point out any cyclist
>> >> population that can be shown to have reduced injury rates through
>> >> increased helmet use. This is at least the third time you've been
>> >> asked to justify your assertion by providing that necessary condition,
>> >> I don't find any trace that you've done so.
>>
>> >> I can cite studies which show *no* change in injury rates with large
>> >> changes in helmet use, but of course since you're the one proposing
>> >> the intervention, the onus is on you to prove your case. You can start
>> >> any time now, you've had a month or so to read up.
>>
>> >> Guy
>> >> --http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
>> >> The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
>> >> to be worth the price paid.
>>
>> >The Police fatal accident report suggests that 10-16% of cyclists who
>> >died principally of serious head injuries would have survived if they
>> >had been wearing a properly fitted cycle helmet.
>>
>> That is a VERY dubious claim. I'd be interested to see this "Fatal
>> accident Report" to find out who suggested that figure and where they
>> got it from.
>>
>> Cycle helmets (like Ski helmets) are of use principally in reducing
>> the severity of non fatal accidents.
>>
>> There are very few where head impact is severe enough to kill where a
>> cycle helmet would make sufficient difference to avoid that outcome.
>>
>> >As about 33% of
>> >cyclists wear cycle helmets, that would be more like 25% of those who
>> >don't.
>>
>> And that is a fallacious argument even if the above statistic were
>> true.
>>
>> > How about cycling at night without lights and a reflective
>> >jacket?
>>
>> Having neither of those when cycling on a road is just bloody stupid.
>>
>> But that is because being seen makes you very much less likely to be
>> hit.
>>
>> There is no real evidence that a helmet makes you significantly less
>> likely to be killed or severely injured in the case of an accident.
>> --
>> Alex Heney, Global Villager
>> Best file compression around: "DEL *.*" - 100% compression.
>> To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>In answer to your question about the Police fatal accident report, all
>the victims had post mortems in which the cause of death was
>determined by a medical professional, not PC Plod. This is covered in
>TRL PPR446 Appendix H which can be downloaded for free as a PDF if you
>claim that it is for academic research. Suggest that you read it.
>

the first thing that strikes me from reading it is that the sample
size is too small to be really statistically safe.



Then I see that the 10-16% claim (which is in a different part of the
report) comes from an assumption that helmets have 50% effectiveness
(i.e that 50% off all fatal head injuries would be reduced to no or
minor injury ), without any actual knowledge of what the real
effectiveness is.

The most important fact to come out of that report is that they DO NOT
KNOW how effective helmets actually are in converting serious head
injury to minor or no injury.

It could be 50%, as they use for their predictions. Or it could be 10%
- or 90%.

I believe 50% is almost certainly significantly too high, because a
typical cycle helmet only really gives much protection against impact
against the top of the head. But I am guessing here too.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Minds are like parachutes, they only work when open.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

[Alex Heney]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 15:06:47 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

>On Jul 5, 10:48*pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
>> Derek C wrote:
>>
>> > In answer to your question about the Police fatal accident report, all
>> > the victims had post mortems in which the cause of death was
>> > determined by a medical professional, not PC Plod. This is covered in
>> > TRL PPR446 Appendix H which can be downloaded for free as a PDF if you
>> > claim that it is for academic research. Suggest that you read it.
>>
>> So please explain how they get from those post mortems to the 10-16%
>> assumptions, what assumptions did they make about helmet effectiveness
>> to derive them and what was the basis they gave for that helmet
>> effectiveness.
>>
>> Simply ignoring these questions will not make them not be there.
>>
>I am sure that they could calculate the energy absorbing properties of
>a cycle helmet and then decide whether or not it would have changed
>the outcome of a given fatal injury from the severity of that injury.

There is not sufficient information even in the police files, never
mind the other studies used to be able to say definitively that any
given accident involved forces which were applied in such a way and
were of such severity that they killed without a helmet but would not
have done with one.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Everyone is gifted. Some open the package sooner.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

[Clive George]

On 06/07/2010 21:57, Alex Heney wrote:

>> JMS's post was designed to provoke Guy into an angry response.
>
> If she really intended that then she must believe him to be an
> imbecile.

I think it's reasonably obvious that she does, yes.

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 21:57:53 +0100, Alex Heney > wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 22:53:19 +0100, Clive George
> > wrote:
>
> >JMS's post was designed to provoke Guy into an angry response.
>
> If she really intended that then she must believe him to be an
> imbecile.

She probably does.

I do, at least selectively - his responses to some types of
provocation (the 'she started it' sort of stuff and so on) do seem to
fall into behaviours I would normally expect to be characteristic of 3
to 7 yr-olds.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Nick[_4_]]

On 06/07/2010 22:48, Alex Heney wrote:

>
> Then I see that the 10-16% claim (which is in a different part of the
> report) comes from an assumption that helmets have 50% effectiveness
> (i.e that 50% off all fatal head injuries would be reduced to no or
> minor injury ), without any actual knowledge of what the real
> effectiveness is.
>
> The most important fact to come out of that report is that they DO NOT
> KNOW how effective helmets actually are in converting serious head
> injury to minor or no injury.
>
> It could be 50%, as they use for their predictions. Or it could be 10%
> - or 90%.
>
> I believe 50% is almost certainly significantly too high, because a
> typical cycle helmet only really gives much protection against impact
> against the top of the head. But I am guessing here too.

We can discount helmets being 90% effective against being killed but
apart from that you seem to have rapidly come to a reasonable assesment.
Unfortunately u.r.c continues to be trolled by imbecilles on both sides
who claim to have proof of helmet efficacy. As is the way with these
arguments they tend to look to ridiculous interpretations (or
misrepresent interpretations) of the most unclear and uncertain
statistics in order to justify their claims.

Although I too believe her motive to be trolling the coherence of
Judith's arguments seems to be way ahead of the group average. When a
group can't survive such arguments my only conclusion is that there is
something wrong with the group not the troll.

[Derek C]

On Jul 7, 4:00*am, Phil W Lee > wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > considered Tue, 06
> Jul 2010 11:04:48 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 10:46:13 +0100, "The Todal" >
> >wrote:
>
> >>However there have been thousands of cases where damages were reduced
> >>because of a failure to wear a seatbelt. There are also many cases where a
> >>motorcyclist's damages have been reduced for his failure to wear a helmet
> >>(though that would be rare indeed these days, as presumably the police would
> >>arrest a motorcyclist who isn't wearing a helmet). *See eg Capps v Miller
> >>1988.
>
> >Seat belts are designed and tested to protect car occupants in motor
> >collisions. Motorcycle helmets are designed to protect motorcyclists
> >in motor collisions. Cycle helmets are designed and specified to
> >withstand the equivalent of a fall fro a stationary or slow-moving
> >bicycle, but the cases which come to court almost always involve a
> >motor vehicle. Cycle helmets are *not* designed to protect in
> >collisions involving motor vehicles and there is no credible evidence
> >that they provide meaningful protection in such collisions. According
> >to one of the labs that tests helmets (of all kinds), the forces
> >involved in such collisions routinely exceed the protective capacity
> >of competition motor racing helmets.
>
> >So the precedent of Froom v. Butcher cannot be said to justly apply in
> >this case, because the device in question is not designed for
> >collisions of that magnitude.
>
> It seems to me that the crucial phrase in Lord Denning's decision is
> "and the injuries would have been prevented or lessened if he had worn
> it-then his damages should be reduced".
>
> So far, ttbomk, nobody has even attempted to prove that any specific
> injury for which compensation is being claimed would have been
> prevented or lessened by the presence of a few ounces of foam.
>
> There has been at least one case where a sentence was reduced after a
> cyclist was killed by a dangerous, unlicensed, uninsured driver, the
> reduction being due to the cyclist not wearing a helmet. *This was
> something apparently done purely on the basis of the judges personal
> opinion, with no evidence having been presented as to whether a helmet
> would have made any difference whatsoever.
>
> I believe that judge to be as misguided, ignorant and prejudiced as
> one who would reduce a rape sentence because the victim was wearing a
> miniskirt.
> No, make that more so - at least there is some argument that a
> provocative manner of dress may have attracted the attention of the
> rapist, who might have been better able to control his urges without
> the visual stimulation. *Indeed, for many years, the law did recognise
> that. and it was successfully used as a mitigating factor.
> That judge must take his standards of judgment from those days,
> although the law as a whole does not recognise such arguments now.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That 'few ounces of foam' as you put it, is the essential ingredient
of motorcycle and motor racing helmets. Even those probably wouldn't
save you if you had a head on collision with an articulated lorry
doing 60 mph, especially if it then crushed you under its wheels!
However if you where struck a glancing blow that knocked you off your
bike and you then struck your head on the road surface, a cycle helmet
probably would save you from death or serious brain injury. It's the
height from which you fall and the suddeness of the stop that
mattters. Even motorcycle helmets are only designed to absorb the
shock of a 3 metre drop at 17mph, which is not that much greater than
a cycle helmet.

Derek C

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 00:57:18 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

>That 'few ounces of foam' as you put it, is the essential ingredient
>of motorcycle and motor racing helmets.

