An experiment to prove the helmet law proponants RIGHT (or wrong)

ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!

Here is the post that DiscoDumbDuck is responding to:

Your sample size of one is too small to be statistically significant.
I've been riding for decades without a helmet and I'm still alive as of
this morning. That doesn't mean anything either.

Dave...

"DiscoDuck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Actually it means a lot. It means the risks have been blown
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of proportion.
According to proponents, I should be dead by now or at least suffered a
severe head injury. OR at least see legions of victims lying on the
side of the road on a daily basis.

How many people do you know that have suffered head injuries as a
result of cycling?

Do you understand sample size? Do you understand statistics? Do you
understand English!

Sir, let me propose to you that you are a dolt and should not be posting to
an intelligent group like ARBR. Surely you can find another group which is
more on your intellectual level - which is that of an idiot. Do not you
Canadians have your own cycling group which perhaps you could post to. They
would no doubt understand and sympathize with your lack of mental capacity.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

DiscoDuck wrote:
Actually it means a lot. It means the risks have been blown
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of proportion.
According to proponents, I should be dead by now or at least suffered a
severe head injury. OR at least see legions of victims lying on the
side of the road on a daily basis.

How many people do you know that have suffered head injuries as a
result of cycling?

I have, as it happens, but I still don't wear a helmet. I've also
banged my head on a kitchen cupboard hard enough to draw blood, but I
still don't feel the need for extra head protection to do the cooking!

Fact is that cyclist injuries tend to mirror pedestrian ones, so if you
reason you need a bike helmet to cycle on roads than you /should/ be
using something similar on sidewalks, or your reasoning lacks
consistency. DiscoDuck is right, and cycling is actually a fairly safe
way to get about, and a helmet doesn't change matters significantly.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 at 09:38 GMT, Peter Clinch (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
DiscoDuck wrote:
Actually it means a lot. It means the risks have been blown
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of proportion.
According to proponents, I should be dead by now or at least suffered a
severe head injury. OR at least see legions of victims lying on the
side of the road on a daily basis.

How many people do you know that have suffered head injuries as a
result of cycling?

I have, as it happens, but I still don't wear a helmet. I've also
banged my head on a kitchen cupboard hard enough to draw blood, but I
still don't feel the need for extra head protection to do the cooking!

Fact is that cyclist injuries tend to mirror pedestrian ones, so if you

Except, 30km/h faster. Oh, and around drunk people driving stolen
cars, I guess it wouldn't matter whether you were riding or not, as
long as you are wearing a helmet:

http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/t.../twisted_bike/

Nice photos of the time when I thanked the proverbial ghod for wearing
a helmet. No, the proverbial god didn't wear the helmet; I did.


I didn't really want to respond to this thread....

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
"Does bacteria culture in coffee cup qualify as pet? Have already
givink it name." -- Pitr Dubovich/User Friendly

TimC wrote:

Except, 30km/h faster. Oh, and around drunk people driving stolen
cars, I guess it wouldn't matter whether you were riding or not, as
long as you are wearing a helmet:

You should actually look at the population data concerning road
accidents, which shows that the trneds for cycling injuries mirror those
for pedestrian injuries. They are demonstrably similar, and remain so
irrespective of the amount of cycle helmet use. How could that be, if
cycle helmets really make a significant difference?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"dkahn400" wrote in message
oups.com...
dgk wrote:

I realize, just from osmosis while reading the newsgroups, that the
statistics pushing mandatory helmet laws are less than definitive.
Perhaps it is even just another case of government acting as a shill
for corporate sales. That is pretty much how I view the US
government anyway. But are you making the point that I am LESS SAFE
by wearing a helmet?

Don't panic! Cycling is a safe form of transport with or without a
helmet. To suggest that you are less safe with a helmet than without
one is contentious, but there are plausible mechanisms by which it may
be so. I happen to think you are slightly less safe (but still
acceptably safe) with a helmet than without one for normal riding in
traffic. But that's a personal view based on the balance of the
evidence I'm aware of, and I could be wrong.

You not only could be wrong, but you are wrong. There is no way that riding
a bike with a helmet makes you less safe. You must be an idiot to think so.
Most do not want to wear a helmet because it will mess up their hair or for
other very trivial reasons. There is never any shortage of idiots in this
world which you prove every time you post your nonsense.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Tony Raven" wrote in message
...
TimC wrote:
but I'm wearing a helmet.


But being in Australia you do not have a choice about it.

And rightly so. Obey the law and live. Disobey the lay and die. And it will
serve you right!

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Peter Clinch wrote:

...DiscoDuck is right, and cycling is actually a fairly safe
way to get about, and a helmet doesn't change matters significantly.

However, the metal foil head covering is mandatory - otherwise the rider
will fall victim to alien mind control.

--
Tom Sherman - Near Rock Island

TimC wrote:

...
I didn't really want to respond to this thread....

Participating in Usenet h*lm*t discussions has been scientifically
proven to cause brain damage.

--
Tom Sherman - Near Rock Island

"hippy" wrote in message
...
"Tony Raven"
TimC wrote:
but I'm wearing a helmet.

But being in Australia you do not have a choice about it.

Plenty of people here choose to break the law..

hippy

So Hippy, is Australia then still true to it's origins as a colony for
England's criminals and other assorted trash people. If so, then you are
welcome to it.

We civilized and law abiding folks are pleased to obey the laws that our
legislature
passes. That is because we elect them to represent us and to make laws
for us which we freely choose to abide by. We Americans value democracy.
Maybe you Australians don't?

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:05:20 -0500 someone who may be dgk
wrote this:-

I realize, just from osmosis while reading the newsgroups, that the
statistics pushing mandatory helmet laws are less than definitive.
[snip] But are you making the point that I am LESS SAFE by wearing a
helmet?

You could be for one of two reasons:

1) Risk compensation (which can be looked up on any search engine),
both by yourself and by others.

2) Rotational injuries (ditto).

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ is a good place to start on the
subject.

Sheer nonsense! Risk compensation is most especially sheer nonsense, but
that rotational crap is also most likely sheer nonsense. But Hey! Do not
wear a helmet and maybe you will be killed falling off your bike and the
world will have one less idiot in it.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota