Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
On 4/11/2010 4:42 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On 11/04/10 9:28 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On 10/04/10 10:46 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

I remember the Bell Helmet ad of a little girl sitting on her
bike wearing shiny new athletic shoes of some sort. The caption
was "Does your child have $100 feet and a $10 head?"

Except that Bell is making $10 helmets as well as $200+ helmets in
their Giro line.

Whooosh!

Sooner or later, though, they will be hoist by their own petard
in court. Just ask Riddell. Those 85% prevention claims will be
tested.

Bell has never claimed an "85% prevention rate" whatever that
actually means. Of course no study ever claimed 85% in the way
you're implying either. You're taking stuff out of context. As
usual. Because taking things in context, and looking objectively,
doesn't fit your agenda.

The agenda belongs to the helmet industry which *has* been
promulgating the notion that helmets reduce head injuries by 85%-
in abeyance of any actual proof to back up that claim. Where ya
been?

One study showed _up to_ 85%, not an absolute 85%, and that study was
not conducted by the helmet industry.

Those damn statstically sound case studies. They always interfere
with junk science.

Oh, Steven, we've been down this road so many times with you and you
just don't learn. Why go there again?

Scarf lives in an alternate reality concerning bicycle foam hats and is
immune to evidence - very similar symptoms to those that followers of
right-wing talk radio exhibit.


I know a few right wingers, none of whom wears a helmet.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971