And of the packaging in which your TV was delivered. How would you
expect it to fare if you ran into it with a car at 30mph? I think the
phrase in common usage here is "all bets are off".

But do feel free to cite any real cyclist population that can show a
provable improvement in cyclist head injury rates consequent on
increases in helmet use. I know several people who would be happy to
hear about that.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[The Todal]

"Phil W Lee" > wrote in message
...

>
> There has been at least one case where a sentence was reduced after a
> cyclist was killed by a dangerous, unlicensed, uninsured driver, the
> reduction being due to the cyclist not wearing a helmet. This was
> something apparently done purely on the basis of the judges personal
> opinion, with no evidence having been presented as to whether a helmet
> would have made any difference whatsoever.
>
> I believe that judge to be as misguided, ignorant and prejudiced as
> one who would reduce a rape sentence because the victim was wearing a
> miniskirt.

Are you seriously suggesting that there have been criminal prosecutions of
drivers, in which the driver has received a more lenient sentence because
the cyclist (injured or killed in the collision) was not wearing a helmet?

I don't believe you.

If you are right, the judge was surely wrong in law, but I just don't
believe that any judge would reach such a decision.

[thirty-six]

On 6 July, 14:04, "Just zis Guy, you know?" >
wrote:

> I've seen scouts turn up for rides with brakes that do not work at
> all, tyres that are bald and splitting, wheels that are not correctly
> attached to the bike, handlebars loose and all kinds of other
> problems. But they are all Perfectly Safe (TM) because they all have
> the magic hats. Sorry, but I think the promotion of helmets is the
> single biggest distraction from cycle safety. But don't take my word
> for it, conduct a survey. Ask a hundred people, cyclists and
> non-cyclists, what's the most important safety advice you could give a
> cyclist. See how many come up with "never ride up the inside of a
> large vehicle, especially at a junction". That's what caused over half
> of all cyclist fatalities in London last year.

New book title: "It's not about the helmet. - Bicycle safety in the
modern day." Write it!

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Phil W Lee wrote:
> "The Todal" > considered Wed, 7 Jul 2010 11:23:54
> +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>>
>> "Phil W Lee" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> There has been at least one case where a sentence was reduced after
>>> a cyclist was killed by a dangerous, unlicensed, uninsured driver,
>>> the reduction being due to the cyclist not wearing a helmet. This
>>> was something apparently done purely on the basis of the judges
>>> personal opinion, with no evidence having been presented as to
>>> whether a helmet would have made any difference whatsoever.
>>>
>>> I believe that judge to be as misguided, ignorant and prejudiced as
>>> one who would reduce a rape sentence because the victim was wearing
>>> a miniskirt.
>>
>> Are you seriously suggesting that there have been criminal
>> prosecutions of drivers, in which the driver has received a more
>> lenient sentence because the cyclist (injured or killed in the
>> collision) was not wearing a helmet?
>>
>> I don't believe you.
>
> It was a decision that was widely reported and condemned by the CTC
> last year.
>
> The driver was Denis Moore, the cyclist James Jorgensen, and it
> happened in September 2008 on a roundabout in Seaham, County Durham.
>
> I await your apology.
>>
>> If you are right, the judge was surely wrong in law, but I just don't
>> believe that any judge would reach such a decision.
>>
> I agree that no sane, competent and unbiased judge would reach such a
> decision.

But alas he did. Can you prove he wasn't sane, competent and unbiased? Or
do you just not like reality?



--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[Derek C]

On Jul 7, 10:18*am, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 00:57:18 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
>
> > wrote:
> >That 'few ounces of foam' as you put it, is the essential ingredient
> >of motorcycle and motor racing helmets.
>
> And of the packaging in which your TV was delivered. How would you
> expect it to fare if you ran into it with a car at 30mph? I think the
> phrase in common usage here is "all bets are off".

Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) is still very energy absorbing, which it is
why it is used as the liners in motorcycle and motor racing helmets,
and for that matter packaging valuable items such as TV sets. The
quality of the EPS is likely to be better in crash helmets and cycle
helmets.
>
> But do feel free to cite any real cyclist population that can show a
> provable improvement in cyclist head injury rates consequent on
> increases in helmet use. I know several people who would be happy to
> hear about that.
>
All the hospital studies that have compared head and brain injuries
for helmet wearers and non-helmet wearers have found that cycle
helmets do reduce the severity of injury. If this doesn't show up in
population statistics, this is only because the statistics are not
accurate or detailed enough.

Derek C

[Derek C]

On Jul 7, 10:18*am, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 00:57:18 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
>
> > wrote:
> >That 'few ounces of foam' as you put it, is the essential ingredient
> >of motorcycle and motor racing helmets.
>
> And of the packaging in which your TV was delivered. How would you
> expect it to fare if you ran into it with a car at 30mph? I think the
> phrase in common usage here is "all bets are off".

Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) is still very energy absorbing, which it is
why it is used as the liners in motorcycle and motor racing helmets,
and for that matter packaging valuable items such as TV sets. The
quality of the EPS is likely to be better in crash helmets and cycle
helmets.
>
> But do feel free to cite any real cyclist population that can show a
> provable improvement in cyclist head injury rates consequent on
> increases in helmet use. I know several people who would be happy to
> hear about that.
>
All the hospital studies that have compared head and brain injuries
for helmet wearers and non-helmet wearers have found that cycle
helmets do reduce the severity of injury. If this doesn't show up in
population statistics, this is only because the statistics are not
accurate or detailed enough.

Derek C

[mcp]

On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:54:32 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

>All the hospital studies that have compared head and brain injuries
>for helmet wearers and non-helmet wearers have found that cycle
>helmets do reduce the severity of injury. If this doesn't show up in
>population statistics, this is only because the statistics are not
>accurate or detailed enough.

Hospital studies only count the people who have accidents and go to
hospital both of which will be correlated to helmet wearing.

[Derek C]

On Jul 8, 1:36*am, mcp > wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:54:32 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
>
> > wrote:
> >All the hospital studies that have compared head and brain injuries
> >for helmet wearers and non-helmet wearers have found that cycle
> >helmets do reduce the severity of injury. If this doesn't show up in
> >population statistics, this is only because the statistics are not
> >accurate or detailed enough.
>
> Hospital studies only count the people who have accidents and go to
> hospital both of which will be correlated to helmet wearing.

You only find out how effective helmets really are when their wearers
are involved in accidents. Why should there be a correlation between
helmet wearing and hospital admission? If anything, as helmet wearers
are less likely to suffer serious head injuries, it is more likely to
be a negative correlation.

Derek C

[mileburner]

Derek C wrote:

>> Hospital studies only count the people who have accidents and go to
>> hospital both of which will be correlated to helmet wearing.
>
> You only find out how effective helmets really are when their wearers
> are involved in accidents. Why should there be a correlation between
> helmet wearing and hospital admission? If anything, as helmet wearers
> are less likely to suffer serious head injuries, it is more likely to
> be a negative correlation.

I think that you have already fessed-up that you:

a] Wear a helmet.
b] Fall off bikes.

It also stands to reason that the less competent one is, and the more prone
to accidents one is, the more benefit (either real or perceived) there is
likely to be from wearing one.

[mileburner]

Derek C wrote:
>
> All the hospital studies that have compared head and brain injuries
> for helmet wearers and non-helmet wearers have found that cycle
> helmets do reduce the severity of injury. If this doesn't show up in
> population statistics, this is only because the statistics are not
> accurate or detailed enough.

What the above appears to imply is that: if you are going to bash your head
to the extent of needing a hospital visit, you are best off doing it while
wearing a helmet.

I think even Guy would agree with that?

[Ian Smith]

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:55:08 -0700 (PDT), Derek C > wrote:

> If this doesn't show up in population statistics, this is only
> because the statistics are not accurate or detailed enough.

Wow.

This from the man that assures us he is a highly numerate, highly
trained scientist.

If the evidence / data doesn't show what he has decided is true, it
must be that the evidence is faulty. This is the only possible
explanation.



--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Phil W Lee wrote:
>
>> Are you seriously suggesting that there have been criminal prosecutions of
>> drivers, in which the driver has received a more lenient sentence because
>> the cyclist (injured or killed in the collision) was not wearing a helmet?
>>
>> I don't believe you.
>
> It was a decision that was widely reported and condemned by the CTC
> last year.
>
> The driver was Denis Moore, the cyclist James Jorgensen, and it
> happened in September 2008 on a roundabout in Seaham, County Durham.
>
> I await your apology.
>> If you are right, the judge was surely wrong in law, but I just don't
>> believe that any judge would reach such a decision.
>>
> I agree that no sane, competent and unbiased judge would reach such a
> decision.

I actually think that case will turn out to be an isolated aberration.
It was in the Crown Court, not the High Court, so it sets no precedent
for other cases (unlike Smith v Finch) and it is clearly against the
sentencing guidelines for the offences of death by careless or dangerous
driving.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Derek C wrote:
>
> All the hospital studies that have compared head and brain injuries
> for helmet wearers and non-helmet wearers have found that cycle
> helmets do reduce the severity of injury. If this doesn't show up in
> population statistics, this is only because the statistics are not
> accurate or detailed enough.
>

So you keep saying yet you are still unable to give a reference to a
single hospital study that you think best shows that. Why?

