bike for all and h****ts

Rich

just visited this site http://www.bikeforall.net/category.aspx?id=86 and
wrote the following:

Just found your very interesting site, but I am slightly puzzled by your
coverage of helmets.

You have at least one site which tells the truth about helmets, well done,
but then you damn it with faint praise
"
Cycle helmets are not safe...
This anti-compulsion website is not kept terribly up to date but it
links to lots of thought-provoking studies that the site says proves helmet
wearing is not the panacea many compulsionists claim it is.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org


"
As far as I can tell, this site is more up to date than the ones in favour
of compulsion. Nowhere in the blurb about the pro-cumpulsion sites do you
use the phrase "the site says....."indicating doubt about its conclusions.
This site would appear to be more scientifically valid than most, if not
all, of the pro-compulsion sites, but you deliberately cast doubt on it.

Compare this with your comments on the BHIT site: you stick to facts and
cast no doubt about the organisation or the relevance of any data on it,
despite the fact that the site contains statements which BHIT knows are not
true, and for which they were recently taken to the ASA and forced to sign
an undertaking not to repeat those untruths. The fact that the ASA rules do
not apply to websites which are not advertising, is to be regretted, but
that doesn't mean that what BHIT says isn't a lie. You cast no doubt about
the honesty of BHIT: why not?

May I point out that until you address these anomolies, you will be viewed
as instruments of pro-helmet dogmatists, who are unwilling to present issues
truthfully, and treated accordingly. Any other data on your site will be
viewed somewhat askance: if you deliberately skew the way you present the
evidence on helmets, what else are you skewing?



--
cheers

Richard Burton

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 21:53:52 GMT, "Rich"
<burtthebike@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
<Qv%zd.54666$DF3.446@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:

>just visited this site http://www.bikeforall.net/category.aspx?id=86 and
>wrote the following:

Bit harsh - this is what they say about my page: "Shatter your
illusions, not your lid - Guy Chapman's article will leave your head
spinning. It contains excellent advice on helmet fitting, yet disses
helmets at the same time. The article is a long one but a very
worthwhile read. "

So maybe they just didn't like cyclehelmets' style.

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

Richard Goodman

"Rich" <burtthebike@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Qv%zd.54666$DF3.446@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> just visited this site http://www.bikeforall.net/category.aspx?id=86 and
> wrote the following:
>

I have a proposal: how about giving us a break from helmet threads at least
until next year?

Rich

Rich

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov> wrote in message
news:3u11t0dc892kaerp7c7i4sktsgah6jto2f@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 21:53:52 GMT, "Rich"
> <burtthebike@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> <Qv%zd.54666$DF3.446@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>
>>just visited this site http://www.bikeforall.net/category.aspx?id=86 and
>>wrote the following:
>
> Bit harsh - this is what they say about my page: "Shatter your
> illusions, not your lid - Guy Chapman's article will leave your head
> spinning. It contains excellent advice on helmet fitting, yet disses
> helmets at the same time. The article is a long one but a very
> worthwhile read. "
>
> So maybe they just didn't like cyclehelmets' style.
>
I'm not so sure it's harsh: why do they cast doubt on what appears to me to
be the most factually based site about helmets, but not on ones which are
seriously inaccurate? I will show the bikeforall comments to an independent
person tomorrow, and ask them what their initial impressions are. Mine were
that the cyclehelmet site wasn't to be trusted, but that BHIT site was.
Anyone in possession of the facts would know the opposite is true.

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 22:26:18 -0000, "Richard Goodman"
<rsk@NOSPAM.homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
<41d08bfe$0$74684$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>:

>how about giving us a break from helmet threads at least
>until next year?

Please forward this request to angela.lee@bhit.org.uk and
martlewe@parliament.uk - both are lobbying hard for the inclusion of a
helmet clause in the Road Safety Bill currently before Parliament.

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales