Cycle

Just zis Guy said:

Hurrah! Another edition of Cycle arrives chez Chapman!

Reading it on the train (with my new Brompton folded up tidily out of
the way) I thought that this one had even more content than the last.
And it fits nicely in the Brompton pannier (without even folding it).

So when I got to Didcot I unfolded the Brompton (did I mention the
Brompton?) and rode to the office in glorious sunshine. Bliss!

Side rescued from the dark another one mmmmmm

--
Tony

"A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought" Lord
Peter Wimsey (Dorothy L. Sayers)

Just zis Guy said:

Hurrah! Another edition of Cycle arrives chez Chapman!

That article on that Ron bloke near the back made my meagre 2500 miles
per year look pathetic. Over 75000 miles in a year?! 361 miles in 18
hours on that bike!? Loony...

Quoted message said:

Ob the H word, there is a very good article in there by Brian Walker
of HPE.

....although he doesn't mention rotational injury, that I saw.

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

Mark Tranchant said:

Quoted message said:

Ob the H word, there is a very good article in there by Brian Walker
of HPE.

...although he doesn't mention rotational injury, that I saw.

But he does write this, "The QC under whose instruction I was
privileged to work tried repeatedly to persuade the nurosurgeons
acting for either side, and the technical expert opposing me, to state
that one *must* be more safe wearing a helmet than would be the case
if one were not. All three refused to do so, claiming that they had
seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without
helmets being worn."

Tilly said:

But he does write this, "The QC under whose instruction I was
privileged to work tried repeatedly to persuade the nurosurgeons
acting for either side, and the technical expert opposing me, to state
that one *must* be more safe wearing a helmet than would be the case
if one were not. All three refused to do so, claiming that they had
seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without
helmets being worn."

Yes, I didn't like that statement.

I do note that he doesn't _actually_ state whether he would or would
not agree with the statement being requested, but I inferred that he
would.

regards, Ian SMith

Ian Smith said:

Tilly said:

But he does write this, "The QC under whose instruction I was
privileged to work tried repeatedly to persuade the nurosurgeons
acting for either side, and the technical expert opposing me, to state
that one *must* be more safe wearing a helmet than would be the case
if one were not. All three refused to do so, claiming that they had
seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without
helmets being worn."

Yes, I didn't like that statement.

I had no problem with it. He has an opinion and is more qualified
than most to have his opinion heard. The neurosurgeons had witnessed
severe brain damage and fatal injury of cyclists with and without
helmets and unless the number seen were very high were right not to
express an opinion either way.

Quoted message said:

I do note that he doesn't _actually_ state whether he would or would
not agree with the statement being requested, but I inferred that he
would.

Is that a problem? The main contention is overall benefits of helmet
wearing not individual safety, and it seems generally accepted that
helmets can help protect against certain types of head injury,
especially among children.

Tilly said:

Ian Smith said:

Tilly said:

But he does write this, "The QC under whose instruction I was
privileged to work tried repeatedly to persuade the nurosurgeons
acting for either side, and the technical expert opposing me, to state
that one *must* be more safe wearing a helmet than would be the case
if one were not. All three refused to do so, claiming that they had
seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without
helmets being worn."

Yes, I didn't like that statement.

I had no problem with it. He has an opinion and is more qualified
than most to have his opinion heard.

One of my problems was that he didn't state clearly what he meant.

Also, he implies that he thinks you _are_ always going to be better
off with a helmet, yet does so knowing that even neurosurgeons
supposedly on 'his' side (I know expert witnesses aren't supposed to
operate like that) won't agree with the statement.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I do note that he doesn't _actually_ state whether he would or would
not agree with the statement being requested, but I inferred that he
would.

Is that a problem? The main contention is overall benefits of helmet
wearing not individual safety, and it seems generally accepted that
helmets can help protect against certain types of head injury,
especially among children.

Yes, but even that's not the issue he seemed to be pushing - he seems
to be implying that you are _always_ better off in a helmet, not just
better off against "certain types of injury". Having implied being
specific and technical through the rest of the article, I thought it
unfortunate that it became wooly at the critical point - and wooly
even to the extent of not clearly stating which wooly answer the
author thought most likely.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith said:

Yes, but even that's not the issue he seemed to be pushing - he seems
to be implying that you are _always_ better off in a helmet, not just
better off against "certain types of injury". Having implied being
specific and technical through the rest of the article, I thought it
unfortunate that it became wooly at the critical point - and wooly
even to the extent of not clearly stating which wooly answer the
author thought most likely.

I wondered whether that was editorial cowardice realising that blood
vessels would already be bursting and pencils being sharpened across the
land at the merest suggestion that helmets might not be magical HGV
deflectors.
--
Tony

"A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought" Lord
Peter Wimsey (Dorothy L. Sayers)

On 27 May 2005 19:53:53 GMT, Ian Smith <[email hidden]> wrote
in message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I do note that he doesn't _actually_ state whether he would or would
not agree with the statement being requested, but I inferred that he
would.

Brian is a former member of the Snell Memorial Foundation, a long-term
advocate of standards for head protection. He is remarkably balanced
on the issue: I can't remember whether he wears one or not, but he is
very clearly of the view that not wearing one is a perfectly rational
choice. He is clearly unhappy at them being sold as a "road safety"
measure. Overall he thinks they have some benefit, but that they have
little or no effect in road traffic collisions.

I'd have to read the article again to see how clearly this comes
across, the above is from a few conversations with him, but overall he
is on the side of the angels, in that he feels that overall it would
be much better to expend time and effort into promoting real safety
measures like training and raising the general levels of awareness
among clueless cagers.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

you know? said:

I'd have to read the article again to see how clearly this comes
across,

Well, you know those irritating colleagues that woffle on and on
without actually saying anything?

I just hope he's better in person.