Fortunately though the professionals don't agree with your approach as
typified by the editorial in the June 2004 edition of the International
Journal of Epidemiology.

Of course some medics do agree with you but then that's why we have
things like the MMR/colitis and silicone/auto-immune disease debacles
where it took population statistics to show the hospital studies were junk.


--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Derek C wrote:
>
> You only find out how effective helmets really are when their wearers
> are involved in accidents.

How do you do that? Do you go back and repeat the accident without a
helmet to see what the outcome would have been without the helmet?


--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[The Todal]

"Phil W Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "The Todal" > considered Wed, 7 Jul 2010 11:23:54
> +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>>
>>"Phil W Lee" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>
>>> There has been at least one case where a sentence was reduced after a
>>> cyclist was killed by a dangerous, unlicensed, uninsured driver, the
>>> reduction being due to the cyclist not wearing a helmet. This was
>>> something apparently done purely on the basis of the judges personal
>>> opinion, with no evidence having been presented as to whether a helmet
>>> would have made any difference whatsoever.
>>>
>>> I believe that judge to be as misguided, ignorant and prejudiced as
>>> one who would reduce a rape sentence because the victim was wearing a
>>> miniskirt.
>>
>>Are you seriously suggesting that there have been criminal prosecutions of
>>drivers, in which the driver has received a more lenient sentence because
>>the cyclist (injured or killed in the collision) was not wearing a helmet?
>>
>>I don't believe you.
>
> It was a decision that was widely reported and condemned by the CTC
> last year.

I have never heard of the CTC. Well, until now. They seem to be some sort
of organisation to promote cycling. They don't publish any law reports.

>
> The driver was Denis Moore, the cyclist James Jorgensen, and it
> happened in September 2008 on a roundabout in Seaham, County Durham.
>
> I await your apology.

You might want to apologise for failing to offer an URL. However, I still
don't believe you, and I don't believe the various excitable cycling groups
who have complained about the decision. There seems to be no proper
transcript anywhere of the judge's sentencing remarks. I therefore take the
view, at this point, that a sleepy and inexperienced journalist started this
particular rumour and it spread among cyclists and cycling groups but it has
attracted no notice in the legal journals because, um, it's not actually
true.

>>
>>If you are right, the judge was surely wrong in law, but I just don't
>>believe that any judge would reach such a decision.
>>
> I agree that no sane, competent and unbiased judge would reach such a
> decision.

Which is why it probably never happened.

[Derek C]

On Jul 8, 8:57*am, Tony Raven > wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
>
> > You only find out how effective helmets really are when their wearers
> > are involved in accidents.
>
> How do you do that? *Do you go back and repeat the accident without a
> helmet to see what the outcome would have been without the helmet?
>
> --
> Tony
>
Well that would be the ideal control, but not practical in the real
world. If you study a large number of accidents, any differences in
their severity would cancel out.

Derek C

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:54:32 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

>> >That 'few ounces of foam' as you put it, is the essential ingredient
>> >of motorcycle and motor racing helmets.
>>
>> And of the packaging in which your TV was delivered. How would you
>> expect it to fare if you ran into it with a car at 30mph? I think the
>> phrase in common usage here is "all bets are off".
>
>Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) is still very energy absorbing, which it is
>why it is used as the liners in motorcycle and motor racing helmets,
>and for that matter packaging valuable items such as TV sets. The
>quality of the EPS is likely to be better in crash helmets and cycle
>helmets.

I saw what you did there. Nice swerve, but as usual you avoided answering
the question.

>> But do feel free to cite any real cyclist population that can show a
>> provable improvement in cyclist head injury rates consequent on
>> increases in helmet use. I know several people who would be happy to
>> hear about that.

>All the hospital studies that have compared head and brain injuries
>for helmet wearers and non-helmet wearers have found that cycle
>helmets do reduce the severity of injury. If this doesn't show up in
>population statistics, this is only because the statistics are not
>accurate or detailed enough.

These studies have also found a protective effect on broken legs, showing
that their case and control populations are different in more ways than just
helmet use. Which hospital-based studies do you think correctly and
accurately control for other differences between the case and control
populations?

Confounding is a known and documented risk in such studies and it is
perfectly possible to have a very large number of them conducted over a long
time by independent teams and for the result still to be completely wrong.
For example, exactly the same kind of study found with exactly the same
consistency a protective effect against coronary heart disease from combined
hormone replacement therapy, but when clinical trials were undertaken the
relationship identified by the hospital based studies was wrong in both
magnitude and sign.

Don't forget, you're the one proposing an intervention so the onus is on you
to prove your case.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 17:59:36 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

>On Jul 8, 1:36*am, mcp > wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:54:32 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >All the hospital studies that have compared head and brain injuries
>> >for helmet wearers and non-helmet wearers have found that cycle
>> >helmets do reduce the severity of injury. If this doesn't show up in
>> >population statistics, this is only because the statistics are not
>> >accurate or detailed enough.
>>
>> Hospital studies only count the people who have accidents and go to
>> hospital both of which will be correlated to helmet wearing.
>
>You only find out how effective helmets really are when their wearers
>are involved in accidents. Why should there be a correlation between
>helmet wearing and hospital admission? If anything, as helmet wearers
>are less likely to suffer serious head injuries, it is more likely to
>be a negative correlation.

To see why that is not relevant, consider the following case: a hypothetical
device prevents 10% of injuries if a collision occurs but makes a collision
50% more likely to occur. By your reasoning, the device is unequivocally
good. By a more rational set of criteria - outcomes per unit exposure - it
is unequivocally bad.

As it happens the measure of outcomes per unit exposure for cycle helmets
seems to indicate that they are essentially irrelevant. That is not an
acceptable argument for choosing instead the scenario that gives an
unequivocal answer that you like.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Derek C]

On Jul 8, 9:49*am, "Just zis Guy, you know?" >
wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:54:32 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
>
> > wrote:
> >> >That 'few ounces of foam' as you put it, is the essential ingredient
> >> >of motorcycle and motor racing helmets.
>
> >> And of the packaging in which your TV was delivered. How would you
> >> expect it to fare if you ran into it with a car at 30mph? I think the
> >> phrase in common usage here is "all bets are off".
>
> >Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) is still very energy absorbing, which it is
> >why it is used as the liners in motorcycle and motor racing helmets,
> >and for that matter packaging valuable items such as TV sets. The
> >quality of the EPS is likely to be better in crash helmets and cycle
> >helmets.
>
> I saw what you did there. Nice swerve, but as usual you avoided answering
> the question.
>
> >> But do feel free to cite any real cyclist population that can show a
> >> provable improvement in cyclist head injury rates consequent on
> >> increases in helmet use. I know several people who would be happy to
> >> hear about that.
> >All the hospital studies that have compared head and brain injuries
> >for helmet wearers and non-helmet wearers have found that cycle
> >helmets do reduce the severity of injury. If this doesn't show up in
> >population statistics, this is only because the statistics are not
> >accurate or detailed enough.
>
> These studies have also found a protective effect on broken legs, showing
> that their case and control populations are different in more ways than just
> helmet use. Which hospital-based studies do you think correctly and
> accurately control for other differences between the case and control
> populations?
>
> Confounding is a known and documented risk in such studies and it is
> perfectly possible to have a very large number of them conducted over a long
> time by independent teams and for the result still to be completely wrong..
> For example, exactly the same kind of study found with exactly the same
> consistency a protective effect against coronary heart disease from combined
> hormone replacement therapy, but when clinical trials were undertaken the
> relationship identified by the hospital based studies was wrong in both
> magnitude and sign.
>
> Don't forget, you're the one proposing an intervention so the onus is on you
> to prove your case.
>
> Guy

The helmet sceptics such as Guy have developed confusing factors to
almost an art form to avoid admitting that cycle helmets may prevent
or reduce the severity of head injuries.

Derek C

[Derek C]

On Jul 8, 9:49*am, "Just zis Guy, you know?" >
wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:54:32 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
>
> > wrote:
> >> >That 'few ounces of foam' as you put it, is the essential ingredient
> >> >of motorcycle and motor racing helmets.
>
> >> And of the packaging in which your TV was delivered. How would you
> >> expect it to fare if you ran into it with a car at 30mph? I think the
> >> phrase in common usage here is "all bets are off".
>
> >Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) is still very energy absorbing, which it is
> >why it is used as the liners in motorcycle and motor racing helmets,
> >and for that matter packaging valuable items such as TV sets. The
> >quality of the EPS is likely to be better in crash helmets and cycle
> >helmets.
>
> I saw what you did there. Nice swerve, but as usual you avoided answering
> the question.
>
> >> But do feel free to cite any real cyclist population that can show a
> >> provable improvement in cyclist head injury rates consequent on
> >> increases in helmet use. I know several people who would be happy to
> >> hear about that.
> >All the hospital studies that have compared head and brain injuries
> >for helmet wearers and non-helmet wearers have found that cycle
> >helmets do reduce the severity of injury. If this doesn't show up in
> >population statistics, this is only because the statistics are not
> >accurate or detailed enough.
>
> These studies have also found a protective effect on broken legs, showing
> that their case and control populations are different in more ways than just
> helmet use. Which hospital-based studies do you think correctly and
> accurately control for other differences between the case and control
> populations?
>
> Confounding is a known and documented risk in such studies and it is
> perfectly possible to have a very large number of them conducted over a long
> time by independent teams and for the result still to be completely wrong..
> For example, exactly the same kind of study found with exactly the same
> consistency a protective effect against coronary heart disease from combined
> hormone replacement therapy, but when clinical trials were undertaken the
> relationship identified by the hospital based studies was wrong in both
> magnitude and sign.
>
> Don't forget, you're the one proposing an intervention so the onus is on you
> to prove your case.
>
> Guy

The helmet sceptics such as Guy have developed confusing factors to
almost an art form to avoid admitting that cycle helmets may prevent
or reduce the severity of head injuries.

