Protecting the head ...

On 12/25/2006 13:21:40 "LSMike" wrote:

On Dec 24, 6:30 pm, John wrote:

I for one was lucky enough to have been very well protected when I
suffered my most serious head injury. Given the severity of that
accident I am in little doubt that I probably wouldn't be here today
without this protection.

So what are your views on compulsion?

How do you know that your helmet didn't worsen your injury?

This is such a stupid comment, I once stated on here that a motorcycle
helmet had once saved my life in an accident and was shouted down by
the naysayers telling me I could not say that unless I redid the accident
without the helmet, what a purile response, of course if I am dead I cannot
post things that they disagree with.

I think Mike should re-enact John's incident without a helmet to prove how
wrong John is.

We all know that this board is anti-helmet but the prime idiots who shout
people down with foolish responses based on ignorance are not good
representatives of cycling, by all means debate but give stupidity a rest.

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

On Dec 28, 11:30 am, Buck wrote:
On 12/25/2006 13:21:40 "LSMike" wrote:

On Dec 24, 6:30 pm, John wrote:
I for one was lucky enough to have been very well protected when I
suffered my most serious head injury. Given the severity of that
accident I am in little doubt that I probably wouldn't be here today
without this protection.
So what are your views on compulsion?
How do you know that your helmet didn't worsen your injury?This is such a stupid comment, I once stated on here that a motorcycle
helmet had once saved my life in an accident and was shouted down by
the naysayers telling me I could not say that unless I redid the accident
without the helmet, what a purile response, of course if I am dead I cannot
post things that they disagree with.

I think Mike should re-enact John's incident without a helmet to prove how
wrong John is.

We all know that this board is anti-helmet but the prime idiots who shout
people down with foolish responses based on ignorance are not good
representatives of cycling, by all means debate but give stupidity a rest.

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

LOLLOLLOL!

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:30:21 GMT, Buck wrote:
On 12/25/2006 13:21:40 "LSMike" wrote:
On Dec 24, 6:30 pm, John wrote:

So what are your views on compulsion?

How do you know that your helmet didn't worsen your injury?

This is such a stupid comment,

Why?
How _do_ you know that the helmet did not worsen the injury?

I once stated on here that a motorcycle
helmet had once saved my life in an accident and was shouted down by
the naysayers telling me I could not say that unless I redid the accident
without the helmet,

Which is, of course, a 100% true statement. You don't like people
making true statements?

people down with foolish responses based on ignorance

Aha. So your assertions are not based on ignorance. We await, with
baited breath, the evidence that supports your claims.

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

Quoting Buck :
This is such a stupid comment, I once stated on here that a motorcycle
helmet had once saved my life in an accident and was shouted down by
the naysayers telling me I could not say that unless I redid the accident
without the helmet,

Which is true.

Just because the control experiment isn't feasible doesn't mean it isn't
necessary to reach the conclusion.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corrido r,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruitkonomiyak i,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose :yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!spar kle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

Quoting Ian Smith :
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:30:21 GMT, Buck wrote:
On 12/25/2006 13:21:40 "LSMike" wrote:
On Dec 24, 6:30 pm, John wrote:
So what are your views on compulsion?
How do you know that your helmet didn't worsen your injury?
This is such a stupid comment,
Why?
How _do_ you know that the helmet did not worsen the injury?

Well, although it has passed well over "Buck"'s head, because John wasn't
wearing one; John was responding to the "alcohol can mitigate head
injuries" story.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corrido r,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruitkonomiyak i,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose :yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!spar kle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

On 12/28/2006 13:46:19 Ian Smith wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:30:21 GMT, Buck wrote:

On 12/25/2006 13:21:40 "LSMike" wrote:

On Dec 24, 6:30 pm, John wrote:

So what are your views on compulsion?

How do you know that your helmet didn't worsen your injury?

This is such a stupid comment,

Why? How _do_ you know that the helmet did not worsen the injury?

I once stated on here that a motorcycle helmet had once saved my life in
an accident and was shouted down by the naysayers telling me I could not
say that unless I redid the accident without the helmet,

Which is, of course, a 100% true statement. You don't like people making
true statements?

people down with foolish responses based on ignorance

Aha. So your assertions are not based on ignorance. We await, with
baited breath, the evidence that supports your claims.

regards, Ian SMith

You go and prove it wrong as it is so important to you, go and headbut a transit van at 40mph with no helmet on, easy, you will be no less stupid for the experience.

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

On 12/28/2006 14:29:05 David Damerell wrote:

Quoting Ian Smith :

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:30:21 GMT, Buck wrote:

On 12/25/2006 13:21:40 "LSMike" wrote:

On Dec 24, 6:30 pm, John wrote:

So what are your views on compulsion?

How do you know that your helmet didn't worsen your injury?

This is such a stupid comment,

Why? How _do_ you know that the helmet did not worsen the injury?

Well, although it has passed well over "Buck"'s head, because John wasn't
wearing one; John was responding to the "alcohol can mitigate head
injuries" story.

I was not responding to John, but that seems to be way over your head my old chummy.

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

Buck wrote:


On 12/28/2006 13:46:19 Ian Smith wrote:

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:30:21 GMT, Buck wrote:

On 12/25/2006 13:21:40 "LSMike" wrote:

On Dec 24, 6:30 pm, John wrote:

So what are your views on compulsion?

How do you know that your helmet didn't worsen your injury?

This is such a stupid comment,

Why? How _do_ you know that the helmet did not worsen the injury?

I once stated on here that a motorcycle helmet had once saved my life in
an accident and was shouted down by the naysayers telling me I could not
say that unless I redid the accident without the helmet,

Which is, of course, a 100% true statement. You don't like people making
true statements?

people down with foolish responses based on ignorance

Aha. So your assertions are not based on ignorance. We await, with
baited breath, the evidence that supports your claims.

You go and prove it wrong as it is so important to you, go and headbut a transit van at 40mph with no helmet on, easy, you will be no less stupid for the experience.

What happens when the transit van headbutts you? Does that make a
difference? Before you go jumping to conclusions that is a general you
not a personal one.

Bicycle helmets (also known as plastic hats) are only designed to
protect against certain low-speed accidents. In other situations their
usefullness is debatable at best. Collisions with motor vehicles are
/not/ what they are designed to protect against.

I'm off to indulge in some more head (or is it brain?) protection,
hic!
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:21:15 GMT, Buck
wrote:



You go and prove it wrong as it is so important to you, go and headbut a transit van at 40mph with no helmet on, easy, you will be no less stupid for the experience.

a) in such a situation a cycle helmet will be no help at all;
b) cycle helmets in general have a negative impact on public health;

and as for stupidity,

c) people who fail to understand the implications of a) and b) would
not benefit from a cycle helmet even if a) and b) were false.

In article
Buck wrote:
snip

You go and prove it wrong as it is so important to you, go and headbut
a transit van at 40mph with no helmet on, easy, you will be no less
stupid for the experience.

You're the one claiming that a flimsy piece of plastic provides
protection in a situation that would otherwise cause significant brain
injury - it seems only fair that you should be the one to provide
conclusive proof.