Bicycle helmets Are they mandatory in Europe?

On 1 mrt, 13:10, Martin wrote:
On 1 Mar 2007 02:41:08 -0800, wrote:





On 1 mrt, 11:43, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:
Let is be knownst that on Thu, 1 Mar 2007 06:59:08 +0100,
(Mister Bartlett) writted:

Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:
Seems to me sometimes people like to slap a label on in a bid to end
reasonable debate.

"Reasonable debate"? Seems to me that this "debate" is characterised by
Mary presenting a hypothesis and backing it up with published research,
while you, iReid and Martin reply by shouting "not listening, not
listening, not listening" like any toddler having a tantrum.

'Seems' being the operative word here. It 'seems' to me that you are
convinced, and don't want to question the study.

I don't have a problem with quetioning the study. I have a problem
with questioning it without even having read it, which is what you
did.

Since the study has yet to be published, how can we read the published research?

Didn't you give a link to it on the Elsevier site[1]? I know yesterday
is a long time ago, but still ...

In any case, that's a question you really need to ask DFM - he's the
one who is convinced that the study is fatally flawed.

B;

[1] and I have a preprint.

On 1 mrt, 13:06, Martin wrote:
On 1 Mar 2007 02:39:44 -0800, wrote:





On 1 mrt, 11:38, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:
Let is be knownst that on Thu, 1 Mar 2007 06:59:08 +0100,
(Mister Bartlett) writted:

Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:

Let is be knownst that on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:11:06 +0100,
(Mister Bartlett) writted:

Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:

Let is be knownst that on 28 Feb 2007 02:18:39 -0800,
writted:

On 28 feb, 11:13, Martin wrote:
On 28 Feb 2007 01:46:39 -0800, wrote:

On 28 feb, 10:39, Martin wrote: On Wed, 28
Feb 2007 06:46:14 +0100, (Mister Bartlett) wrote:
Deeply Filled Mortician

This is based on your review of the paper? Oh no - you haven't
actually seen the paper.

Have you?

No, but _a_priori_ I put more faith in peer-reviewed articles than I
do in the prejudices of a bunch of usenet wiseguys.

Unless I have missed something isn't everybody discussing the
content of an article on a BBC website and not a peer reviewed
paper?

I think people are discussing (for want of a better word) a peer-
reviewed paper referred to on a BBC website. DFM claims it to be a
misrepresentation (of something he has never seen)

DFM says nothing of the sort. Kindly don't misrepresent me.

You said:

" There could be dozens of possibilities, including bias from the
measurer, to bias by the riders, to statistical bias... it is almost
endless, and the doctor knows this, which is why he worded his report
(or the parts we've seen) so carefully. "

Folk can judge for themselves what you claim.

I didn't claim anything whatsoever in the above, let alone a
misrepresentation. Get your facts/story/whatever right.

Like I said, people can judge for themselves whether your words above
include a claim, and whether that claim involves any misrepresentation.

It was you that said that, not me.

Anyone who gives a **** can easily check who said what. I suggest they
start with your post at 22.48 on 27 Feb.

You give a ****! LOL

Obviously, but I seriously doubt anyone else does.

B;

Let is be knownst that on 1 Mar 2007 04:24:33 -0800,
writted:

On 1 mrt, 13:10, Martin wrote:
On 1 Mar 2007 02:41:08 -0800, wrote:

Since the study has yet to be published, how can we read the published research?

Didn't you give a link to it on the Elsevier site[1]? I know yesterday
is a long time ago, but still ...

In any case, that's a question you really need to ask DFM - he's the
one who is convinced that the study is fatally flawed.

Again, I never said that. I haven't read the study, so how could I?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On 1 mrt, 13:38, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:
Let is be knownst that on 1 Mar 2007 04:24:33 -0800,
writted:

On 1 mrt, 13:10, Martin wrote:
On 1 Mar 2007 02:41:08 -0800, wrote:
Since the study has yet to be published, how can we read the published research?

Didn't you give a link to it on the Elsevier site[1]? I know yesterday
is a long time ago, but still ...

In any case, that's a question you really need to ask DFM - he's the
one who is convinced that the study is fatally flawed.

Again, I never said that. I haven't read the study, so how could I?

You could quite easily. How you could do so with any credibility is
another matter.

Just at random we find this pearl:

------------------------------------------------

c) the research that drivers take more risks with helmeted riders is
marginal or as wrong as the idea the police blame cyclists for
car/bike accidents.


That's a pretty high concentration of bull**** in one post, even for
you.



The Reid is a damn fine bull**** artist, but he happens to be spot on
here.
-----------------------------------------

i.e. you agreeing with iReid that the research is "marginal or
wrong".

This is getting even more boring than work. I think I'll go and fill
in an expense report, or something interesting like that.

B;

On 1 mrt, 13:29, Martin wrote:

Ian Wilson's idea that it is *generally* believed that people give cyclists more
room, if cyclists cycle well away from the edge of the road is laughable.

That only shows that you have no clue what you're talking about. If
you glance at the cycling ng's you'll find it frequently mentioned.

B;

On 1 mrt, 14:44, Martin wrote:
On 1 Mar 2007 04:24:33 -0800, wrote:





On 1 mrt, 13:10, Martin wrote:
On 1 Mar 2007 02:41:08 -0800, wrote:

On 1 mrt, 11:43, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:
Let is be knownst that on Thu, 1 Mar 2007 06:59:08 +0100,
(Mister Bartlett) writted:

Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:
Seems to me sometimes people like to slap a label on in a bid to end
reasonable debate.

