On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:32:03 +0100, Marc
wrote:

snip

I don't think it ( I have doubts about it being a she) knows that an
assertion is , that opinion is not evidence or that facts are only facts
for a moment in time.
It knows so little about science, and glories in the fact so much, that
it could even become a politician.


Why thank you Marc - I wouldn't try and get personal with things you
say about me sunshine ;-)

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:44:28 +0100, Marc
wrote:

judith wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:20:21 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

snip

Have you also noticed how she becomes increasingly obdurate the more
it is demonstrated to her that her assertions are somewhere between
naive and outright wrong?

Guy

Thanks for your contribution - Guy - always happy to hear from you.

Yes - but I am honest in what I believe - and will accept corrections
when proven wrong - and apologise if necessary. I don't think that
you could say the same.

He already has, when he championed helmets, then went away read the info
and changed his mind. You have been told about this on more than once
occasion, yet you refuse to acknowledge it, this shows that your
assertion that you "will accept corrections
when proven wrong" is a just the prattle of a lying troll.

I see accuracy is still not your strong point:
I know that he changed his mind on helmets - I never said that he
didn't.

He changed his mind on what advice he'd given his kids re helmets,
when it was pointed out to him where he'd said it. (He then altered
his web pages but not the date of amendment, was found out, and became
a laughing stock)

I was commenting on his ability to assert things - be unable to back
them up - and then apologise when proven to be wrong. You know, it's
a bit like someone saying that an individual has been accused of
trolling other groups, and then not being able to back up this
assertion.

I think the trait is called lack of back-bone.

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:40:53 +0100, "Michael C"
wrote:

snip

Ah, that wonderful catch-all phrase that means nothing. Tell me - what
does
your 'common sense' say when you are told that wearing a cycle helmet
seems
to make you more likely to have an accident and actually only protects you
from quite a small number of accidents?

I would not believe that wearing a helmet makes you more likely to
have an accident.

So you don't believe the evidence that suggests otherwise?

I do believe that overall helmets would provide more protection to the
head if you were in an accident.

I believe what RoSPA and the Dft say in regards to wearing helmets.

Yet you do not believe the evidence that suggests otherwise?

Why do they promote helmet wearing?

Has any country or state in the US which introduced compulsory helmets
said - oh dear we got it wrong - there are many more people now being
involved in accidents just because they are wearing helmets - we'll
retract the law and ban them - we see now that they really are
dangerous?

Because it would look bad on their part, politicial suicide to a degree. No
matter what the evidence said if they went back on it there would be an
outcry in the media and from the usual 'Mothers Against Bikes' groups.

As you do not believe in common sense - perhaps you could answer:

Did people read all "the evidence" before they decided to use mobile
phones or not wear seat belts before the legislation was introduced?

I don't see what your point is here - mobile phones and seat belts are quite
different to cycle helmets.

See, you still haven't actually answered the question. The research done
so
far doesn't support that wearing a cycle helmet actually makes you any
safer, no matter what those groups might suggest. So why do you want it
to
be compulsory?


For the general good.

What general good? The evidence suggests that those wearing cycle helmets
have more accidents than those that don't - so what 'good' are you trying to
promote here?

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:15:55 +0100, "Michael C"
wrote:

snip

I would not believe that wearing a helmet makes you more likely to
have an accident.

So you don't believe the evidence that suggests otherwise?

I have not seen the "evidence" that suggests otherwise.

I do believe that overall helmets would provide more protection to the
head if you were in an accident.

I believe what RoSPA and the Dft say in regards to wearing helmets.

Yet you do not believe the evidence that suggests otherwise?

I think it is most unlikely that if there is clear "evidence" that
wearing a helmet does not overall provide more protection in an
accident RoSPA and the DfT would be promoting the wearing of them.

Do you not think that both organisations employ people who are capable
of assessing the "evidence" and providing advise accordingly?


Did people read all "the evidence" before they decided to use mobile
phones or not wear seat belts before the legislation was introduced?

I don't see what your point is here - mobile phones and seat belts are quite
different to cycle helmets.

The point is that most people are not inclined to read, or capable of
understanding, scientific research papers. People were more than
willing to accept the sense of not using mobiles and of wearing seat
belts without wading through "scientific" papers which have probably
been produced because someone has an axe to grind.

Unless someone can produce some easy to understand statistics which
clearly show that overall wearing helmets does more harm than good -
then people will continue to believe that they are a good thing.


What general good? The evidence suggests that those wearing cycle helmets
have more accidents than those that don't - so what 'good' are you trying to
promote here?

The evidence "suggests" - is it not very strong?

Might I be so bold as to suggest that many cyclists do not want to
support the wearing of cycle helmets because people may believe that
they are necessary, that cycling can be dangerous, and that once there
is a critical mass of people wearing them then they *will* be made
compulsory, and that as the ****wit Chapman says you cannot promote
cycling and promote helmet wearing at the same time.

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:44:28 +0100, Marc
said in
:

this shows that your
assertion that you "will accept corrections
when proven wrong" is a just the prattle of a lying troll.

Obviously, since she's been proven wrong on multiple occasions and
has reacted simply by becoming more obdurate. And shifting the
goal-posts.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:44:28 +0100, Marc
said in
:

this shows that your
assertion that you "will accept corrections
when proven wrong" is a just the prattle of a lying troll.

Obviously, since she's been proven wrong on multiple occasions and
has reacted simply by becoming more obdurate. And shifting the
goal-posts.

