Nuxx:2hfjg4999si5ahbhej45u0ludjuhc3qbuf@4ax.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.pipex.net!news.pipex.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <2hfjg4999si5ahbhej45u0ludjuhc3qbuf@4ax.com> From: _  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling,cam.transport Subject: Re: The DfT on Cycle Helmets - Clarification Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:34:27 +0000 References:  Lines: 105 NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:37:18 -0500 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.168.51 X-Trace: sv3-60qhz3IAOzknihKtgp/Y+N9m/NI5YkX4/UHtVvG0f4TIwNU1a7nZdUlh65uvR+ud3jjWRZmAe4pXl6e!ij4XrFPGwu0/hrBcQeCw1WdMQl0g3ZIwyzAWt71d54kNis3IRpEPfHFRsHcV7CJrDFhHRJorkBMs!kffBhKfrMh1N8li60gL4VQ== X-Complaints-To: abuse@dsl.pipex.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@dsl.pipex.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.39 Bytes: 5984 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:674442

Oh dear judith. It looks like you're "trolling" (i.e. disagreeing with a URC "established truth") again. As an sworn-in officer of the Unwanted Self-Appointed Usenet Police, I order you to stop, and rid yourself of the absurd idea that you are somehow entitled to your opinion. If you don't, I might start spamming URC again, and stuff the regulars who don't want me to.

After all, one of the telltale signs of someone that tries to police others all the time, like I do, is that they don't care who is adversely impacted by the self-appointed policing, or what the results of the "policing" actually are, as the "policing" is not done for the benefit of anyone but themselves, since they like to try to control others and feel important, to make up for the lack of real power that they in fact have.

regulars not liking it; *that* is why I deliberately slow down other traffic all the time despite it making the roads more dangerous and unpleasant for everyone, not just "speeders"; *that* is why I put my full beam on at anyone who overtakes me, even if it blinds others coming the other way. My "policing" is not about safety, helping others or anything else like that; it's just a symptom of my pathetic and fruitless longing for power and control over others, and the fact that I have absolutely no consideration for anyone other than myself.
 * That* is why I kept posting "Don't feed the troll" despite the

By the way, do you know why I call myself "_"? Well, it's actually the polite version of my full (and accurate) username: "cunt_motherfucker". Once you take out the obscenities, "_" is all that's left.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:42:32 +0000, judith  wrote:

> >Some will recall a couple of months ago, the fuckwit Chapman, when >discussing cycle helmets stated on a number of occasions: > >"The Minister for Transport said that Her Majesty's Government know of >no case which shows that increased helmet use has led to a provable >reduction in head injuries in real populations" - and that this was in >a letter from David Jamieson, Minister Department for Transport, to >Michael Jack MP, Oct 2003. > >When asked to produce the letter - Chapman said he couldn't - he >didn't have a copy. Now that seemed odd to me - Chapman quotes a >letter which shows something which clearly supports his case - but he >won't produce it. Why is that? > >He told me to write to Michael Jack and/or the DfT and get a copy (No >doubt thinking - ho, ho, ho - she'll not be able to get that). > >So I did - and I now have a copy of the original letter. > >And now his reluctance to produce the letter becomes obvious - because >it didn't actually say "they knew of no case" - they said: > >"It is extremely difficult to draw conclusions about the effectiveness >of cycle helmets by relating wearing rates to actual injuries. We have >no specific data to draw upon." > >Now why couldn't Chapman have said that? - Perhaps it didn't support >the point he was trying to argue. > >However - it was quickly followed by: > >"But in any case the key issue is whether or not cycle helmets can >protect from injury. Both and the fact sheet (item 8) refer >to our research which concludes that they can indeed protect from >injury." > >The letter also states: You should know that there is a large volume >of correspondence between  and this Department on the subject >of cycle helmets and  has also had two wide ranging >meetings with officials. So we have gone to some trouble to explain >our policy position. > >So they have gone to some trouble - but Chapman and others (CTC) still >won't accept what the DfT say. > >Perhaps they're telling them things they don't want to hear. > >The DfT have also stated in the latest correspondence that their >current position is "there is evidence that bicycle helmets can be >effective at reducing the incidence and severity of head, brain and >upper facial injuries and that they can be effective in reducing >injury for users of all ages, though particularly for children." > >So there you have it - yet another failure by the duplicitous and >deceitful Chapman to lie his way out of an argument yet again. > >(I believe Ian Walker has also received the information which I have >- but for some reason has decided not to publicise it - I wonder why?) > >--  >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) - proven to be an outright lie. >He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date >of last amendment > > > >