Derek C

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 09:17:54 +0100, "The Todal" > wrote:

>I have never heard of the CTC. Well, until now. They seem to be some sort
>of organisation to promote cycling. They don't publish any law reports.

CTC is the UK's national cyclists' organisation. It also oversees the
Cyclists' Defence Fund, set up when a driver's insurers tried to counter-sue
parents for allowing their child to ride a bicycle on a road.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4554

>> The driver was Denis Moore, the cyclist James Jorgensen, and it
>> happened in September 2008 on a roundabout in Seaham, County Durham.
>> I await your apology.

>You might want to apologise for failing to offer an URL. However, I still
>don't believe you, and I don't believe the various excitable cycling groups
>who have complained about the decision. There seems to be no proper
>transcript anywhere of the judge's sentencing remarks. I therefore take the
>view, at this point, that a sleepy and inexperienced journalist started this
>particular rumour and it spread among cyclists and cycling groups but it has
>attracted no notice in the legal journals because, um, it's not actually
>true.

It's not very hard to find the case given both names. The description is
picturesque but substantially accurate. The driver in question had never
held a valid driving license.

<http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/05/09/killer-driver-denis-moore-escapes-jail-61634-23580444/>

Given that Jorgensen was dead, I think it's unlikely to be appealed. I
believe an appeal court would not uphold the view that the choice of
headgear by the cyclist was in any way a mitigating factor, but we'll
probably never know.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 01:47:53 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

>> > You only find out how effective helmets really are when their wearers
>> > are involved in accidents.

>> How do you do that? *Do you go back and repeat the accident without a
>> helmet to see what the outcome would have been without the helmet?

>Well that would be the ideal control, but not practical in the real
>world. If you study a large number of accidents, any differences in
>their severity would cancel out.

Indeed. And in the real world what we find is that there is no correlation
between helmet use and injury rates.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[The Todal]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 09:17:54 +0100, "The Todal" >
> wrote:
>
>> I have never heard of the CTC. Well, until now. They seem to be
>> some sort of organisation to promote cycling. They don't publish any
>> law reports.
>
> CTC is the UK's national cyclists' organisation. It also oversees the
> Cyclists' Defence Fund, set up when a driver's insurers tried to
> counter-sue parents for allowing their child to ride a bicycle on a
> road.
>
> http://www.ctc.org.uk/
> http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4554

Yes, I had found that website.


>
>>> The driver was Denis Moore, the cyclist James Jorgensen, and it
>>> happened in September 2008 on a roundabout in Seaham, County Durham.
>>> I await your apology.
>
>> You might want to apologise for failing to offer an URL. However, I
>> still don't believe you, and I don't believe the various excitable
>> cycling groups who have complained about the decision. There seems
>> to be no proper transcript anywhere of the judge's sentencing
>> remarks. I therefore take the view, at this point, that a sleepy
>> and inexperienced journalist started this particular rumour and it
>> spread among cyclists and cycling groups but it has attracted no
>> notice in the legal journals because, um, it's not actually true.
>
> It's not very hard to find the case given both names.

It is easy to find lots of rubbish news reports. No reputable reports that I
can see. Do I need to explain the difference?

The description
> is picturesque but substantially accurate. The driver in question had
> never held a valid driving license.
>
> http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/05/09/killer-driver-denis-moore-escapes-jail-61634-23580444/

That's an example of a rubbish news report. Done in haste by a non-lawyer
to sell newspapers.

>
> Given that Jorgensen was dead, I think it's unlikely to be appealed.

Non sequitur. His death is not relevant. The prosecution would have
appealed it if it was a perverse decision, and the story as reported is a
perverse decision. Therefore the report is likely to be false.

> I
> believe an appeal court would not uphold the view that the choice of
> headgear by the cyclist was in any way a mitigating factor, but we'll
> probably never know.

If the story was accurate (and I reiterate that I have seen no reference to
it in the Times or any legal journals) even if there had been no appeal the
judge would have been reprimanded in the same way as Cherie Blair when she
gave a devout Muslim a more lenient sentence because he was a religious
person.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 02:01:13 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

>The helmet sceptics such as Guy have developed confusing factors to
>almost an art form to avoid admitting that cycle helmets may prevent
>or reduce the severity of head injuries.

I saw what you did there, using the term "helmet sceptic" in order to poison
the well. That's fallacious, it also ignores the fact that scepticism is the
default in the scientific method.

But your reply does illustrate one important point: you obviously seek to
achieve "clarity" and in order to do so you ignore all evidence that does
not support your desired conclusion. That is common in helmet advocates.
Unfortunately the real world is rather more complex, with the result that
clarity is absent. As an aside, many of the helmet sceptics you denigrate
were previously helmet advocates until they studies the evidence (something
you appear not to have done in any detail).

The lack of clarity in the real world would be less important were it not
for people like you who reverse the burden of proof and insist that people
who have read more widely and understood the conflicting evidence are in
some way promoting an agenda against you.

You're the one proposing an intervention, the onus is on you to prove your
case. You could start by citing the studies that in your opinion properly
control for confounding factors.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Derek C]

On Jul 8, 10:09*am, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 01:47:53 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
>
> > wrote:
> >> > You only find out how effective helmets really are when their wearers
> >> > are involved in accidents.
> >> How do you do that? *Do you go back and repeat the accident without a
> >> helmet to see what the outcome would have been without the helmet?
> >Well that would be the ideal control, but not practical in the real
> >world. If you study a large number of accidents, any differences in
> >their severity would cancel out.
>
> Indeed. And in the real world what we find is that there is no correlation
> between helmet use and injury rates.
>
> Guy

So you keep claiming, despite all the evidence that wearing a cycle
helmet reduces the risk of serious head injury.

Derek C

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 10:14:01 +0100, "The Todal" > wrote:

>> It's not very hard to find the case given both names.

>It is easy to find lots of rubbish news reports. No reputable reports that I
>can see. Do I need to explain the difference?

This is x-posted to uk.rec.cycling, most of us don't have access to
Lexis-Nexis. You have the name of the case and the judge, I'd have thought
this would be considered at least marginally helpful. I am sure you are not
one to demand spoon-feeding.

> The description
>> is picturesque but substantially accurate. The driver in question had
>> never held a valid driving license.
>>
>> http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/05/09/killer-driver-denis-moore-escapes-jail-61634-23580444/
>
>That's an example of a rubbish news report. Done in haste by a non-lawyer
>to sell newspapers.

There are many such "rubbish news reports" in substantial agreement.

>> Given that Jorgensen was dead, I think it's unlikely to be appealed.

>Non sequitur. His death is not relevant. The prosecution would have
>appealed it if it was a perverse decision, and the story as reported is a
>perverse decision. Therefore the report is likely to be false.

The prosecution was the Crown. The Crown has a long history of not looking
after the rights of cyclists (see R v. Cadden and subsequent appeal), and of
not caring overmuch about niceties when an appeal will cost money.

I know what you are saying here, but as far as I can tell from a number of
independent reports the facts of the case are exactly as stated: the court
claimed that Jorgensen's failure to wear a helmet was a mitigating factor in
sentencing Moore, a man who had been driving for eight years without a valid
license and who had killed another road user through negligence.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Derek C wrote:
> On Jul 8, 8:57 am, Tony Raven > wrote:
>> Derek C wrote:
>>
>>> You only find out how effective helmets really are when their wearers
>>> are involved in accidents.
>> How do you do that? Do you go back and repeat the accident without a
>> helmet to see what the outcome would have been without the helmet?
>>
>> --
>> Tony
>>
> Well that would be the ideal control, but not practical in the real
> world. If you study a large number of accidents, any differences in
> their severity would cancel out.
>


Oh, you mean look at the population statistics! What a good ideas.
Can't think why I didn't think of that. I wonder what they show.


--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> To see why that is not relevant, consider the following case: a hypothetical
> device prevents 10% of injuries if a collision occurs but makes a collision
> 50% more likely to occur. By your reasoning, the device is unequivocally
> good.

Not quite. By Derek's reasoning, if its a cycling helmet its
unequivocally good (because it might reduce injuries if a collision
occurs) but if its a gliding helmet its unequivocally bad (because it
makes accidents more likely to occur). Consistency is not one of his
strong points though.


