Nuxx:J1e6nv$uo7$1@dont-email.me

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!goblin3!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Reduced speed limit saved boy's life. Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 14:27:27 +0100 References: <27866385-19d5-4f1e-9e89-007a2446c0f9@z17g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>   <_4mdnVBm_Oj11qfTnZ2dnUVZ8mCdnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk>  <_7w_p.88905$r52.48571@newsfe02.ams2>  Lines: 25 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Reply-To: nuxx.bar@live.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 13:27:28 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8VY5uu/CK0XISrS5UTJ+SA"; logging-data="31495"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18FSbotZszAm099sTxoi6g4UzPBBAitncwOSuQwjrIb7g==" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 In-Reply-To:  Cancel-Lock: sha1:AysGLQx2cjb4WaPQnPVbvp2Oer0= Bytes: 2569 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:820270

On 04/08/2011 14:17, Zapp Brannigan wrote: > Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: >> On 04/08/2011 13:05, Zapp Brannigan wrote: >>> But that's really beside the point. Here's a simple question for >>> you : If it was your child who had fallen in front of a moving SUV, >>> would you wish them to be wearing a helmet when that happened ? >>> >>> Yes or no please, not a tendentious and irrelevant rehash of the >>> weary old arguments. >> >> We don't get to choose what hits us or when. The lack of any credible >> whole-population support for the idea that helmets make any meaningful >> difference to road safety tells us that any question based on "if all >> other things are equal..." is pointless, because we have very good >> evidence that they are not. >> >> What we do know is that virtually all the research supporting helmet use >> makes exactly the same error: confounding the chooser and the choice. > > You were so busy ignoring the "not a tendentious and irrelevant rehash of > the weary old arguments" that you forgot to answer the question. Would you > like to have another go?

No, he wouldn't. He doesn't have a great track record when it comes to answering awkward questions.