On 26 Aug, 22:44, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:06:21 -0700 (PDT), Eric

wrote:
On 26 Aug, 21:56, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:01:53 -0700 (PDT), Squashme

Are you not worried that cyclists with helmets will be more dangerous
for pedestrians than cyclists without? Risk compensation encouraging
higher pavement speeds, for instance.

No - do you have the results of research which shows that cyclists
with helmets are more likely to break the law and cycle on pavements
and cause accidents *with pedestrians than those without?

That is not what Squashme said.

I'm so sorry old bean:

I am not worried that cyclists with helmets will be more dangerous for
pedestrians than cyclists without. *Do you have any evidence that I
ought to be?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...a9b412f55736d2

Is that better? *(Ignore my earlier questions if they are too hard)

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
wrote:

On 26 Aug, 22:52, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:11:32 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm

wrote:

snip

Until someone produces some easy to understand explanation as to why
cycle helmets do not give you additional protection - the vast
majority of people will continue to believe that they are better than
no helmet.

Of course they do, just as the vast majority of people continue to
believe that eating fat is what makes people fat.

Do they - how do you know this?

You can object all you like but : - there are plenty of authoritative
organisations who do recommend wearing cycle helmets.

Just as plenty of authoritative organisations recommend lower fat
diets to help people lose weight.

and now can you list for me the authoritative organisations who
recommend *not* wearing cycle helmets?

question dodge snipped

And now can you list for me the authoritative organisations who
recommend *not* wearing cycle helmets?


--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:08:22 -0700 (PDT), Eric
wrote:

On 26 Aug, 22:44, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:06:21 -0700 (PDT), Eric

wrote:
On 26 Aug, 21:56, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:01:53 -0700 (PDT), Squashme

Are you not worried that cyclists with helmets will be more dangerous
for pedestrians than cyclists without? Risk compensation encouraging
higher pavement speeds, for instance.

No - do you have the results of research which shows that cyclists
with helmets are more likely to break the law and cycle on pavements
and cause accidents *with pedestrians than those without?

That is not what Squashme said.

I'm so sorry old bean:

I am not worried that cyclists with helmets will be more dangerous for
pedestrians than cyclists without. *Do you have any evidence that I
ought to be?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...a9b412f55736d2



Many thanks old bean - however, I do not think that there will be many
7-12 year old Canadian children who are experienced at navigating an
obstacle course riding on our pavements and running over pedestrians.

I'm sorry - I should have made myself clear - I should have said "do
you have any *relevant* evidence that I ought to be worried?"


--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On 26 Aug, 23:11, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Squashme



wrote:
On 26 Aug, 22:52, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:11:32 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm

wrote:

snip

Until someone produces some easy to understand explanation as to why
cycle helmets do not give you additional protection - the vast
majority of people will continue to believe that they are better than
no helmet.

Of course they do, just as the vast majority of people continue to
believe that eating fat is what makes people fat.

Do they - how do you know this?

You can object all you like but : - there are plenty of authoritative
organisations who do recommend wearing cycle helmets.

Just as plenty of authoritative organisations recommend lower fat
diets to help people lose weight.

and now can you list for me the authoritative organisations who
recommend *not* wearing cycle helmets?

question dodge snipped

And now can you list for me the authoritative organisations who
recommend *not* wearing cycle helmets?


Not interested. Can you tell me why "Despite
the lack of helmets, cycling in the Netherlands is safer than in any
other country, and the Dutch have one-third the number of cycling
fatalities (per 100,000 people) that Australia has.?"

It doesn't seem to fit your thinking.

On 26 Aug, 23:19, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:08:22 -0700 (PDT), Eric



wrote:
On 26 Aug, 22:44, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:06:21 -0700 (PDT), Eric

wrote:
On 26 Aug, 21:56, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:01:53 -0700 (PDT), Squashme

Are you not worried that cyclists with helmets will be more dangerous
for pedestrians than cyclists without? Risk compensation encouraging
higher pavement speeds, for instance.

No - do you have the results of research which shows that cyclists
with helmets are more likely to break the law and cycle on pavements
and cause accidents *with pedestrians than those without?

That is not what Squashme said.

I'm so sorry old bean:

I am not worried that cyclists with helmets will be more dangerous for
pedestrians than cyclists without. *Do you have any evidence that I
ought to be?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...i=B6V5S-4MC0TH...

Many thanks old bean - however, I do not think that there will be many
7-12 year old Canadian children who are experienced at navigating an
obstacle course riding on our pavements and running over pedestrians.

I'm sorry - I should have made myself clear - I should have said "do
you have any *relevant* evidence that I ought to be worried?"

worried about what?

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:21:48 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
wrote:

On 26 Aug, 23:11, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Squashme



wrote:
On 26 Aug, 22:52, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:11:32 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm

wrote:

snip

Until someone produces some easy to understand explanation as to why
cycle helmets do not give you additional protection - the vast
majority of people will continue to believe that they are better than
no helmet.

Of course they do, just as the vast majority of people continue to
believe that eating fat is what makes people fat.

Do they - how do you know this?

You can object all you like but : - there are plenty of authoritative
organisations who do recommend wearing cycle helmets.

Just as plenty of authoritative organisations recommend lower fat
diets to help people lose weight.

and now can you list for me the authoritative organisations who
recommend *not* wearing cycle helmets?

question dodge snipped

And now can you list for me the authoritative organisations who
recommend *not* wearing cycle helmets?



Not interested.

Excellent - I will take that as a no then

Can you tell me why "Despite
the lack of helmets, cycling in the Netherlands is safer than in any
other country, and the Dutch have one-third the number of cycling
fatalities (per 100,000 people) that Australia has.?"