--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 02:33:42 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

>> >> > You only find out how effective helmets really are when their wearers
>> >> > are involved in accidents.
>> >> How do you do that? *Do you go back and repeat the accident without a
>> >> helmet to see what the outcome would have been without the helmet?
>> >Well that would be the ideal control, but not practical in the real
>> >world. If you study a large number of accidents, any differences in
>> >their severity would cancel out.

>> Indeed. And in the real world what we find is that there is no correlation
>> between helmet use and injury rates.

>So you keep claiming, despite all the evidence that wearing a cycle
>helmet reduces the risk of serious head injury.

Really? What evidence is there that wearing a helmet reduces your risk of
serious head injury? Please cite the cyclist population that shows a
provable reduction in head injury rates consequent on increases in helmet
use. As far as I'm aware the only evidence which unequivocally makes the
case you state is based solely on collision outcomes, fails to correct
accurately for differences between case and control groups, and fails to
account for any effect on the likelihood of the collision happening in the
first place. Do feel free to post this evidence you have that shows,
unequivocally, that the risk of head injury on a randomly selected cycle
journey is reduced by wearing a helmet. There are a lot of people who would
like to see that evidence.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Derek C]

On Jul 8, 10:35*am, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 10:14:01 +0100, "The Todal" > wrote:
> >> It's not very hard to find the case given both names.
> >It is easy to find lots of rubbish news reports. No reputable reports that I
> >can see. Do I need to explain the difference?
>
> This is x-posted to uk.rec.cycling, most of us don't have access to
> Lexis-Nexis. You have the name of the case and the judge, I'd have thought
> this would be considered at least marginally helpful. I am sure you are not
> one to demand spoon-feeding.
>
> > The description
> >> is picturesque but substantially accurate. The driver in question had
> >> never held a valid driving license.
>
> >>http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/05/09/k....
>
> >That's an example of a rubbish news report. *Done in haste by a non-lawyer
> >to sell newspapers.
>
> There are many such "rubbish news reports" in substantial agreement.
>
> >> Given that Jorgensen was dead, I think it's unlikely to be appealed.
> >Non sequitur. His death is not relevant. *The prosecution would have
> >appealed it if it was a perverse decision, and the story as reported is a
> >perverse decision. Therefore the report is likely to be false.
>
> The prosecution was the Crown. The Crown has a long history of not looking
> after the rights of cyclists (see R v. Cadden and subsequent appeal), and of
> not caring overmuch about niceties when an appeal will cost money.
>
> I know what you are saying here, but as far as I can tell from a number of
> independent reports the facts of the case are exactly as stated: the court
> claimed that Jorgensen's failure to wear a helmet was a mitigating factor in
> sentencing Moore, a man who had been driving for eight years without a valid
> license and who had killed another road user through negligence.
>
> Guy

From the reported circumstances of the accident, it sounds as though
the cyclist may well have survived relatively ininjured if he had been
wearing a cycle helmet. The driver only held a provisional licence, so
should not have been driving unsupervised. However there is no proof
that this contributed to the accident, as he seems to have driven
safely (if illegally) for eight years prior to the accident and was
therefore not inexperienced.

Derek C

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 02:50:33 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

>From the reported circumstances of the accident, it sounds as though
>the cyclist may well have survived relatively ininjured if he had been
>wearing a cycle helmet.

Really? You think a cycle helmet has the ability to mitigate forces
sufficient to cause death? I'd strongly advise you to revise your assessment
down or you are likely to seriously overcompensate for the abilities of your
helmet.

I am only aware of one study that actually investigated this precise subject
in detail, carrying out autopsies on a number of deceased cyclists for whom
cause of death was listed as head injury. Of these, the only one who did not
have other mortal injuries as well, was wearing a helmet at the time.

I do not think that any cycle helmet manufacturer in the world claims that
their products are capable of withstanding lethal forces. In fact the most
common cause of serious and fatal brain injury is diffuse axonal injury
which is caused by rotational forces against which helmets have no known
protective effect. Even the autopsy report would not necessarily help in
identifying if that were the case as it's unlikely that it would separately
identify DAI - this is why The Todal is right to want a full court
transcript,so we can see if the specific issue of rotational injury was
considered. I think it probably was not, the judge's view as summarised in
the news reports seems pretty simplistic.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Derek C]

On Jul 8, 10:57*am, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 02:50:33 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
>
> > wrote:
> >From the reported circumstances of the accident, it sounds as though
> >the cyclist may well have survived relatively ininjured if he had been
> >wearing a cycle helmet.
>
> Really? You think a cycle helmet has the ability to mitigate forces
> sufficient to cause death? I'd strongly advise you to revise your assessment
> down or you are likely to seriously overcompensate for the abilities of your
> helmet.
>
> I am only aware of one study that actually investigated this precise subject
> in detail, carrying out autopsies on a number of deceased cyclists for whom
> cause of death was listed as head injury. Of these, the only one who did not
> have other mortal injuries as well, was wearing a helmet at the time.
>
> I do not think that any cycle helmet manufacturer in the world claims that
> their products are capable of withstanding lethal forces. In fact the most
> common cause of serious and fatal brain injury is diffuse axonal injury
> which is caused by rotational forces against which helmets have no known
> protective effect. Even the autopsy report would not necessarily help in
> identifying if that were the case as it's unlikely that it would separately
> identify DAI - this is why The Todal is right to want a full court
> transcript,so we can see if the specific issue of rotational injury was
> considered. I think it probably was not, the judge's view as summarised in
> the news reports seems pretty simplistic.
>
> Guy

According to the helmet sceptic arguments, rotational injuries to the
brain are not possible for bare headed riders because the scalp slides
so easily over tarmaced and paved surfaces!

Derek C

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 03:10:57 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

>> Really? You think a cycle helmet has the ability to mitigate forces
>> sufficient to cause death? I'd strongly advise you to revise your assessment
>> down or you are likely to seriously overcompensate for the abilities of your
>> helmet.
>>
>> I am only aware of one study that actually investigated this precise subject
>> in detail, carrying out autopsies on a number of deceased cyclists for whom
>> cause of death was listed as head injury. Of these, the only one who did not
>> have other mortal injuries as well, was wearing a helmet at the time.
>>
>> I do not think that any cycle helmet manufacturer in the world claims that
>> their products are capable of withstanding lethal forces. In fact the most
>> common cause of serious and fatal brain injury is diffuse axonal injury
>> which is caused by rotational forces against which helmets have no known
>> protective effect. Even the autopsy report would not necessarily help in
>> identifying if that were the case as it's unlikely that it would separately
>> identify DAI - this is why The Todal is right to want a full court
>> transcript,so we can see if the specific issue of rotational injury was
>> considered. I think it probably was not, the judge's view as summarised in
>> the news reports seems pretty simplistic.

>According to the helmet sceptic arguments, rotational injuries to the
>brain are not possible for bare headed riders because the scalp slides
>so easily over tarmaced and paved surfaces!

Feel free to post the message ID where that was said. Unless of course it's
yet another straw man.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[JMS]

On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 10:17:09 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 02:01:13 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:
>
>>The helmet sceptics such as Guy have developed confusing factors to
>>almost an art form to avoid admitting that cycle helmets may prevent
>>or reduce the severity of head injuries.
>
>I saw what you did there, using the term "helmet sceptic" in order to poison
>the well. That's fallacious, it also ignores the fact that scepticism is the
>default in the scientific method.

Hello Porky

How you started wearing your helmet yet?
Who was it told you that you *must* start wearing it?

--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.

[Ian Smith]

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Derek C > wrote:
>
> According to the helmet sceptic arguments, rotational injuries to the
> brain are not possible for bare headed riders because the scalp slides
> so easily over tarmaced and paved surfaces!

Does lying about what people have said make you feel clever, Derek?

It makes you look like a pathetic, snivelling rat.


--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[JMS]

On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 10:02:13 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 09:17:54 +0100, "The Todal" > wrote:
>
>>I have never heard of the CTC. Well, until now. They seem to be some sort
>>of organisation to promote cycling. They don't publish any law reports.
>
>CTC is the UK's national cyclists' organisation. It also oversees the
>Cyclists' Defence Fund, set up when a driver's insurers tried to counter-sue
>parents for allowing their child to ride a bicycle on a road.
>
>http://www.ctc.org.uk/
>http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4554

They are also the people who published (with others) a leaflet
entitled :
"7 REASONS TO OPPOSE A CHILD HELMET LAW".

There were complaints to the ASA about the leaflet and more than half
of those complaints were upheld as misleading or just plain wrong.

>It's not very hard to find the case given both names.

It is very hard to find anything authoritative about the case.

There seemed to be a single report in a local paper which was then
latched on to by a ragbag of "cyclist's organisations" including the
august body the CTC.

It's very odd - it didn't even make the national press (as far as I
can see)

[The Todal]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 10:14:01 +0100, "The Todal" >
> wrote:
>
>>> It's not very hard to find the case given both names.
>
>> It is easy to find lots of rubbish news reports. No reputable
>> reports that I can see. Do I need to explain the difference?
>
> This is x-posted to uk.rec.cycling, most of us don't have access to
> Lexis-Nexis. You have the name of the case and the judge, I'd have
> thought this would be considered at least marginally helpful. I am
> sure you are not one to demand spoon-feeding.

