Legal position of h**m*ts

[Tony Raven]

Came across a very interesting review by a Barrister and Law Lecturer at
the LSE on the status of cycle helmets in the UK Courts. An interesting
read especially some of his comments about Martlew and BsHIT.
http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/documents/fullbrook.pdf

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[bugbear]

Tony Raven wrote:


> Sig...
>
> "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
> - Leonardo da Vinci

I'll take that quote very seriously, given who said it ;-)

BugBear

 

[davek]

Tony Raven wrote:
> An interesting read

Indeed. I particularly like the bit where it says that of the 28,000
head injuries suffered by children every year, only 1,200 are related to
cycling.

However, to say that newspaper reports of the 28,000 all being
cycling-related are "heavily criticised as sensationalist" is putting it
rather too mildly - "heavily criticised as outright lies" would seem
more appropriate.

Likewise, "the statistic that cycle helmets prevent 85 per cent of head
injuries has been shown to be a large exaggeration" might be better
worded as "the statistic that cycle helmets prevent 85 per cent of head
injuries has been shown to be a bare-faced lie".

A few more interesting quotes for the benefit of anyone who doesn't have
time to read through all 36(!) pages:
"An automated response that the absence of a cycle helmet might be a
causative factor ignores reality on the roads."

"In the vast majority of road collisions world-wide the literature notes
that 'driver error' is the key component."

"The pro-helmet campaigners are much too simplistic when they assert
that 'research has shown that wearing a good-quality cycle helmet is
proved to reduce deaths from head injury'; the research does not show
that by any means. The correlation is by no means automatic."

"In Great Britain, six times more pedestrians and eighteen times more
motor vehicle occupants suffer lethal head injuries than cyclists.
Children are 2.6 times more likely to suffer head injury through jumping
and falling than by cycling, and more than 99 per cent of head injuries
seen by UK hospitals do not involve road cyclists. It would therefore
seem logical that helmets for motorists would be rather more effective
than those for cyclists ... The potential of car driver helmets for
reducing injury is 17 times greater than that of cycle helmets."

"The simplistic mantra that absence of a cycle helmet equals culpability
in the civil courts is wholly unacceptable."

"What is clear is that there are many cycle injuries which cannot
possibly be ascribed to use or non-use of a cycle helmet. These are
likely to be the vast majority coming before the civil courts."

 

[Tony Raven]

davek wrote:
>
> However, to say that newspaper reports of the 28,000 all being
> cycling-related are "heavily criticised as sensationalist" is putting it
> rather too mildly - "heavily criticised as outright lies" would seem
> more appropriate.
>
> Likewise, "the statistic that cycle helmets prevent 85 per cent of head
> injuries has been shown to be a large exaggeration" might be better
> worded as "the statistic that cycle helmets prevent 85 per cent of head
> injuries has been shown to be a bare-faced lie".
>

I gather it was published in a Law journal which I am tracking down but
as such one has to take a dispassionate tone as an author however
justified your proposed revisions may be. Look at Curnow on TRT for
example.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[David Martin]

Tony Raven wrote:
> davek wrote:
> >
> > However, to say that newspaper reports of the 28,000 all being
> > cycling-related are "heavily criticised as sensationalist" is putting it
> > rather too mildly - "heavily criticised as outright lies" would seem
> > more appropriate.
> >
> > Likewise, "the statistic that cycle helmets prevent 85 per cent of head
> > injuries has been shown to be a large exaggeration" might be better
> > worded as "the statistic that cycle helmets prevent 85 per cent of head
> > injuries has been shown to be a bare-faced lie".
> >
>
> I gather it was published in a Law journal which I am tracking down but
> as such one has to take a dispassionate tone as an author however
> justified your proposed revisions may be. Look at Curnow on TRT for
> example.

Which one? I can't find it in Hein.

...d

 

[davek]

Tony Raven wrote:
> I gather it was published in a Law journal which I am tracking down but
> as such one has to take a dispassionate tone as an author however
> justified your proposed revisions may be.

