Nuxx:4e2ee9bc$0$2938$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!txtfeed2.tudelft.nl!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!reader02.news.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <4e2ee9bc$0$2938$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Saved by her helmet Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:22:20 +0100 References:     <6jjXp.25577$Z04.6864@newsfe07.ams2>    Lines: 49 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To:  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: d25c6ad3.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=V@W8:;MZNiB6:4]_G^2mVAYjZGX^207PK` On 26/07/2011 09:16, Squashme wrote: >> On Jul 26, 12:46 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR >>  wrote: >>> On 25/07/2011 20:17, Just zis twat, you know? wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Sure. Another former medical student sternly told me that I must >>>> start wearing a helmet or give up cycling after my crash last >>>> year. This was after a head CT scan came back completely normal, >>>> and I showed no signs whatsoever of concussion, not even a >>>> headache. I am absolutely confident that had I been wearing one >>>> he would have been equally confident that it had Save My >>>> Life(TM). I am also confident that the problem I still have with >>>> my right knee would be unaffected, and the broken rib would have >>>> been exactly as bad. >>> >>> Isn't it amazing how cyclists with no formal training or >>> qualifications know more than doctors & university professors? >>> > >> Almost as amazing as the fact that non-cyclists and cyclist-haters >> believe that they know more about cycling than do cyclists. > >> Almost as amazing as the fact that self-admitted non-attenders at >> Dover believe that they know more about who was there than do actual >> attenders at Dover. > > To be fair, I don't suppose Dave's line of work requires much in the way > of source checking or assessing published evidence, so he probably > doesn't realise that anyone with the basics of a scientific education > should be able to do it provided they have access to the sources.

Guy, why do you wear a helmet when you keep claiming that they don't improve safety?

I think it must be because you actually believe that they do (or at least might) improve safety, but you feel the need to lie and claim that they don't, because you're worried that admitting they might improve safety will lead to compulsion.

And you're determined to stop compulsion at all costs, because minimising restrictions on cyclists for ideological "reasons" (while maximising restrictions on motorists) is *the* most important thing to you. You don't mind if safety is compromised (and therefore deaths are unnecessarily increased) in order to "achieve" that, as long as it's "other people" who are dying rather than you (hence the fact that you wear a helmet and don't follow your own advice).