I appreciate that many laymen are under the mistaken impression that every
hearing in the magistrates court and in the crown court gets reported in
legal journals. I thought perhaps you were better informed. Lexis-Nexis
does not report any criminal hearings unless (a) they go to the Court of
Criminal Appeal and (b) they are important legal precedents.

There is nothing about this case in Lexis-Nexis.

>
>> The description
>>> is picturesque but substantially accurate. The driver in question
>>> had never held a valid driving license.
>>>
>>> http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/05/09/killer-driver-denis-moore-escapes-jail-61634-23580444/
>>
>> That's an example of a rubbish news report. Done in haste by a
>> non-lawyer to sell newspapers.
>
> There are many such "rubbish news reports" in substantial agreement.

Speaks volumes about how our press works, eh. A report which I can now
cautiously assert is largely fictitious has spread from one cycling website
to another, attracting lots of indignant comments. One might perhaps have
predicted that a newspaper columnist such as Richard Littlejohn or Amanda
Platel could have seized on such a case and publicised it because it falls
into their favourite category of Stupid Judges Out of Touch with Public
Opinion but I don't think you'll find that they have mentioned it anywhere.

So we're left with the Bellman's famous remark, "what I tell you three times
is true". That may be good enough for some folks. Maybe it's even truer
if fifty people say it three times.


>
>>> Given that Jorgensen was dead, I think it's unlikely to be appealed.
>
>> Non sequitur. His death is not relevant. The prosecution would have
>> appealed it if it was a perverse decision, and the story as reported
>> is a perverse decision. Therefore the report is likely to be false.
>
> The prosecution was the Crown. The Crown has a long history of not
> looking after the rights of cyclists (see R v. Cadden and subsequent
> appeal), and of not caring overmuch about niceties when an appeal
> will cost money.

Do please supply a transcript of the judgment in R. v Cadden. Oh, no, you
can't, can you. Again, the judgment of a crown court judge isn't in the
public domain, though if Mr Cadden has authorised his legal team to make the
transcript public I suppose it could be available through cycling pressure
groups. I'm afraid that in the scheme of things it is as unimportant as a
conviction for dropping litter.

A long history of not looking after the rights of cyclists? Well, I've
never noticed that, and I still can't see it.

>
> I know what you are saying here, but as far as I can tell from a
> number of independent reports the facts of the case are exactly as
> stated: the court claimed that Jorgensen's failure to wear a helmet
> was a mitigating factor in sentencing Moore, a man who had been
> driving for eight years without a valid license and who had killed
> another road user through negligence.

I don't believe the judge made any such finding, but it is a really useful
grievance to use as the basis of a campaign for cyclists rights. Is not the
miracle of the juniper bushes enough?

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 12:25:11 +0100, "The Todal" > wrote:

>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 10:14:01 +0100, "The Todal" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> It's not very hard to find the case given both names.
>>
>>> It is easy to find lots of rubbish news reports. No reputable
>>> reports that I can see. Do I need to explain the difference?
>>
>> This is x-posted to uk.rec.cycling, most of us don't have access to
>> Lexis-Nexis. You have the name of the case and the judge, I'd have
>> thought this would be considered at least marginally helpful. I am
>> sure you are not one to demand spoon-feeding.
>
>I appreciate that many laymen are under the mistaken impression that every
>hearing in the magistrates court and in the crown court gets reported in
>legal journals. I thought perhaps you were better informed. Lexis-Nexis
>does not report any criminal hearings unless (a) they go to the Court of
>Criminal Appeal and (b) they are important legal precedents.

Alternative interpretation: I don't know the name of the system you would
use to access full court proceedings.

>There is nothing about this case in Lexis-Nexis.

Fine.

>> There are many such "rubbish news reports" in substantial agreement.
>Speaks volumes about how our press works, eh. A report which I can now
>cautiously assert is largely fictitious has spread from one cycling website
>to another, attracting lots of indignant comments. One might perhaps have
>predicted that a newspaper columnist such as Richard Littlejohn or Amanda
>Platel could have seized on such a case and publicised it because it falls
>into their favourite category of Stupid Judges Out of Touch with Public
>Opinion but I don't think you'll find that they have mentioned it anywhere.

You use this word fictitious, but it's in all the primary sources (news
reports taken from the court proceedings) so on what basis do you assert
that it's fiction?

>> The prosecution was the Crown. The Crown has a long history of not
>> looking after the rights of cyclists (see R v. Cadden and subsequent
>> appeal), and of not caring overmuch about niceties when an appeal
>> will cost money.

>Do please supply a transcript of the judgment in R. v Cadden. Oh, no, you
>can't, can you.

I think I can but it will take some time. It was handled on appeal by the
Cyclists' Defence Fund so I may be able to use my contacts there to get full
text. The judgment was overturned on appeal.

Here's commentary from a QC published in a law journal, will that do?
<http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/culture-clash>

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Derek C]

On Jul 8, 11:52*am, Ian Smith > wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
>
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Derek C > wrote:
>
> > *According to the helmet sceptic arguments, rotational injuries to the
> > *brain are not possible for bare headed riders because the scalp slides
> > *so easily over tarmaced and paved surfaces!
>
> Does lying about what people have said make you feel clever, Derek?
>
> It makes you look like a pathetic, snivelling rat.
>
> --
Kettle, pot?

[thirty-six]

On 8 July, 03:29, "mileburner" > wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
>
> > All the hospital studies that have compared head and brain injuries
> > for helmet wearers and non-helmet wearers have found that cycle
> > helmets do reduce the severity of injury. If this doesn't show up in
> > population statistics, this is only because the statistics are not
> > accurate or detailed enough.
>
> What the above appears to imply is that: if you are going to bash your head
> to the extent of needing a hospital visit, you are best off doing it while
> wearing a helmet.

In which case you can get an adult helmet for 3.99 and a child helmet
for 2.99 at home bargains. They've also got a track pump for not
much, repair kits and lights, bells, tools.
>
> I think even Guy would agree with that?

[Derek C]

On Jul 8, 3:24*am, "mileburner" > wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
> >> Hospital studies only count the people who have accidents and go to
> >> hospital both of which will be correlated to helmet wearing.
>
> > You only find out how effective helmets really are when their wearers
> > are involved in accidents. Why should there be a correlation between
> > helmet wearing and hospital admission? If anything, as helmet wearers
> > are less likely to suffer serious head injuries, it is more likely to
> > be a negative correlation.
>
> I think that you have already fessed-up that you:
>
> a] Wear a helmet.
> b] Fall off bikes.
>
> It also stands to reason that the less competent one is, and the more prone
> to accidents one is, the more benefit (either real or perceived) there is
> likely to be from wearing one.

So can you guarantee not to be involved in an accident caused by a
less competent motorist/motorcyclist/HGV driver/pedestrian?

Derek C

[mileburner]

Derek C wrote:
> On Jul 8, 3:24 am, "mileburner" > wrote:
>> Derek C wrote:
>>>> Hospital studies only count the people who have accidents and go to
>>>> hospital both of which will be correlated to helmet wearing.
>>
>>> You only find out how effective helmets really are when their
>>> wearers are involved in accidents. Why should there be a
>>> correlation between helmet wearing and hospital admission? If
>>> anything, as helmet wearers are less likely to suffer serious head
>>> injuries, it is more likely to be a negative correlation.
>>
>> I think that you have already fessed-up that you:
>>
>> a] Wear a helmet.
>> b] Fall off bikes.
>>
>> It also stands to reason that the less competent one is, and the
>> more prone to accidents one is, the more benefit (either real or
>> perceived) there is likely to be from wearing one.
>
> So can you guarantee not to be involved in an accident caused by a
> less competent motorist/motorcyclist/HGV driver/pedestrian?

I can guarantee death. I can guarantee taxes but if you ride, drive (or even
fly aircraft) skillfully and carefully you are unlikely to ever need a
helmet.

If however, you ride like a ****, drive like a **** (and fly round in
circles just under the cloud base on a hot summers day) a helmet might help
if you head gets struck.

[Derek C]

On Jul 12, 11:16*am, "mileburner" > wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
> > On Jul 8, 3:24 am, "mileburner" > wrote:
> >> Derek C wrote:
> >>>> Hospital studies only count the people who have accidents and go to
> >>>> hospital both of which will be correlated to helmet wearing.
>
> >>> You only find out how effective helmets really are when their
> >>> wearers are involved in accidents. Why should there be a
> >>> correlation between helmet wearing and hospital admission? If
> >>> anything, as helmet wearers are less likely to suffer serious head
> >>> injuries, it is more likely to be a negative correlation.
>
> >> I think that you have already fessed-up that you:
>
> >> a] Wear a helmet.
> >> b] Fall off bikes.
>
> >> It also stands to reason that the less competent one is, and the
> >> more prone to accidents one is, the more benefit (either real or
> >> perceived) there is likely to be from wearing one.
>
> > So can you guarantee not to be involved in an accident caused by a
> > less competent motorist/motorcyclist/HGV driver/pedestrian?
>
> I can guarantee death. I can guarantee taxes but if you ride, drive (or even
> fly aircraft) skillfully and carefully you are unlikely to ever need a
> helmet.
>
> If however, you ride like a ****, drive like a **** (and fly round in
> circles just under the cloud base on a hot summers day) a helmet might help
> if you head gets struck.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Abusive language like that usually means that the poster has lost the
argument!