Fortunately, usenet is /not/ a law journal... ;-)

d.

 

[Pete White]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Came across a very interesting review by a Barrister and Law Lecturer at
> the LSE on the status of cycle helmets in the UK Courts. An interesting
> read especially some of his comments about Martlew and BsHIT.
> http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/documents/fullbrook.pdf
>


That took a while to read, but oddly worth it in the end! Common sense
seems to be prevailing...

 

[Mike Causer]

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 08:52:24 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:

> Came across a very interesting review by a Barrister and Law Lecturer at
> the LSE on the status of cycle helmets in the UK Courts. An interesting
> read especially some of his comments about Martlew and BsHIT.
> http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/documents/fullbrook.pdf

Very interesting. For those who don't want to read the whole thing
there's a shorter article on the same subject at
http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/helmets.php



Mike

 

[jtaylor]

"Pete White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tony Raven wrote:
> > Came across a very interesting review by a Barrister and Law Lecturer at
> > the LSE on the status of cycle helmets in the UK Courts. An interesting
> > read especially some of his comments about Martlew and BsHIT.
> > http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/documents/fullbrook.pdf
> >
>
>
> That took a while to read, but oddly worth it in the end! Common sense
> seems to be prevailing...

You'd be surprised how twisted "common sense" can become - some pro-helmet
zealots claim it as their reason for wearing and promoting helmets.

 

[jtaylor]

"Werehatrack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:48:22 -0300, "jtaylor"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Pete White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Tony Raven wrote:
> >> > Came across a very interesting review by a Barrister and Law Lecturer
at
> >> > the LSE on the status of cycle helmets in the UK Courts. An
interesting
> >> > read especially some of his comments about Martlew and BsHIT.
> >> > http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/documents/fullbrook.pdf
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> That took a while to read, but oddly worth it in the end! Common sense
> >> seems to be prevailing...
> >
> >You'd be surprised how twisted "common sense" can become - some
pro-helmet
> >zealots claim it as their reason for wearing and promoting helmets.
>
> As do some anti-helmet zealots for not wearing and for promoting
> non-use of them.
>

I find this a rarity - with all of the largest and best studies advancing
such a position, there is no need to call on such weak support.

Common sense, afterall, told us for centuries that the earth was flat.

 

[Tony Raven]

jtaylor wrote:
> "Werehatrack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> As do some anti-helmet zealots for not wearing and for promoting
>> non-use of them.
>>
>
> I find this a rarity - with all of the largest and best studies advancing
> such a position, there is no need to call on such weak support.
>
> Common sense, afterall, told us for centuries that the earth was flat.
>

You need to realise that Werehatrack wears a helmet because he is a
cross between a human and a hat rack according to one interpretation of
his name

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Tony Raven]

Sandy wrote:
>
> So, when you (Raven) end up lauding "common sense" of a one-sided
> advocate, I take his words to be a cogent, yet slanted attempt to
> convince.

Check you quoting. I made no such comment.


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Sandy]

Tony Raven a écrit :
> Sandy wrote:
>>
>> So, when you (Raven) end up lauding "common sense" of a one-sided
>> advocate, I take his words to be a cogent, yet slanted attempt to
>> convince.
>
> Check you quoting. I made no such comment.
>
>
You are so cute, Raven. Your scissors are sooooo sharp. Of course you
did, ninny.

 

[David Martin]

Sandy wrote:
> Tony Raven a écrit :
> > Sandy wrote:
> >>
> >> So, when you (Raven) end up lauding "common sense" of a one-sided
> >> advocate, I take his words to be a cogent, yet slanted attempt to
> >> convince.
> >
> > Check you quoting. I made no such comment.
> >
> >
> You are so cute, Raven. Your scissors are sooooo sharp. Of course you
> did, ninny.

Sandy, I have just reread the entire thread. At no point did Tony use
the phrase "common sense". It was included in some quotes of others
posts, but he has not used it.
Either that or you are reading an entirely different thread to me.

