On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:19:04 +0100, Marc
wrote:

judith wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:11:21 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:19:07 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

What I said above was:

"I believe that : the wearing of cycle helmets reduces the overall
risk of injury to cyclists."

The referenced paper says:

"Helmeted cyclists in collision with motor vehicles had much less
serious non-head injuries than non-helmeted cyclists (suggesting lower
impact crashes)."

I think that supports my view - don't you?
The very same paragraph also notes
Cyclists who choose to wear helmets commit fewer traffic violations,12 have
higher socioeconomic status, and are more likely to wear high visibility
clothing and use lights at night.13 Helmeted children tend to ride with
other cyclists in parks, playgrounds, or on bicycle paths rather than on
city streets, and (in the United States) be white rather than other races

Do you think that any of these is as a *result* of wearing a helmet?



No - just social observations - with no comment added

Different from
"Helmeted cyclists in collision with motor vehicles had much less
serious non-head injuries than non-helmeted cyclists"

which had the added comment : (suggesting lower
impact crashes)."

Do you think it was chance that the helmeted cyclists had less serious
injuries? If not - what was the reason if not lower impact crashes?


Why did they have lower impact crashes?
Better brakes because of their higher socioeconomic status?
Riding in nicer areas because of their higher socioeconomic status?
Riding in a more conservative manner because they were risk averse, as
shown by their use of helmets?


Your blind acceptance shows that their is still one born every minute
and is the reason the politicians still exist.


You will see that I retracted that **** I wrote - I missed the fact
that it was "non-head injuries".

judith wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:54:34 +0100, judith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:11:21 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:19:07 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

What I said above was:

"I believe that : the wearing of cycle helmets reduces the overall
risk of injury to cyclists."

The referenced paper says:

"Helmeted cyclists in collision with motor vehicles had much less
serious non-head injuries than non-helmeted cyclists (suggesting lower
impact crashes)."

I think that supports my view - don't you?
The very same paragraph also notes
Cyclists who choose to wear helmets commit fewer traffic violations,12 have
higher socioeconomic status, and are more likely to wear high visibility
clothing and use lights at night.13 Helmeted children tend to ride with
other cyclists in parks, playgrounds, or on bicycle paths rather than on
city streets, and (in the United States) be white rather than other races

Do you think that any of these is as a *result* of wearing a helmet?


No - just social observations - with no comment added

Different from
"Helmeted cyclists in collision with motor vehicles had much less
serious non-head injuries than non-helmeted cyclists"

which had the added comment : (suggesting lower
impact crashes)."

Do you think it was chance that the helmeted cyclists had less serious
injuries? If not - what was the reason if not lower impact crashes?


I retract that **** I wrote above - I missed the significance of
"non-head"

Now, why did those wearing helmets have less serious non-head injuries
than non helmet wearers?

Could be that the two groups are disparate?

judith wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:19:04 +0100, Marc
wrote:

judith wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:11:21 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:19:07 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

What I said above was:

"I believe that : the wearing of cycle helmets reduces the overall
risk of injury to cyclists."

The referenced paper says:

"Helmeted cyclists in collision with motor vehicles had much less
serious non-head injuries than non-helmeted cyclists (suggesting lower
impact crashes)."

I think that supports my view - don't you?
The very same paragraph also notes
Cyclists who choose to wear helmets commit fewer traffic violations,12 have
higher socioeconomic status, and are more likely to wear high visibility
clothing and use lights at night.13 Helmeted children tend to ride with
other cyclists in parks, playgrounds, or on bicycle paths rather than on
city streets, and (in the United States) be white rather than other races

Do you think that any of these is as a *result* of wearing a helmet?


No - just social observations - with no comment added

Different from
"Helmeted cyclists in collision with motor vehicles had much less
serious non-head injuries than non-helmeted cyclists"

which had the added comment : (suggesting lower
impact crashes)."

Do you think it was chance that the helmeted cyclists had less serious
injuries? If not - what was the reason if not lower impact crashes?

Why did they have lower impact crashes?
Better brakes because of their higher socioeconomic status?
Riding in nicer areas because of their higher socioeconomic status?
Riding in a more conservative manner because they were risk averse, as
shown by their use of helmets?


Your blind acceptance shows that their is still one born every minute
and is the reason the politicians still exist.


You will see that I retracted that **** I wrote - I missed the fact
that it was "non-head injuries".


Fine, now do the extrapolation! Why did they have less serious non
head injuries ?

You can't now ignore the data just because it doesn't agree with your
position, you now need to question it.

Or of course you could just pretend it was ****, and go back to be a
lying wriggling troll

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:08:27 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

snip



The evidence is that compulsion does increase the incidence of helmet
wearing but it does not improve the head injury rate.

Do you accept that there is nothing in the paper that can be as
interpreted
as supporting your propostion? If you still think there is something in
the
article that does support your proposition, please let us know.


No - the first summary point below clearly supports my view:

"Case-control studies suggest that cyclists who choose to wear helmets
have fewer head injuries than non-wearers. "


Not a causal relationship though - they also have fewer leg and body
injuries than non-wearers, so your 'view' is not supported.

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:54:34 +0100, judith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:11:21 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


"judith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:19:07 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

What I said above was:

"I believe that : the wearing of cycle helmets reduces the overall
risk of injury to cyclists."

The referenced paper says:

"Helmeted cyclists in collision with motor vehicles had much less
serious non-head injuries than non-helmeted cyclists (suggesting lower
impact crashes)."

I think that supports my view - don't you?

The very same paragraph also notes
Cyclists who choose to wear helmets commit fewer traffic violations,12
have
higher socioeconomic status, and are more likely to wear high visibility
clothing and use lights at night.13 Helmeted children tend to ride with
other cyclists in parks, playgrounds, or on bicycle paths rather than on
city streets, and (in the United States) be white rather than other races

Do you think that any of these is as a *result* of wearing a helmet?



