Re: The danger of riding without a helmet

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Derek C wrote:
>
> So do the doctors who treat injured cyclists actually differentiate
> between off road and on road accidents? Hospital admissions are one of
> the sources of road accident data. As usual you are using confounding
> statistical factors to justify your anti-helmet stance!
>


I do love it when you are so sure of yourself and yet so absolutely
provably wrong. You see the difference is I have read the Dinh
publication and you haven't. So I knew it says:

"Inclusion criteria were cyclists admitted from 1991 to 2009, who were
over 16 years of age and involved in an incident on a public road."

and you didn't. As usual you are using your ignorance to justify your
pro-helmet stance!

Tony

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 23/11/2010 22:24, Tony Raven wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
>>
>> So do the doctors who treat injured cyclists actually differentiate
>> between off road and on road accidents? Hospital admissions are one of
>> the sources of road accident data. As usual you are using confounding
>> statistical factors to justify your anti-helmet stance!
>>
>
>
> I do love it when you are so sure of yourself and yet so absolutely
> provably wrong. You see the difference is I have read the Dinh
> publication and you haven't. So I knew it says:
>
> "Inclusion criteria were cyclists admitted from 1991 to 2009, who were
> over 16 years of age and involved in an incident on a public road."
>
> and you didn't. As usual you are using your ignorance to justify your
> pro-helmet stance!


It's like arguing with a homeopath. They can't even understand why their
base premise is wrong and what they have to do to fix that.


- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM7EZxAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/zacH/jMbF64wTkSI9gVBE8FkpKvy
iAi5bonfLy6hbqgGdf+BKGDlOSzY5NX72z7uN7rmrlqhMk2dHK l2kfbw+ICuAs+W
ONWlo8xC6Z0DYnJQKwm14Lm1RKSS4xqWf4OcDQMhGOXZGS78G8 9levjXGVXZybTC
2kFiSPLhpDYve0GDi5f0x3y5M2f55kt6V8ijaT3x5YmFDXhNZC 6vIzfsaheprOpz
B0kcwawOhSLY1R5TP+K9+Zgn+/lYP0Fzu00AbTpdMW3a9NDzaIQnFBjSM6aXGInH
STLn9jBFXvw6y4Jbrir++Ad5T5IKbeFdAkjbCcL4B1dk0DSZ4K 86X2AzxoUvEDw=
=bW8A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Marc[_5_]]

On 23/11/2010 22:55, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 23/11/2010 22:24, Tony Raven wrote:
>> Derek C wrote:
>>>
>>> So do the doctors who treat injured cyclists actually differentiate
>>> between off road and on road accidents? Hospital admissions are one of
>>> the sources of road accident data. As usual you are using confounding
>>> statistical factors to justify your anti-helmet stance!
>>>
>>
>>
>> I do love it when you are so sure of yourself and yet so absolutely
>> provably wrong. You see the difference is I have read the Dinh
>> publication and you haven't. So I knew it says:
>>
>> "Inclusion criteria were cyclists admitted from 1991 to 2009, who were
>> over 16 years of age and involved in an incident on a public road."
>>
>> and you didn't. As usual you are using your ignorance to justify your
>> pro-helmet stance!
>
>
> It's like arguing with a homeopath. They can't even understand why their
> base premise is wrong and what they have to do to fix that.
>
>
You waste time arguing with homeopaths?

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 24/11/2010 05:33, Marc wrote:
> On 23/11/2010 22:55, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 23/11/2010 22:24, Tony Raven wrote:
>>> Derek C wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So do the doctors who treat injured cyclists actually differentiate
>>>> between off road and on road accidents? Hospital admissions are one of
>>>> the sources of road accident data. As usual you are using confounding
>>>> statistical factors to justify your anti-helmet stance!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I do love it when you are so sure of yourself and yet so absolutely
>>> provably wrong. You see the difference is I have read the Dinh
>>> publication and you haven't. So I knew it says:
>>>
>>> "Inclusion criteria were cyclists admitted from 1991 to 2009, who were
>>> over 16 years of age and involved in an incident on a public road."
>>>
>>> and you didn't. As usual you are using your ignorance to justify your
>>> pro-helmet stance!
>>
>>
>> It's like arguing with a homeopath. They can't even understand why their
>> base premise is wrong and what they have to do to fix that.
>>
>>
> You waste time arguing with homeopaths?

Oh no, it's huge fun! Some of the things they say are beyond price!

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM7YqiAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/SQMH/jVJrDGdtaLUiZbRQQ017dYH
r3XUFGVJuYUqckBm7S+HJxITqzdYW+8yLpHatrGpcVUPOwT0RC jhz4zDLy0vtUji
+j4R/T4vlO7ArsnxMn+ISnDP7lI/38HUFbrYv+WKaYEl7Ygy95727vq6uXi5v4Py
F7OAU37VCqEshrsF3bZlYfAYbB3PVwhyf/vh3NFAY2VjkAuiqOeFWbA0ILI8nhG2
dGtkzhY+u5gLXQhumj2xw1h/U3TfnqLVKi/uURCj73vjcvcg0n2nJXIfyEVu+RBN
cRtuWbtRHCi3V+z7qMPAx84FQPv7pAci2A8iF/O6c6WyBldykvU3iq8Nb6IAy38=
=EBOd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----