Another comment rejected by UCRM moderators!

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:21:19 +0000, Roger Thorpe
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 19:41:07 +0000, Pedt "\"@
wrote:

In message , at 19:00:03 on
Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Tom Crispin
wibbled
It is highly likely that the introduction of mandatory seat belt laws
have substantially contributed to the dramatic drop in road deaths.
And even if this is an opinion, not a fact, it is an argument relevant
to the discussion in urcm.
How many cyclists wear seat belts?

It would appear that motorists wearing seat belts or not is not exactly
on topic in urcm so I'm not sure why you think this is relevant to
u.n.n.moderation as a failure of the moderators. Perhaps you would care
to clarify as to why you think it so?

The precis below is over-simplified.

The thread had drifted, as these things do, to argue that mandatory
seatbelt use had no effect on drivers' safety, therefore helmets are
unlikely to have an effect on cyclists' safety.

Delboy's post was topical as it showed that road casualties had
dropped significantly since the introduction of mandatory seatbelt
laws. It therefore challenged the assertion that mandatory seatbelt
laws had no effect on road safety, thus countering the argument
against mandatory helmet laws.

This is the sort of thread that would anger me in urc and I'm
disappointed to see it in urcm. Not just because it is boring and
repetitive, but because the group that we might call the usual suspects
are simply unable to let any argument that wearing a helmet might be
of benefit to a cyclist go unanswered.

Agreed. But the Moderators have allowed the discussion, so why are
they blocking some opinions not others?

Whilst it is easy for me to mark a thread as read, this is exactly the
kind of noisy ill tempered debate with its escalating ludicrous claims
that attracts the trolls. I doubt that the argument that seat belts
did/did not save lives therefore helmets will/will not save lives is the
nadir. We'll see.

Someone should knock all your heads together.
Oh, wait a minute.......

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 23:31:53 -0000, "Trevor A Panther"
wrote:

On 4 August last year I was at the front of a queue of cars waiting at a
traffic light. I was towing my Carry freedom 2 wheeled trailer ( empty). As
I started to move off, on green, the car behind me mounted my trailer and
flipped me forward and to my left in a somersault lifing me clear of my
velo. I woke up in the ambulance on the way to hospital.

I recently haulled my Brompton to the LBS[1] for a service. I left my
trailer with them until I collected my Brompton having heard your
story about haulling an empty trailer.

[1] Local Brompton Shop. My local bike shop does not service
Bromptons.

In article , Roger Thorpe wrote:
This is the sort of thread that would anger me in urc and I'm
disappointed to see it in urcm. Not just because it is boring and
repetitive

Bear in mind that rejecting for repetition on the grounds of having been
done to death before _in the unmoderated group_ was explicitly ruled out
in the RFD period.

People on both sides of the argument are being allowed to make points
which are new to urcm that appear to be relevent and on-topic (even if
the decision on whether a slight variation of an argument might bring
further understanding is sometimes subjective) but we shouldn't see the
thread as a whole repeated any time soon. (Eventually the "it might have
been said before, but the readership was different then" argument will
have some strength.)

And as you say, it is just one thread. (A post about helmets in another
thread was rejected with a request that it be posted in an explicitly
helmet related thread precisely so that people can ignore the thread
easily. We know many people want to ignore helmet threads, so mixing the
subject into other threads is inflamatory.)

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:28:15 +0000 someone who may be Tom Crispin
wrote this:-

The thread had drifted, as these things do, to argue that mandatory
seatbelt use had no effect on drivers' safety, therefore helmets are
unlikely to have an effect on cyclists' safety.

It would be better for your arguments if you summarised the
arguments of others properly. The argument is that seat belts have
not had the dramatic effect on those who wear them which their
promoters claimed that would and also that the effects, which were
predicted in suppressed reports, on those not targeted by the law
(back seat passengers, pedestrians and cyclists at the time)

Delboy's post was topical as it showed that road casualties had
dropped significantly since the introduction of mandatory seatbelt
laws.

It attributed all the drop to seat belt laws. You shouldn't get
upset if people point out that they were not the only factor. All
you are doing is what the road "safety" lobby did, something which
messers Durbin and Harvey cut through as they understood statistics.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:21:19 +0000 someone who may be Roger Thorpe
wrote this:-

Whilst it is easy for me to mark a thread as read, this is exactly the
kind of noisy ill tempered debate with its escalating ludicrous claims
that attracts the trolls.

I have yet to see the sort of noisy ill tempered debate of which you
speak. ISTM that the moderators are doing a good job.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 23:31:53 -0000 someone who may be "Trevor A
Panther" wrote this:-

I have even regularly been told that me wearing my hat is a vote for
compulsion -- which it isn't

You appear to be conflating two things.

Firstly, what you are voting for. I have no doubt that most people
who wear cycle helmets do not think they are voting for compulsion.

