Petition to the Women's Institute

[ufkacbln]

Welcome back, with yet another TyTism!

You are still avoiding answering why you feel cycling injuries are an unacepable burden, yet othere are not.

But back to the latest TyTism....

The suggestion is that the poor victim is a "Fool!" for not wearing a helmet and ludicrously claiming that "this is a fact".

You cannot know that and it is distasteful to make such claims with absolutely no knowledge of the actual mechanism

However true to form we have the hypocritical view that makes cyclists your "Bête noire" and that other head injuries are somehow acceptable.

In 2010 an 11 year old girl tragically died from head injuries when she slipped on ice, is she also a "Fool" by your criteria?

Also in 2010 an elderly lady fell and died from head injuries whilst getting off a bus - was she also a "fool"?


I know you will not have the decency to answer, but once again the ignorant silence will illustrate my point adequately

 

[dellzeqq]

What is the basis for saying that it costs you money? Costs you money compared to what? Stupidity compared to who?

I hope you'll excuse me re-posting something I wrote a few days ago, with a few additions to make it more relevant here.

Further to point 1, do you have anything that can show it is anything other than a "religious belief"? Any real evidence other than a few apocryphal one-sided tales?

Further to points 2, 4 and 5, what would you do, titan, for those cyclists who have injuries which were caused by or exaccerbated by their wearing a helmet?

Further to points 3, 8 and 9, should your wrath not be targeted at those who actually create the danger?

Further to point 6, will you also excluse those who have face or neck injuries because their helmets were incorrectly fitted?

Further to point 7, will you give all cyclists tax refunds because we live, on average, 10 years longer than non-cyclists?

Does your solution also exclude from NHS care anyone who takes a risk greater than you consider acceptable? I know a fisherman who is quadraplegic because he stumbled on a rock underwater, is he to be excluded? Sailors? Windsurfers? Anyone who takes part in competitive sport? Anyone who goes out for a drink? All of those are more risky than riding a bike without a helmet.

Norm - as you know, in some areas, the NHS is refusing to treat people who are overweight, or who smoke. Like it or not TyT's line of 'reasoning' is already embedded in the thinking of medecine, and irrespective of the general health benefits of cycling, one can easily imagine a perverse coalition of the BMA and helmet manufacturers lobbying for a change in the law.

Perhaps we should soft-pedal the longevity thing, though, because it probably makes us more expensive. And that, of course, is one of the ironies of health 'rationaling by morality' - smokers, who contribute a fortune in tax, don't collect on their pensions or need geriatric care.

 

[ufkacbln]

Helmet manufacturers perversely are not in favour of compulsion.

They recognise that compulsion drastically reduces the number of cyclists and would affect their sales adversely

 

[semislickstick]

Fool! Very sad, RIP condolences to his loved ones etc. But he would have been alive but for a helmet!!

And don't get me wrong I am not in any way taking sides against the victim here. I am simply pointing out a fact!!

He'd be alive if the driver wasn't driving carelessly.

 

[Titan yer tummy]

not a fool
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Cycl...river-rammed/story-15265275-detail/story.html

 

[growingvegetables]

not a fool

I will only suggest you might want to reconsider your statement in the light of the very few pieces of research that observe actual behaviour (ie not statistics, not fancy theorems, just and only what actually happens).

And no, I'm not going to help you by pointing out where to find examples of such research. This is down to you to do some thinking and research yourself.

 

[benb]

Tell me, Tyt, was this boy also a "fool" for not wearing a helmet?
If not, why not?
http://m.ocregister.com/articles/boy-255341-martinez-family.html

 

[benb]

Tell me, Tyt, was this boy also a "fool" for not wearing a helmet?
If not, why not?
http://m.ocregister.com/articles/boy-255341-martinez-family.html

As usual, TyT, your deafening silence is most illuminatng.

 

[benb]

It's the equivalent of sticking his head in the door to shout "willy, bum, poo" before running off.

Yep. What a gutless coward.

 

[ufkacbln]

During England's "friendly" match with Holland Chris Smalling was stretchered off with a head injury.

How long can we tolerate this carnage on our football fields?

 

[Titan yer tummy]

"Mr Ridley delivered a narrative verdict that Mr Wells died as a result of multiple injuries caused by being run over by two vehicles. He said: “The absence of a helmet is relevant, as it could have prevented the head injury....."

 

[Bromptonaut]

Cornorial speculation is all too common. Any medical evidence that, helmeted, the cyclist would have been on his feet and away soon enough?

Err No.

And why were the drivers who hit him not apparently charged? Unable to stop within sight distance is at best careless.

 

[ufkacbln]

"Mr Ridley delivered a narrative verdict that Mr Wells died as a result of multiple injuries caused by being run over by two vehicles. He said: “The absence of a helmet is relevant, as it could have prevented the head injury....."

Back again with more misquoted and emotive tripe and still avoiding any of the reasonable questions....or in fact even visiting reality

Still it does the weakness of your case .....

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

"Mr Ridley delivered a narrative verdict that Mr Wells died as a result of multiple injuries caused by being run over by two vehicles. He said: “The absence of a helmet is relevant, as it could have prevented the head injury....."

"Home Office pathologist Dr Basil Purdue gave the cause of death as multiple injuries as a result of a road traffic collision"

 

[ufkacbln]

TyT is simply a pathetic troll.