One of the times I fell off my bike was when I was struck a glancing
blow from behind by an overtaking truck that didn't allow me enough
space. Apart from a few bruises I was pretty much uninjured, but
another cyclist who was following me reckoned I was extremely lucky to
be alive, expecially as I narrowly missed bashing my head against a
rather solid piece of cast iron street furniture as I fell off. On
another occasion I departed a motorcycle after being rear ended by an
extremely inebriated motorist.

It doesn't matter how competent and careful you are, you are always at
risk from the actions and mistakes of others, plus technical failures.

Derek C

[mileburner]

Derek C wrote:
> On Jul 12, 11:16 am, "mileburner" > wrote:
>> Derek C wrote:
>>
>>> So can you guarantee not to be involved in an accident caused by a
>>> less competent motorist/motorcyclist/HGV driver/pedestrian?
>>
>> I can guarantee death. I can guarantee taxes but if you ride, drive
>> (or even fly aircraft) skillfully and carefully you are unlikely to
>> ever need a helmet.
>>
>> If however, you ride like a ****, drive like a **** (and fly round in
>> circles just under the cloud base on a hot summers day) a helmet
>> might help if you head gets struck.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Abusive language like that usually means that the poster has lost the
> argument!

Was there an argument? Sorry but I must have missed it. You asked a
question, I gave an answer.

> One of the times I fell off my bike was when I was struck a glancing
> blow from behind by an overtaking truck that didn't allow me enough
> space.

This generally happens if you ride too close to the kerb. If you rode
further out any would-be overtaking truck driver would not be tempted to
squeeze by.

Apart from a few bruises I was pretty much uninjured, but
> another cyclist who was following me reckoned I was extremely lucky to
> be alive, expecially as I narrowly missed bashing my head against a
> rather solid piece of cast iron street furniture as I fell off. On
> another occasion I departed a motorcycle after being rear ended by an
> extremely inebriated motorist.

A lot of collisions you can avoid from happening. Some you can't. It is no
surprise that young men (who are notorious for driving like ****s) have
considerably higher motor insurance premiums than older people who are
notorious for driving slowly, carefully and considerably.

> It doesn't matter how competent and careful you are, you are always at
> risk from the actions and mistakes of others, plus technical failures.

There is always a risk. You can reduce that risk by better riding skills.
You can reduce the risk of serious head injury by wearing protective head
wear. And you can reduce that risk by taking more responsibility for
yourself.

[Derek C]

On Jul 12, 1:59*pm, "mileburner" > wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 11:16 am, "mileburner" > wrote:
> >> Derek C wrote:
>
> >>> So can you guarantee not to be involved in an accident caused by a
> >>> less competent motorist/motorcyclist/HGV driver/pedestrian?
>
> >> I can guarantee death. I can guarantee taxes but if you ride, drive
> >> (or even fly aircraft) skillfully and carefully you are unlikely to
> >> ever need a helmet.
>
> >> If however, you ride like a ****, drive like a **** (and fly round in
> >> circles just under the cloud base on a hot summers day) a helmet
> >> might help if you head gets struck.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Abusive language like that usually means that the poster has lost the
> > argument!
>
> Was there an argument? Sorry but I must have missed it. You asked a
> question, I gave an answer.
>
> > One of the times I fell off my bike was when I was struck a glancing
> > blow from behind by an overtaking truck that didn't allow me enough
> > space.
>
> This generally happens if you ride too close to the kerb. If you rode
> further out any would-be overtaking truck driver would not be tempted to
> squeeze by.
>
For the record I was riding in the recommended position of about 1
metre out from the kerb. The truck would have probably missed me
altogether if I had been riding closer in!

Derek C

[mileburner]

Derek C wrote:
>>
>> This generally happens if you ride too close to the kerb. If you rode
>> further out any would-be overtaking truck driver would not be
>> tempted to squeeze by.
>>
> For the record I was riding in the recommended position of about 1
> metre out from the kerb. The truck would have probably missed me
> altogether if I had been riding closer in!

You don't ride very much do you? <rhetorical><rolls eyes>

If there is not enough room to be passed safely, you need to either:

[1] Slow down pull over to the edge and wave the traffic by.

or

[2] Ride far enough out that the traffic cannot get by. 1 metre out is
rarely enough to do this. You need to be at least a 3rd of the way into the
lane or bang in the centre.

Pootling along a metre (or less) away from the kerb and most drivers will
try to squeeze through if there is oncoming traffic.

People who ride like this end up as statistics.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 03:56:47 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

>Abusive language like that usually means that the poster has lost the
>argument!

Agreed, which is why people stopped taking you seriously when you joined
judith's chorus of "psycholist".

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[JNugent[_7_]]

mileburner wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
>> On Jul 8, 3:24 am, "mileburner" > wrote:
>>> Derek C wrote:
>>>>> Hospital studies only count the people who have accidents and go to
>>>>> hospital both of which will be correlated to helmet wearing.
>>>> You only find out how effective helmets really are when their
>>>> wearers are involved in accidents. Why should there be a
>>>> correlation between helmet wearing and hospital admission? If
>>>> anything, as helmet wearers are less likely to suffer serious head
>>>> injuries, it is more likely to be a negative correlation.
>>> I think that you have already fessed-up that you:
>>>
>>> a] Wear a helmet.
>>> b] Fall off bikes.
>>>
>>> It also stands to reason that the less competent one is, and the
>>> more prone to accidents one is, the more benefit (either real or
>>> perceived) there is likely to be from wearing one.
>> So can you guarantee not to be involved in an accident caused by a
>> less competent motorist/motorcyclist/HGV driver/pedestrian?
>
> I can guarantee death. I can guarantee taxes but if you ride, drive (or even
> fly aircraft) skillfully and carefully you are unlikely to ever need a
> helmet.

I think you can go further than that.

I can't remember which of my cars was the first fitted with airbags, but
certainly, none of them have ever gone off. I've never been saved from facial
or other frontal injury by my seatbelt either (I started wearing it only when
it became compulsory), and I think it reasonable to assert that if you or
anyone else drove as carefully as me, "you are unlikely to ever need" an air
bag or a seat belt.

But we have them just the same.

And the reason for that is not that any one given person is likely to need
them, but because some relatively small number of currently-unidentifiable
persons *will definitely* need them, in that they will be saved by them
either from death or from a more serious injury than they actually receive.

Come to think of it, the laws on drink-driving exist for the same reason: it
isn't that anyone is guaranteed to have an accident if driving or riding a
motor-bike shortly after consuming (say) four pints of beer. In fact, most
people doing exactly that will not have an accident. The protective element
of the law is aimed at the unidentifiable few who might have an accident, in
thier own interest and that of anyone else who may be involved.

> If however, you ride like a ****, drive like a **** (and fly round in
> circles just under the cloud base on a hot summers day) a helmet might help
> if you head gets struck.

Of course, taking your "argument" as it is put, and drawing logical
conclusions from it, you must/should be against the breathalyser laws as
well, because they are founded on the same principle as any future
requirement for cycling helmets.

[mileburner]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 03:56:47 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> > wrote:
>
>>Abusive language like that usually means that the poster has lost the
>>argument!
>
> Agreed, which is why people stopped taking you seriously when you joined
> judith's chorus of "psycholist".

Altogether now... PSYYYYYCHOLIST.

I have said before that I find the phrase quite amusing. However Derek finds
it abusive when someone suggests that he might need a helmet if he drives
like a ****. I wonder why that it? Personally I would take such a suggestion
as good advice.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

mileburner wrote:
>
> You don't ride very much do you? <rhetorical><rolls eyes>
>
> If there is not enough room to be passed safely, you need to either:
>
> [1] Slow down pull over to the edge and wave the traffic by.
>
> or
>
> [2] Ride far enough out that the traffic cannot get by. 1 metre out is
> rarely enough to do this. You need to be at least a 3rd of the way into the
> lane or bang in the centre.
>
> Pootling along a metre (or less) away from the kerb and most drivers will
> try to squeeze through if there is oncoming traffic.
>
> People who ride like this end up as statistics.
>
>

Yes but Derek doesn't need any cycle training, he's got a helmet to
protect him ;-)

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[Derek C]

On Jul 12, 6:04*pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
> mileburner wrote:
>
> > You don't ride very much do you? <rhetorical><rolls eyes>
>
> > If there is not enough room to be passed safely, you need to either:
>
> > [1] Slow down pull over to the edge and wave the traffic by.
>
> > or
>
> > [2] Ride far enough out that the traffic cannot get by. 1 metre out is
> > rarely enough to do this. You need to be at least a 3rd of the way into the
> > lane or bang in the centre.
>
> > Pootling along a metre (or less) away from the kerb and most drivers will
> > try to squeeze through if there is oncoming traffic.
>
> > People who ride like this end up as statistics.
>
> Yes but Derek doesn't need any cycle training, he's got a helmet to
> protect him ;-)
>
> --
> Tony
>

I got my cycle training and proficiency certificate at the age of
eleven thanks. I have been wearing a cycle helmet since the late
1980s, since when I have not had any significant cycling injuries, so
they must work!