No - just social observations - with no comment added

Different from
"Helmeted cyclists in collision with motor vehicles had much less
serious non-head injuries than non-helmeted cyclists"

which had the added comment : (suggesting lower
impact crashes)."

Do you think it was chance that the helmeted cyclists had less serious
injuries? If not - what was the reason if not lower impact crashes?


I retract that **** I wrote above - I missed the significance of
"non-head"

So what's left in that article that supports your argument?

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:52:12 +0100, Marc
wrote:

snip


Or of course you could just pretend it was ****, and go back to be a
lying wriggling troll


The true Round is back:

At least I had the guts to admit that I was wrong:

Unlike you when you said that you had to allow for the rotation of the
earth when dropping an object as the point where it would land would
not be directly under the point where it was dropped.

When I pointed out that "it's just like being on a train and jumping
up and coming down half way down the carriage - happens all the time."

you soon buggered off. Still it gave the rest of us a good laugh

What about when I had to point out to you that it was common sense to
wear a crash helmet in an open topped sports car as per police in
Holland

I loved your gem of the excuse for cyclists going through red-lights -
they couldn't stop in time!!!!

Priceless.

I think you should stick to cycle seats (Oh - hang on you probably do)
;-)

judith wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:52:12 +0100, Marc
wrote:

snip

Or of course you could just pretend it was ****, and go back to be a
lying wriggling troll


The true Round is back:

At least I had the guts to admit that I was wrong:

Unlike you when you said that you had to allow for the rotation of the
earth when dropping an object as the point where it would land would
not be directly under the point where it was dropped.

You really don't understand physics do you?

When I pointed out that "it's just like being on a train and jumping
up and coming down half way down the carriage - happens all the time."

you soon buggered off. Still it gave the rest of us a good laugh

What about when I had to point out to you that it was common sense to
wear a crash helmet in an open topped sports car as per police in
Holland

What about it? Please try and lay out your line of reasoning... it's
"common sense" because the police in the Netherlands do it? The police
in the Netherlands also carry weapons, would that be a "common sense"
approach to anything?

I loved your gem of the excuse for cyclists going through red-lights -
they couldn't stop in time!!!!

You don't understand anything that you don't want to!

Priceless.

I think you should stick to cycle seats (Oh - hang on you probably do)
;-)

No, it's normal to have a towel over the seat when cycling sans
bibshorts, with the b17 it tucks in nicely.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:00:38 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

snip

"Case-control studies suggest that cyclists who choose to wear helmets
have fewer head injuries than non-wearers. "


Not a causal relationship though - they also have fewer leg and body
injuries than non-wearers, so your 'view' is not supported.



And where is the evidence of that? (apart from in he paper I cocked
up with)

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong - but I don't think it was in
the DfT 2002 study was it - why did they not mention it?

--

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 Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:02:30 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


"judith" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:54:34 +0100, judith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:11:21 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


"judith" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:19:07 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

What I said above was:

"I believe that : the wearing of cycle helmets reduces the overall
risk of injury to cyclists."

The referenced paper says:

"Helmeted cyclists in collision with motor vehicles had much less
serious non-head injuries than non-helmeted cyclists (suggesting lower
impact crashes)."

I think that supports my view - don't you?

The very same paragraph also notes
Cyclists who choose to wear helmets commit fewer traffic violations,12
have
higher socioeconomic status, and are more likely to wear high visibility
clothing and use lights at night.13 Helmeted children tend to ride with
other cyclists in parks, playgrounds, or on bicycle paths rather than on
city streets, and (in the United States) be white rather than other races

Do you think that any of these is as a *result* of wearing a helmet?



No - just social observations - with no comment added

Different from
"Helmeted cyclists in collision with motor vehicles had much less
serious non-head injuries than non-helmeted cyclists"

which had the added comment : (suggesting lower
impact crashes)."

Do you think it was chance that the helmeted cyclists had less serious
injuries? If not - what was the reason if not lower impact crashes?


I retract that **** I wrote above - I missed the significance of
"non-head"

So what's left in that article that supports your argument?


Case-control studies suggest cyclists who choose to wear helmets
generally have fewer head injuries than non-wearers



--

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 in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:02:30 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


"judith" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:54:34 +0100, judith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:11:21 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


"judith" wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:19:07 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

What I said above was:

"I believe that : the wearing of cycle helmets reduces the overall
risk of injury to cyclists."

The referenced paper says:

"Helmeted cyclists in collision with motor vehicles had much less
serious non-head injuries than non-helmeted cyclists (suggesting
lower
impact crashes)."

I think that supports my view - don't you?

The very same paragraph also notes
Cyclists who choose to wear helmets commit fewer traffic violations,12
have
higher socioeconomic status, and are more likely to wear high
visibility
clothing and use lights at night.13 Helmeted children tend to ride with
other cyclists in parks, playgrounds, or on bicycle paths rather than
on
city streets, and (in the United States) be white rather than other
races

Do you think that any of these is as a *result* of wearing a helmet?



No - just social observations - with no comment added

Different from
"Helmeted cyclists in collision with motor vehicles had much less
serious non-head injuries than non-helmeted cyclists"

which had the added comment : (suggesting lower
impact crashes)."

Do you think it was chance that the helmeted cyclists had less serious
injuries? If not - what was the reason if not lower impact crashes?


I retract that **** I wrote above - I missed the significance of
"non-head"

So what's left in that article that supports your argument?


Case-control studies suggest cyclists who choose to wear helmets
generally have fewer head injuries than non-wearers


They have fewer injuries overall - that was in the 'stuff' you retracted.
So what's left?