"Reasonable debate"? Seems to me that this "debate" is characterised by
Mary presenting a hypothesis and backing it up with published research,
while you, iReid and Martin reply by shouting "not listening, not
listening, not listening" like any toddler having a tantrum.

'Seems' being the operative word here. It 'seems' to me that you are
convinced, and don't want to question the study.

I don't have a problem with quetioning the study. I have a problem
with questioning it without even having read it, which is what you
did.

Since the study has yet to be published, how can we read the published research?

Didn't you give a link to it on the Elsevier site[1]? I know yesterday
is a long time ago, but still ...

I gave a link to the abstract.

Look again - http://www.TinyURL.com/2e8kuu.

Spotting things on web pages is not your strong suit, is it?

B;

On 1 mrt, 15:14, Martin wrote:
On 1 Mar 2007 05:57:52 -0800, wrote:





On 1 mrt, 14:44, Martin wrote:
On 1 Mar 2007 04:24:33 -0800, wrote:

On 1 mrt, 13:10, Martin wrote:
On 1 Mar 2007 02:41:08 -0800, wrote:

On 1 mrt, 11:43, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:
Let is be knownst that on Thu, 1 Mar 2007 06:59:08 +0100,
(Mister Bartlett) writted:

Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:
Seems to me sometimes people like to slap a label on in a bid to end
reasonable debate.

"Reasonable debate"? Seems to me that this "debate" is characterised by
Mary presenting a hypothesis and backing it up with published research,
while you, iReid and Martin reply by shouting "not listening, not
listening, not listening" like any toddler having a tantrum.

'Seems' being the operative word here. It 'seems' to me that you are
convinced, and don't want to question the study.

I don't have a problem with quetioning the study. I have a problem
with questioning it without even having read it, which is what you
did.

Since the study has yet to be published, how can we read the published research?

Didn't you give a link to it on the Elsevier site[1]? I know yesterday
is a long time ago, but still ...

I gave a link to the abstract.

Look again -http://www.TinyURL.com/2e8kuu.

Spotting things on web pages is not your strong suit, is it?

Are you blind? How big a font do you need to be able to read "ABSTRACT"?

ROFL !!! - now look a little bit further down the page. Can you see
where it says "Article Outline"? That's the outline of the article.
See those things in different colours? Those are links, to different
sections of the article. Try clicking one. See what happens? (Where
did you suppose I'd found the "acknowledgements" yesterday?) Damn
clever, this interweb thingy !!!

B;

On 1 Mar 2007 07:10:26 -0800, wrote:

On 1 mrt, 15:14, Martin wrote:
On 1 Mar 2007 05:57:52 -0800, wrote:





On 1 mrt, 14:44, Martin wrote:
On 1 Mar 2007 04:24:33 -0800, wrote:

On 1 mrt, 13:10, Martin wrote:
On 1 Mar 2007 02:41:08 -0800, wrote:

On 1 mrt, 11:43, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:
Let is be knownst that on Thu, 1 Mar 2007 06:59:08 +0100,
(Mister Bartlett) writted:

Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:
Seems to me sometimes people like to slap a label on in a bid to end
reasonable debate.

"Reasonable debate"? Seems to me that this "debate" is characterised by
Mary presenting a hypothesis and backing it up with published research,
while you, iReid and Martin reply by shouting "not listening, not
listening, not listening" like any toddler having a tantrum.

'Seems' being the operative word here. It 'seems' to me that you are
convinced, and don't want to question the study.

I don't have a problem with quetioning the study. I have a problem
with questioning it without even having read it, which is what you
did.

Since the study has yet to be published, how can we read the published research?

Didn't you give a link to it on the Elsevier site[1]? I know yesterday
is a long time ago, but still ...

I gave a link to the abstract.

Look again -http://www.TinyURL.com/2e8kuu.

Spotting things on web pages is not your strong suit, is it?

Are you blind? How big a font do you need to be able to read "ABSTRACT"?

ROFL !!! - now look a little bit further down the page. Can you see
where it says "Article Outline"? That's the outline of the article.
See those things in different colours? Those are links, to different
sections of the article. Try clicking one. See what happens? (Where
did you suppose I'd found the "acknowledgements" yesterday?) Damn
clever, this interweb thingy !!!


Have a liitle mercy with our poor old Martin! The guy doesn't know
better! He also doesn't know the difference between spam and real
travel topics, that's why he is spamming on and on and on!

On 1 mrt, 16:20, Martin wrote:
On 1 Mar 2007 04:48:37 -0800, wrote:

On 1 mrt, 13:29, Martin wrote:

Ian Wilson's idea that it is *generally* believed that people give cyclists more
room, if cyclists cycle well away from the edge of the road is laughable.

That only shows that you have no clue what you're talking about. If
you glance at the cycling ng's you'll find it frequently mentioned.

It's subjective rubbish. The car driver is constrained by the width of the road
and oncoming traffic. I take it that you do drive a car in NL sometimes.

I do, and sometimes I overtake bikes. And sometimes I overtake cars,
that are wider than bikes, even bikes ridden away from the curb. How
do I manage that, what with all these constraints ? Must be magic!!

Incidentally for the myopic who can't read websites.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...i=B6V5S-4M645C...

" If you do not have a User Name and Password, click the Register to Purchase
button to purchase this article.

Price: US $ 30.00"

Hahahaha - you said it wasn't published, and now you say it's for
sale? Which is it, Martin? - I'm starting to lose track of what your
current delusion is!!

As for how I can read it and you can't - I could hazard a guess ...

B;

b;