...d

 

[[email protected]]

Sandy wrote:
> Tony Raven a écrit :
> > Sandy wrote:
> >>
> >> So, when you (Raven) end up lauding "common sense" of a one-sided
> >> advocate, I take his words to be a cogent, yet slanted attempt to
> >> convince.
> >
> > Check you quoting. I made no such comment.
> >
> >
> You are so cute, Raven. Your scissors are sooooo sharp. Of course you
> did, ninny.

Dear Sandy,

In court, wouldn't you provide a link to where "you (Raven) end up
lauding 'common sense'"?

The rest of us can't tell if you're lazy, mistaken, or lying.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Jay Beattie]

[email protected] wrote:
> Sandy wrote:
> > Tony Raven a écrit :
> > > Sandy wrote:
> > >>
> > >> So, when you (Raven) end up lauding "common sense" of a one-sided
> > >> advocate, I take his words to be a cogent, yet slanted attempt to
> > >> convince.
> > >
> > > Check you quoting. I made no such comment.
> > >
> > >
> > You are so cute, Raven. Your scissors are sooooo sharp. Of course you
> > did, ninny.
>
> Dear Sandy,
>
> In court, wouldn't you provide a link to where "you (Raven) end up
> lauding 'common sense'"?
>
> The rest of us can't tell if you're lazy, mistaken, or lying.

That's how it looks on the Google news reader. The ">" placement makes
it look like a post from Tony. Probably one of those odd Google
artifacts.

As for the article, its an advocacy piece, but hey, that's great. Go
dog go. This is exactly why we have juries in the United States -- to
resolve difficult scientific disputes. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[[email protected]]

Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> As for the article, its an advocacy piece, but hey, that's great. Go
> dog go. This is exactly why we have juries in the United States -- to
> resolve difficult scientific disputes.

Hmm. Odd. I thought they were to resolve legal disputes.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

On 8 Jun 2006 17:58:20 -0700, "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Sandy wrote:
>> > Tony Raven a écrit :
>> > > Sandy wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> So, when you (Raven) end up lauding "common sense" of a one-sided
>> > >> advocate, I take his words to be a cogent, yet slanted attempt to
>> > >> convince.
>> > >
>> > > Check you quoting. I made no such comment.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > You are so cute, Raven. Your scissors are sooooo sharp. Of course you
>> > did, ninny.
>>
>> Dear Sandy,
>>
>> In court, wouldn't you provide a link to where "you (Raven) end up
>> lauding 'common sense'"?
>>
>> The rest of us can't tell if you're lazy, mistaken, or lying.
>
>That's how it looks on the Google news reader. The ">" placement makes
>it look like a post from Tony. Probably one of those odd Google
>artifacts.
>
>As for the article, its an advocacy piece, but hey, that's great. Go
>dog go. This is exactly why we have juries in the United States -- to
>resolve difficult scientific disputes. -- Jay Beattie.

Dear Jay,

I can't figure out what you're saying--you say "that's how it looks on
the Google news reader" without telling us where to see "it" (whatever
"it" may be).

Can you provide a link to a post where:

"So, when you (Raven) end up lauding "common sense" of a one-sided
advocate, I take his words to be a cogent, yet slanted attempt to
convince."

I admit that Sandy's English and logic are as confused and tortured as
ever, but he seems to be claiming that Tony Raven is somewhere
"lauding 'common sense'"--particularly when Sandy dodges Tony's blunt
statement that he never lauded "common sense" with the usual insults
and unsupported assertions.

Do you have a link to a post where Tony lauds common sense?

Do you think Sandy has one?