Yes - because all Dutch children and brought up as cyclists - they
know their place and cycling is a totally different way of life in
Holland - than I suspect anywhere else in the world.

I would also suspect that the miles of cycle track per head of
population in Holland is way more than that in Australia.


Can we get back to :

And now can you list for me the authoritative organisations who
recommend *not* wearing cycle helmets?


May I seek your advice:

Do you think it would be true to say : "No authoritative body in the
UK recommends people do *not* wear cycle helmets because to wear them
has been proven more dangerous than to not wear them."

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:28:43 -0700 (PDT), Eric
wrote:

On 26 Aug, 23:19, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:08:22 -0700 (PDT), Eric



wrote:
On 26 Aug, 22:44, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:06:21 -0700 (PDT), Eric

wrote:
On 26 Aug, 21:56, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:01:53 -0700 (PDT), Squashme

Are you not worried that cyclists with helmets will be more dangerous
for pedestrians than cyclists without? Risk compensation encouraging
higher pavement speeds, for instance.

No - do you have the results of research which shows that cyclists
with helmets are more likely to break the law and cycle on pavements
and cause accidents *with pedestrians than those without?

That is not what Squashme said.

I'm so sorry old bean:

I am not worried that cyclists with helmets will be more dangerous for
pedestrians than cyclists without. *Do you have any evidence that I
ought to be?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...i=B6V5S-4MC0TH...

Many thanks old bean - however, I do not think that there will be many
7-12 year old Canadian children who are experienced at navigating an
obstacle course riding on our pavements and running over pedestrians.

I'm sorry - I should have made myself clear - I should have said "do
you have any *relevant* evidence that I ought to be worried?"

worried about what?


Sorry old bean - I thought that you had been following the thread -
however, this could explain why you went off on a tangent if you
hadn't been.

I had previously said:
I am not worried that cyclists with helmets will be more dangerous for
pedestrians than cyclists without. *Do you have any evidence that I
ought to be?

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

judith wrote:


Can you tell me why "Despite
the lack of helmets, cycling in the Netherlands is safer than in any
other country, and the Dutch have one-third the number of cycling
fatalities (per 100,000 people) that Australia has.?"

Yes - because all Dutch children and brought up as cyclists - they
know their place

The troll is also a snob!

The Lady Chatterley case was lost/won with a similar slip.

On 26 Aug, 23:36, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:28:43 -0700 (PDT), Eric



wrote:
On 26 Aug, 23:19, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:08:22 -0700 (PDT), Eric

wrote:
On 26 Aug, 22:44, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:06:21 -0700 (PDT), Eric

wrote:
On 26 Aug, 21:56, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:01:53 -0700 (PDT), Squashme

Are you not worried that cyclists with helmets will be more dangerous
for pedestrians than cyclists without? Risk compensation encouraging
higher pavement speeds, for instance.

No - do you have the results of research which shows that cyclists
with helmets are more likely to break the law and cycle on pavements
and cause accidents *with pedestrians than those without?

That is not what Squashme said.

I'm so sorry old bean:

I am not worried that cyclists with helmets will be more dangerous for
pedestrians than cyclists without. *Do you have any evidence that I
ought to be?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...i=B6V5S-4MC0TH...

Many thanks old bean - however, I do not think that there will be many
7-12 year old Canadian children who are experienced at navigating an
obstacle course riding on our pavements and running over pedestrians.

I'm sorry - I should have made myself clear - I should have said "do
you have any *relevant* evidence that I ought to be worried?"

worried about what?

Sorry old bean - I thought that you had been following the thread -
however, this could explain why you went off on a tangent if you
hadn't been.

I had previously said:

I am not worried that cyclists with helmets will be more dangerous for
pedestrians than cyclists without. *Do you have any evidence that I
ought to be?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...a9b412f55736d2

On 26 Aug, 23:32, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:21:48 -0700 (PDT), Squashme



wrote:
On 26 Aug, 23:11, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Squashme

wrote:
On 26 Aug, 22:52, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:11:32 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm

wrote:

snip

Until someone produces some easy to understand explanation as to why
cycle helmets do not give you additional protection - the vast
majority of people will continue to believe that they are better than
no helmet.

Of course they do, just as the vast majority of people continue to
believe that eating fat is what makes people fat.

Do they - how do you know this?

You can object all you like but : - there are plenty of authoritative
organisations who do recommend wearing cycle helmets.

Just as plenty of authoritative organisations recommend lower fat
diets to help people lose weight.

and now can you list for me the authoritative organisations who
recommend *not* wearing cycle helmets?

question dodge snipped

And now can you list for me the authoritative organisations who
recommend *not* wearing cycle helmets?

Not interested.

Excellent - I will take that as a no then

Can you tell me why "Despite
the lack of helmets, cycling in the Netherlands is safer than in any
other country, and the Dutch have one-third the number of cycling
fatalities (per 100,000 people) that Australia has.?"

Yes - because all Dutch children and brought up as cyclists - they
know their place and cycling is a totally different way of life in
Holland - than I suspect anywhere else in the world.

I would also suspect that the miles of cycle track per head of
population in Holland is way more than that in Australia.

Can we get back to :

And now can you list for me the authoritative organisations who
recommend *not* wearing cycle helmets?

May I seek your advice:

Do you think it would be true to say : "No authoritative body in the
UK recommends people do *not* wear cycle helmets because to wear them
has been proven more dangerous than to not wear them."


My advice would be to take out the negatives. They will confuse
people. Try to be positive. As to the truth of the statement, I am not
permitted to conjecture.