You left out ignoring evidence in the best tradition of Nelson!

"Marc" wrote in message
...
judith wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:40:53 +0100, "Michael C"
wrote:

snip

Ah, that wonderful catch-all phrase that means nothing. Tell me - what
does your 'common sense' say when you are told that wearing a cycle
helmet seems to make you more likely to have an accident and actually
only protects you from quite a small number of accidents?

I would not believe that wearing a helmet makes you more likely to
have an accident.

You ignore risk compensation?

I do believe that overall helmets would provide more protection to the
head if you were in an accident.

I believe what RoSPA and the Dft say in regards to wearing helmets.

Do you believe in fairies?

Why do they promote helmet wearing?

They think they have to be seen to do something? Never ever forget the
first duty of any organism is self perpetuation.


Has any country or state in the US which introduced compulsory helmets
said - oh dear we got it wrong - there are many more people now being
involved in accidents just because they are wearing helmets - we'll
retract the law and ban them - we see now that they really are
dangerous?

Has any state, anywhere, ever said " Oh dear we got it wrong"?

Gordon Brown appears to be saying just that in relation to the downgrading
of cannabis...................!!

Ret.

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:15:55 +0100, "Michael C"
wrote:

snip

I would not believe that wearing a helmet makes you more likely to
have an accident.

So you don't believe the evidence that suggests otherwise?

I have not seen the "evidence" that suggests otherwise.

Ok then - where is the evidence that supports your point of view?

I do believe that overall helmets would provide more protection to the
head if you were in an accident.

I believe what RoSPA and the Dft say in regards to wearing helmets.

Yet you do not believe the evidence that suggests otherwise?

I think it is most unlikely that if there is clear "evidence" that
wearing a helmet does not overall provide more protection in an
accident RoSPA and the DfT would be promoting the wearing of them.

And where is the evidence to support this opinion of yours?

Do you not think that both organisations employ people who are capable
of assessing the "evidence" and providing advise accordingly?

Yes, but cycle safety is just one small aspect of what makes up their work.

Did people read all "the evidence" before they decided to use mobile
phones or not wear seat belts before the legislation was introduced?

I don't see what your point is here - mobile phones and seat belts are
quite
different to cycle helmets.

The point is that most people are not inclined to read, or capable of
understanding, scientific research papers. People were more than
willing to accept the sense of not using mobiles and of wearing seat
belts without wading through "scientific" papers which have probably
been produced because someone has an axe to grind.

I still don't really see how any of that is relevant to wearing cycle
helmets. Not to mention that mobile phone useage is increasing all the time
and the studies into seatbelts showed that it was much safer to wear them
than to not wear them - something that the studies into cycle helmets has
NOT shown.

Unless someone can produce some easy to understand statistics which
clearly show that overall wearing helmets does more harm than good -
then people will continue to believe that they are a good thing.

Whoever said they did more harm than good? So far all studies have been
inconclusive - which is why I have asked why you support cycle helmets being
compulsory.

For some easy-to-understand stats have a look at this site -
http://www.whycycle.co.uk/safety_and...cling_helmets/

For some written papers on both sides visit this site -
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

What general good? The evidence suggests that those wearing cycle helmets
have more accidents than those that don't - so what 'good' are you trying
to
promote here?

The evidence "suggests" - is it not very strong?

Might I be so bold as to suggest that many cyclists do not want to
support the wearing of cycle helmets because people may believe that
they are necessary, that cycling can be dangerous, and that once there
is a critical mass of people wearing them then they *will* be made
compulsory, and that as the ****wit Chapman says you cannot promote
cycling and promote helmet wearing at the same time.

This doesn't answer the question I asked - what general good are you
promoting here?

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:02:20 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:44:28 +0100, Marc
said in
:

this shows that your
assertion that you "will accept corrections
when proven wrong" is a just the prattle of a lying troll.

Obviously, since she's been proven wrong on multiple occasions and
has reacted simply by becoming more obdurate. And shifting the
goal-posts.

Guy


And you can of course list the occasions when I have been proven wrong
on "multiple occasions."

You have forgotten as I have told you before - If you can list them
here - then I am shown to be an idiot. If you cannot list them here
- then you are shown to be the idiot. So - lets see the list.

Here are some of your gems:


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

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

I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)

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)

judith wrote:

I would not believe that wearing a helmet makes you more likely to
have an accident

no, of course you (me, anyone) would not believe that. But it's
research, innit - science is not religion - belief is neither here nor
there, it's hard data and analysis that matter. The scientific process
is poorly understood by most people, cause and effect mingle with very
small sample sizes and anecdotal stuff. All those institutions have
opinions but it doesn't really make them right, however authorotively
they say it (e.g. WMD in Iraq as the ultimate in opinion rather than
data forming policy). GB bangs on about research based policy bit there
is hardly any of that around in any sphere.

People bang on about all sorts of things without having a clue as to
real science underlying (or undermining) what they are saying.

As an ultimate barrier to compulsion, however, I would contend this:

It's bugger all to do with the state as to what I wear on my head. I'm
old enough to look after myself and I would be incredibly against
compulsion for this one reason alone. Likewise ciggies, beer, McDonalds,
salt... the list of ways I could bugger myself up health wise are huge.
Why should the state concern themselves with what I do to myself?

Now, THAT'S a belief.

They will rely on advice from bodies such as RoSPA, the DfT, and cycle
clubs - who advise that helmets should be worn at all times.

well, prolly just when cycling though eh? ;-)

T