|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#791
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
"Tom Kunich" writes:
"Bill Z." wrote in message ... BTW, if you drop by a U.S. emergency room with a kid who has some nasty scrapes on his scalp, the bill will likely run over $1000. I wonder where you get your ideas. Certainly not from a moron like you. Oh, and BTW, I'm ignoring a number of your posts tonight. You are simply frothing at the mouth. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
Ads |
#792
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
Frank Krygowski writes:
Bill Z. wrote: "Library research" is to research as military music is to music. In typical form, Krygowski is equivocating. Hmm. My bet is you play no musical instrument, just as you do no library research - or any other kind, for that matter! IOW, you're completely unequipped to discuss either matter! Odd. In college, I even played in Town Hall (a well known concert hall in New York City.) And we got good reviews from a major New York newspaper. So much for Krygowski's judgement. He mouths off but knows nothing. You can figure everything else he says is equally bogus. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#794
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 02:44:18 GMT, "Tom Kunich"
wrote in message .net: What has your research consisted of thus far? Apart from not reading TR&T? MAN are you ever giving Bill a LOT more credit than he deserves. He DIDN'T read TR&T's complete paper, only the summaries. Note word "not" :-) Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
#795
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 21:02:17 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message : I put guy in the anti-helmet *camp* becuase he was fitting into their mode of operation Ah, so if a helmet zealot reads the research and posts from knowledge that makes them anti-hlemt as well, does it? I see. Nope, you're simply acting like the rest of them - attack dog mode for anyone they disagree with. And that has nothing to do with your posting dogmatic assertions about research you've never read and bicycles you've never ridden, obviously. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
#796
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 05:16:06 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message : Posting nonesense time and time again is tiresome. ROFLMAO! You probably even said that with a straight face! Rely on this, Bill - we know /exactly/ how tiresome the repeated posting of nonsense can be :-D Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
#797
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 23:12:12 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message : Your "recurring theme" is simply Hilter's big lie technique - repeat something often enough and hope others start believing it. As previously posted, you have skimped on your research /again/. "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth" was Lenin, not Hitler. You have also twice Godwinated this thread, making you the eternal loser :-D Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
#798
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 05:15:31 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message : Gee. four lines of responses in response to an obvious typo Ah, but it was an /important/ typo, because of Godwin's Law. Maybe you are as ignorant of that as you are of helmet research? Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
#799
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 21:36:32 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message : A typo aside (I meant "paper" not "pater"), what I was reporting was the result of a study that found a helmet law as applied to children (age 5 to 12) was cost effective. And which has been roundly rebutted. You also ignored papers showing that the NZ and Australian laws have failed cost-benefit even without factoring in the loss of health benefits due to reduced cycling. This is a very recent paper and it specifically stated that the helmet law was cost effective for children in the 5 to 12 year old range, but *not* ones in their teens, and that it was not cost effective for adults. I pointed out all of that in previous posts. And several people pointed out to you that pervious and subsequent analysis of /exactly the same data/ by these and other authors shows no benefit. Interestingly, you also ignore the fact that teenaged cyclists are the ones most likely to take risks. It looks to me as if the cost benefit is arrived at solely because parents are more likely to take younger children to hospital for treatment of superficial injuries. Using ludicrously inflated costs for treatment of superficial injuries still doesn't make a good case for compulsion. I also note that you didn't reference Alberta, where child head injury proportions rose sharply after compulsion. And what happened in the year after that? Sounds to me like once again you guys are reporting statistical noise. Like Scuffham, you mean? Possibly. The fact remains that there is no country in the world where a helmet law has resulted in a reduction in cyclist head injury rates. In fact, a pro-helmet transport minister in the UK has had to acknowledge that there is no known case where cyclist safety has improved with increasing helmet use. So what? Putting on a seatbelt won't reduce the chances of you being in a car accident either. Read it again. No improvement in cyclist safety - that means that the result of the law is that cyclists are no better off than they were before. Now bear in mind that the helmet laws are sold as a road safety measure. Given that safety does not improve, how effective does that make the measure? Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
#800
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 05:52:59 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message : What I said is sitting right above where you quoted it. Try reading it. Ask guy what he meant. I presume the minister was talking about the accident rate, regardless of whatever Guy was trying to say. And, as ususal, you are posting from ignorance. The Minister's statement was nothing to dow ith crash involvement and everythign to do with the risk of injury. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | General | 1927 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
First Helmet : jury is out. | Walter Mitty | General | 125 | June 26th 04 02:00 AM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | General | 17 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
France helmet observation (not a troll) | Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles | General | 20 | August 30th 03 08:35 AM |