On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:39:10 -0700 (PDT), Eric
wrote:

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


I'm sorry old fruit - I don't want to appear to be rude - but have you
been drinking - as I said:

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 believe the driver is also responsible for the use of seat belts of
passengers. (Guy Chapman)

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:47:00 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
wrote:

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.


Thanks:

No authoritative body in the UK recommends not wearing cycle helmets,
as their is no evidence that wearing them is more dangerous than not
wearing them.
Many authoritative bodies do in fact recommend wearing them.


Is that better?



--
I believe the driver is also responsible for the use of seat belts of
passengers. (Guy Chapman)

On 26 Aug, 23:49, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:39:10 -0700 (PDT), Eric



wrote:
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:

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...i=B6V5S-4MC0TH...

I'm sorry old fruit - I don't want to appear to be rude - but have you
been drinking *- as I said:

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..

No. You said:

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?"

On 26 Aug, 23:54, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:47:00 -0700 (PDT), Squashme



wrote:
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.

Thanks:

No authoritative body in the UK recommends not wearing cycle helmets,
as their is no evidence that wearing them is more dangerous than not
wearing them.
Many authoritative bodies do in fact recommend wearing them.


Yes. You might add that there is apparently insufficient evidence to
back these recommendations and that they are still the subject of
debate.

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:09:14 +0100, Phil W Lee
phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:
snip


You seem to have made some kind of mistake there.

Thinking, indeed!

What on earth leads you to believe she has that inclination, never
mind capacity!

My word that's a hilarious comment.

Always good to see you *try* and make a contribution.

Unfortunately I see you still actually have nothing to say - you
one-lines aren't even funny.






--

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can **** right off. (Guy Chapman)
If you are going to make accusations about someone, then you need to
be able to substantiate when asked to. (Judith Smith)

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

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


I see that's another no then



--

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can **** right off. (Guy Chapman)
If you are going to make accusations about someone, then you need to
be able to substantiate when asked to. (Judith Smith)

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:58:37 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
wrote:

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



wrote:
On 26 Aug, 18:39, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:09:10 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

snip

That last paragraph is not one that I would dispute, but I'd go much
further and say that a better training of everyone (pedestrians,
cyclists and motorists) in the Highway Code, and also in the underlying
laws of use of PRoWs would be to the benefit of all.

Mike

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.

That may be a basis for individual choice. It is not a basis for
legislation to make wearing helmets compulsory.

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?

No, do you have the results of any research which shows the contrary?


Are you new to usenet - that's not the way things work. You state
something - people ask you for a cite. It's considered the wimps
attempt at a way out to ask for the opposite.

You are asserting that it will be more dangerous for pedestrians when
cyclists are wearing helmets - just back it up.


It may be worth looking at the effects of seat-belt legislation on
pedestrians and cyclists, rather than motorists.

I don't think it was.

Why not write to the DfT and tell them they have the seat belt
legislation wrong and we should go back to the free for all.

--

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can **** right off. (Guy Chapman)
If you are going to make accusations about someone, then you need to
be able to substantiate when asked to. (Judith Smith)

On 26 Aug, 23:54, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:47:00 -0700 (PDT), Squashme



wrote:
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.

Thanks:

No authoritative body in the UK recommends not wearing cycle helmets,
as their is no evidence that wearing them is more dangerous than not
wearing them.
Many authoritative bodies do in fact recommend wearing them.

Is that better?



---

Excuse me...

No authoritative body in the UK recommends not wearing cycle helmets,

OK

as their is no evidence that wearing them is more dangerous than not
wearing them.

Which logically means there is no benefit in wearing a helmet as, if
your proposition is correct, they cannot either be safer than not
wearing them because that would make them less dangerous and hence
safer. The proposition as presented then becomes an oxymoron.

Many authoritative bodies do in fact recommend wearing them.

Based on what though? Clearly not the above because that provides no
evidence for a positive assertion of benefit. It states wearing one
may be no more dangerous than not wearing one, which is not a benefit.

Sniper8052

In ,
judith tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

No authoritative body in the UK recommends not wearing cycle helmets,
as their is no evidence that wearing them is more dangerous than not
wearing them.
Many authoritative bodies do in fact recommend wearing them.

Any body which ignores the evidence which suggests that the wearing of
helmets makes cycling /more/ dangerous has, at best, a highly dubious claim
to being "authoritative".

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
Frozen gorillas can be used to control the temperature of a warm
and stuffy room.

wrote:
On 26 Aug, 23:54, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:47:00 -0700 (PDT), Squashme



wrote:
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.

Thanks:

No authoritative body in the UK recommends not wearing cycle helmets,
as their is no evidence that wearing them is more dangerous than not
wearing them.
Many authoritative bodies do in fact recommend wearing them.

Is that better?



---

Excuse me...

No authoritative body in the UK recommends not wearing cycle helmets,

OK

as their is no evidence that wearing them is more dangerous than not
wearing them.

Which logically means there is no benefit in wearing a helmet as, if
your proposition is correct, they cannot either be safer than not
wearing them because that would make them less dangerous and hence
safer. The proposition as presented then becomes an oxymoron.

Many authoritative bodies do in fact recommend wearing them.

Based on what though? Clearly not the above because that provides no
evidence for a positive assertion of benefit. It states wearing one
may be no more dangerous than not wearing one, which is not a benefit.

Sniper8052

On the other hand this research
http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/...ing110906.html
implies that (under certain circumstances) the wearing of helmets may be a 'disadvantage'

--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face