Derek C

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Derek C wrote:
>
>
> I got my cycle training and proficiency certificate at the age of
> eleven thanks.

Yes, well perhaps its time you did a skills updating course then.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[Derek C]

On Jul 12, 6:02*pm, "mileburner" > wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in messagenews:qsgm36h50493lvonf6isb899lm6k4qqjq3@4ax .com...
>
> > On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 03:56:47 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> > > wrote:
>
> >>Abusive language like that usually means that the poster has lost the
> >>argument!
>
> > Agreed, which is why people stopped taking you seriously when you joined
> > judith's chorus of "psycholist".
>
> Altogether now... PSYYYYYCHOLIST.
>
> I have said before that I find the phrase quite amusing. However Derek finds
> it abusive when someone suggests that he might need a helmet if he drives
> like a ****. I wonder why that it? Personally I would take such a suggestion
> as good advice.

Try saying that to Mark Webber. I absolve myself from any blame for
the subsequent decking.

Derek C

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, Derek C > wrote:
> Abusive language like that usually means that the poster has lost the
> argument!

Message-ID:
>
From: Derek C >
> Have you always been a stupid c*nt?



--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[mileburner]

"Ian Smith" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, Derek C > wrote:
>> Abusive language like that usually means that the poster has lost the
>> argument!
>
> Message-ID:
> >
> From: Derek C >
>> Have you always been a stupid c*nt?

Oh the irony. And I wasn't even calling him a stupid **** I was just using a
term of phrase.

The lady doth protest...

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Derek C wrote:
>>
>> I have said before that I find the phrase quite amusing. However
>> Derek finds it abusive when someone suggests that he might need a
>> helmet if he drives like a ****. I wonder why that it? Personally I
>> would take such a suggestion as good advice.
>
> Try saying that to Mark Webber. I absolve myself from any blame for
> the subsequent decking.
>

Ah yes I forgot you believe in magical helmets which protect him when:

"Webber's Red Bull catapulted off the back of Heikki Kovalainen's Lotus
and spun in the air before landing upside down, his helmet inches from
the tarmac."

Mark himself speaks on his website about his lack of injury in Valencia.
He says:

"It was my Monte Carlo and Barcelona winning chassis and one which has
secured a lot of pole positions, so the chassis has been good to me, and
it has been good to me today as it saved me from some injures."

No mention at all about helmets then.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[Derek C]

On Jul 12, 8:20*pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
>
> >> I have said before that I find the phrase quite amusing. However
> >> Derek finds it abusive when someone suggests that he might need a
> >> helmet if he drives like a ****. I wonder why that it? Personally I
> >> would take such a suggestion as good advice.
>
> > Try saying that to Mark Webber. I absolve myself from any blame for
> > the subsequent decking.
>
> Ah yes I forgot you believe in magical helmets which protect him when:
>
> "Webber's Red Bull catapulted off the back of Heikki Kovalainen's Lotus
> and spun in the air before landing upside down, his helmet inches from
> the tarmac."
>
> Mark himself speaks on his website about his lack of injury in Valencia.
> * He says:
>
> "It was my Monte Carlo and Barcelona winning chassis and one which has
> secured a lot of pole positions, so the chassis has been good to me, and
> it has been good to me today as it saved me from some injures."
>
> No mention at all about helmets then.
>
> --
> Tony
>
So according to you there is no need for motor racing drivers to wear
crash helmets, because the structure of the vehicle, the full harness
seat belts and the roll hoop will always save them from injury? But
glider pilots should wear helmets, despite the fact that gliders also
have a structure with a hoop and full harness seat belts, unlike
bicycles. Not very consistent are you Tony? And the helmet is
mentioned in the extract above.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Derek C wrote:
>
> So according to you there is no need for motor racing drivers to wear
> crash helmets, because the structure of the vehicle, the full harness
> seat belts and the roll hoop will always save them from injury? But
> glider pilots should wear helmets, despite the fact that gliders also
> have a structure with a hoop and full harness seat belts, unlike
> bicycles. Not very consistent are you Tony? And the helmet is
> mentioned in the extract above.

Not at all but the one example you chose is notable because his helmet
did not hit the tarmac - it missed it by several inches. And yes the
helmet was mentioned in the extract above but only to say it didn't hit
anything!!!

But you are right, glider pilots can easily go as fast as Mark Webber
did and despite the full harness seat belts and roll hoops its clear
that they should be wearing motorsport standard helmets when they fly.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[Derek C]

On Jul 13, 12:24*pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
>
> > So according to you there is no need for motor racing drivers to wear
> > crash helmets, because the structure of the vehicle, the full harness
> > seat belts and the roll hoop will always save them from injury? But
> > glider pilots should wear helmets, despite the fact that gliders also
> > have a structure with a hoop and full harness seat belts, unlike
> > bicycles. Not very consistent are you Tony? And the helmet is
> > mentioned in the extract above.
>
> Not at all but the one example you chose is notable because his helmet
> did not hit the tarmac - it missed it by several inches. *And yes the
> helmet was mentioned in the extract above but only to say it didn't hit
> anything!!!
>
> But you are right, glider pilots can easily go as fast as Mark Webber
> did and despite the full harness seat belts and roll hoops its clear
> that they should be wearing motorsport standard helmets when they fly.
>
> --
Despite the fact that there is no room to fit them in under the
canopies; there is very little to hit up in the sky except other
aircraft, which is why it is necessary to keep a good lookout by
turning your head, which a helmet would interfere with, and only a
very small number of gliding accidents cause head injuries? The Vne
(max speed) of most gliders is in the range 90 - 150knots, which is
somewhat slower than a Red Bull racing car and we normally approach
into wind at about 55 knots airspeed, so the ground speed will be
somewhat less than that.

Derek C

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Derek C wrote:

> Despite the fact that there is no room to fit them in under the
> canopies; there is very little to hit up in the sky except other
> aircraft, which is why it is necessary to keep a good lookout by
> turning your head, which a helmet would interfere with, and only a
> very small number of gliding accidents cause head injuries?

Do you not need to keep a good look out for other drivers in motorsport
then. As for the canopy, design a bigger one. Surely you'd rather put
up with a lower performance glider than risk a head injury from not
wearing a helmet. After all you can never tell what sort of accident
you are going to have and it might just be one of those head injury
producing ones.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[Derek C]

On Jul 13, 6:32*pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
> > Despite the fact that there is no room to fit them in under the
> > canopies; there is very little to hit up in the sky except other
> > aircraft, which is why it is necessary to keep a good lookout by
> > turning your head, which a helmet would interfere with, and only a
> > very small number of gliding accidents cause head injuries?
>
> Do you not need to keep a good look out for other drivers in motorsport
> then. *As for the canopy, design a bigger one. *Surely you'd rather put
> up with a lower performance glider than risk a head injury from not
> wearing a helmet. *After all you can never tell what sort of accident
> you are going to have and it might just be one of those head injury
> producing ones.
>
> --
Yes but the other drivers in a motor race are most likely to be
contained on the track, so are in known positions. One of the problems
with flying is that conflicting traffic can approach you from any
angle, and from above and below. Aircraft that are likely to collide
with you will maintain a constant bearing, so there is no movement to
attract your attention, which is why we have to keep looking in all
directions. We are much more worried about spinal injuries and mid-air
collisions than head injuries when flying gliders, which is why use
energy absorbing seat cushions and wear parachutes rather than crash
helmets, which are impractical for a number of reasons.

Derek C

[Derek C]

On Jul 13, 6:32*pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
> > Despite the fact that there is no room to fit them in under the
> > canopies; there is very little to hit up in the sky except other
> > aircraft, which is why it is necessary to keep a good lookout by
> > turning your head, which a helmet would interfere with, and only a
> > very small number of gliding accidents cause head injuries?
>
> Do you not need to keep a good look out for other drivers in motorsport
> then. *As for the canopy, design a bigger one. *Surely you'd rather put
> up with a lower performance glider than risk a head injury from not
> wearing a helmet. *After all you can never tell what sort of accident
> you are going to have and it might just be one of those head injury
> producing ones.
>
> --
Yes but the other drivers in a motor race are most likely to be
contained on the track, so are in known positions. One of the problems
with flying is that conflicting traffic can approach you from any
angle, and from above and below. Aircraft that are likely to collide
with you will maintain a constant bearing, so there is no movement to
attract your attention, which is why we have to keep looking in all
directions. We are much more worried about spinal injuries and mid-air
collisions than head injuries when flying gliders, which is why use
energy absorbing seat cushions and wear parachutes rather than crash
helmets, which are impractical for a number of reasons.

Derek C

[JMS]

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:33:13 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 03:56:47 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:
>
>>Abusive language like that usually means that the poster has lost the
>>argument!
>
>Agreed, which is why people stopped taking you seriously when you joined
>judith's chorus of "psycholist".
>
>Guy


Hello - it's Porky.

You remind me - I need to provide the monthly updated definition.

Many thanks

--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.