Secondly, how road "safety" officials will interpret your wearing a
helmet. Officials and politicians have repeatedly said that when
enough people "voluntarily" wear helmets they will make them
compulsory [1]. I believe them. You may not want them to interpret
your decision in this way, but that does not bother them.



[1] the same strategy as they have adopted for other things.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:28:15 +0000 someone who may be Tom Crispin
wrote this:-

The thread had drifted, as these things do, to argue that mandatory
seatbelt use had no effect on drivers' safety, therefore helmets are
unlikely to have an effect on cyclists' safety.

It would be better for your arguments if you summarised the
arguments of others properly.

Ah. Advice you might also benefit from.

The argument is that seat belts have not had

_Allegedly_ have not had. Based on cherry-picked data, on a
cherry-picked window. The previous year was off trend one way, the
following year compensated.

the dramatic effect on those who wear them which their
promoters claimed that would and also that the effects, which were
predicted in suppressed reports,

_Unpublished_ report (singular) - the reason for which has not been
established. You are implying something which we don't know to be the case.

on those not targeted by the law
(back seat passengers, pedestrians and cyclists at the time)

There is no apparent change of trend in the data for those.

--
Matt B

thirty-six wrote:
On 1 Mar, 22:44, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:21:19 +0000, Roger Thorpe

wrote:
This is the sort of thread that would anger me in urc and I'm
disappointed to see it in urcm. Not just because it is boring and
repetitive, but because the group that we might call the usual suspects
are simply unable to let any argument that wearing a helmet might be
of benefit to a cyclist go unanswered.
Most of us are happy to live and let live (which has mainly been the
case thus far, I think you'll agree). The only way to prevent the
sceptical case being presented in response to questions like "why are
cyclists so reluctant to wear helmets" is to ban the subject
altogether. Several of the regulars have come to the conclusion that
"Derek C" was trolling, I suspect he was and that the original post
should not have been passed, but it was and so it was taken at face
value.

But what exactly did you expect in that thread? It's extremely
unlikely you're going to be anything other than annoyed by it, given
what you say, so maybe you should just have killed the thread in your
reader.

I get annoyed by thirty-six and his interminable nonsense about how

Your failure to understand simple beam mechanics is evidential of a
childish mind. Throwing a tantrum does not help.

the entire world is wrong about bicycle wheel construction because we
are all following "finite element nuts" (or "engineers" as the real
world calls them). Nobody is ever likely to be 100% happy with 100% of
comments in any online forum.

Hopefully the mods will at least not pass any "thought experiment"
suggestions involving brick walls.

Guy
--http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

Opticians.

BugBear

"delboy" wrote in message
...
I have had ANOTHER TWO postings rejected by UK Rec Cycling Moderated
in the last 24 hours. One was fairly trivial which I wasn't too
bothered about. The other was as follows, including the post I was
responding to:

"Lycra lout" is inflammatory. I would hope that the moderators also reject
posts containing derogatory words aimed at other road users like "cagers".

On 1 Mar, 23:31, "Trevor A Panther"
wrote:


Well I wear my helmet all the time. But then I just pootle along - but I
manage to knock up the odd few kilometers. I am very aware( only too aware)
of all the arguements.that inevitably break forth whenever the subject is
raised. I have even regularly been told that me wearing my hat is a vote for
compulsion -- which it isn't

On 4 August last year I was at the front of a queue of cars waiting at a
traffic light. I was towing my Carry freedom 2 wheeled trailer ( empty). As
I started to move off, on green, the car behind me mounted my trailer *and
flipped me forward and to my left in a somersault lifing me clear of my
velo. I woke up in the ambulance on the way to hospital.

I actually have no memory of the incident at all other than just starting to
move off. I spent the rest of the day in hospital with concussion and had
several xrays and a CT scan. I only have a fairly hazey memories of the
whole day.

However I found the my helmet was totally trashed on the LHS and on the
upper LHS The whole nnner body of the helmet on the LHS was split in
mulitple places. *I can only assume that my head was probably the first part
of my body to come into contact with the road. My left shoulder was bruised
a bit *and my left chest hurt a bit.too.

I could not have been travelling at more than 5 mph maximun ( probably much
less) and I actually think that I had not even clipped my lef foot into the
pedal since left leg and foot were virtually uninjured.

I am bl**dy glad that I had my helmet on!

And now wait for all those who will hurry to tell me that it was the helmet
that was the cause of my concussion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--

Actually I'm surprised that nobody in the anti-helmet lobby has picked
up on your totally trashed helmet to say they are totally useless!

If you read the safety specifications for cycle helmets they are only
designed to be two shot affairs, to protect you from the primary and
any secondary impacts to the head. If you damage a helmet even
slightly it should be discarded.

Your helmet may be trashed, but it seems to have done its job of
keeping you alive and relatively uninjured.

Derek C