Bewildered,

Carl Fogel

 

[dkahn400]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 8 Jun 2006 17:58:20 -0700, "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]>
> wrote:

> >That's how it looks on the Google news reader. The ">" placement makes
> >it look like a post from Tony. Probably one of those odd Google
> >artifacts.
> >
> >As for the article, its an advocacy piece, but hey, that's great. Go
> >dog go. This is exactly why we have juries in the United States -- to
> >resolve difficult scientific disputes. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> Dear Jay,
>
> I can't figure out what you're saying--you say "that's how it looks on
> the Google news reader" without telling us where to see "it" (whatever
> "it" may be).
>
> Can you provide a link to a post where:
>
> "So, when you (Raven) end up lauding "common sense" of a one-sided
> advocate, I take his words to be a cogent, yet slanted attempt to
> convince."
>
> I admit that Sandy's English and logic are as confused and tortured as
> ever, but he seems to be claiming that Tony Raven is somewhere
> "lauding 'common sense'"--particularly when Sandy dodges Tony's blunt
> statement that he never lauded "common sense" with the usual insults
> and unsupported assertions.
>
> Do you have a link to a post where Tony lauds common sense?

I think Jay may be referring to this post by jtaylor
<http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/e1b8f6f74c3f8dea?dmode=source&hl=en>

The "common sense" part is clearly attributed, correctly, to Pete
White. I would have thought that Sandy, having insulted Tony so freely,
would want to back that up by producing a reference to the post where
Tony 'end(s) up lauding "common sense" of a one-sided advocate'.

> Do you think Sandy has one?

Undoubtedly. As a brilliant lawyer with superior reading and
comprehension skills I'm sure he would never fall into the double trap
of both relying on someone else's quotation of Tony's words rather then
going to the source, and then misinterpreting the attribution.

--
Dave...

 

[Jay Beattie]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 8 Jun 2006 17:58:20 -0700, "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> Sandy wrote:
> >> > Tony Raven a écrit :
> >> > > Sandy wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> So, when you (Raven) end up lauding "common sense" of a one-sided
> >> > >> advocate, I take his words to be a cogent, yet slanted attempt to
> >> > >> convince.
> >> > >
> >> > > Check you quoting. I made no such comment.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > You are so cute, Raven. Your scissors are sooooo sharp. Of course you
> >> > did, ninny.
> >>
> >> Dear Sandy,
> >>
> >> In court, wouldn't you provide a link to where "you (Raven) end up
> >> lauding 'common sense'"?
> >>
> >> The rest of us can't tell if you're lazy, mistaken, or lying.
> >
> >That's how it looks on the Google news reader. The ">" placement makes
> >it look like a post from Tony. Probably one of those odd Google
> >artifacts.
> >
> >As for the article, its an advocacy piece, but hey, that's great. Go
> >dog go. This is exactly why we have juries in the United States -- to
> >resolve difficult scientific disputes. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> Dear Jay,
>
> I can't figure out what you're saying--you say "that's how it looks on
> the Google news reader" without telling us where to see "it" (whatever
> "it" may be).
>
> Can you provide a link to a post where:
>
> "So, when you (Raven) end up lauding "common sense" of a one-sided
> advocate, I take his words to be a cogent, yet slanted attempt to
> convince."
>
> I admit that Sandy's English and logic are as confused and tortured as
> ever, but he seems to be claiming that Tony Raven is somewhere
> "lauding 'common sense'"--particularly when Sandy dodges Tony's blunt
> statement that he never lauded "common sense" with the usual insults
> and unsupported assertions.
>
> Do you have a link to a post where Tony lauds common sense?
> Do you think Sandy has one?
>
> Bewildered,

You know, Carl, I really should be working -- and I feel that I am
about at my bandwidth limit for helmet posts, but to answer your
question, when I read the first post in this thread, it started with a
quote from Tony, and the way the "<"s were arranged, I thought that the
sentence about "common sense" was written by him. It looks different
now (I would cut and paste, but I would lose this post). Really, I was
not hallucinating. There are no large rabbits in my room. I'm telling
you, Google does really strange things sometimes. I can see how Sandy
could have gotten it wrong.

BTW, Sandy's English is impressive, assuming he is French. Harken back
to your freshmen writing classes. Most would not even know what
"lauding" means. And you Carl . . . sometimes your posts read like "A
Series of Unfortunate Events!" Are you Lemony Snickett? Come on, 'fess
up. -- Jay Beattie.