Petition to the Women's Institute

[Titan yer tummy]

Of course you don't . You have come into a complicated field with a narrow perspective based upon religion and without the full facts.

And you do have the full facts?

 

[Titan yer tummy]

The worst form of evangelism is the "believe in my faith or you are stupid and a fool"

You will never get beyond a certain limited argument because there is no reasoned support.

Hence the drinking helmets being studioulsy avoided.

They fulfill all the requirements (and more) for "stupidity".

All we need is a simple answer - if a cyclist not preventing a head injury is unacceptable then why is it acceptable for someone drinking in the pub.

A far greater saving in NHS time, effort and cost would be achieved....why should we not have even greater objections to paying for these even more preventable injuries.

Sorry for the delay in responding I was on the phone. Please now see my response.

Regards.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

This is a vacant half statistic and cannot be answered in its current form. Are you referring to cyclists or all road users or something else? 60% seems a nice convenient round number where has this been plucked from. Please see my earlier comments about stats being twisted to fit an argument.



If you are referring to, and it is far from clear, excessive consumption of alcohol then I am against it. It is also illegal and a matter for which a person in a public place can be arrested and taken to a place of safety. So helmets: probably not because other safety measures are in place. And you can take it as read that I am not happy to have to finance state intervention for those who have hurt themselves or rendered themselves incapable through intemperance.

With best wishes.

It is not now and has never been at any time illegal to consume "excessive" alcohol.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Please would you delete this or I shall refer it to moderation.

Thank you

I may consider deleting this , if you could state and justify a reason for doing so.

 

[Norm]

Sorry for the delay in responding I was on the phone. Please now see my response.

When you are ready, there's a few more people who are awaiting your understanding.

This is a vacant half statistic and cannot be answered in its current form. Are you referring to cyclists or all road users or something else? 60% seems a nice convenient round number where has this been plucked from. Please see my earlier comments about stats being twisted to fit an argument.

No, it's anything but a half-statistic and is as untwisted as possible.

60% of head injuries requiring hospital admission are related to alcohol.

 

[Titan yer tummy]

.........No, it's anything but a half-statistic and is as untwisted as possible........

So it is twisted. Just not as twisted as some other statistics.

Sincerely.

 

[Andy84]

TYT, do you think that all pedestrians should wear helmets? (Or regard them as fools if they do not?)

 

[Titan yer tummy]

It is not now and has never been at any time illegal to consume "excessive" alcohol.

S 12, Licensing Act 1872 - Drunk in highway - Recordable

It certainly is.

Best wishes,

 

[Titan yer tummy]

TYT, do you think that all pedestrians should wear helmets? (Or regard them as fools if they do not?)

As I have mentioned previously some pedestrians do indeed wear helmets. There may be a case for further classes of pedestrians to wear helmets. As I have also mentioned above there are other safety measures in place for pedestrians.

With best wishes.

 

[benb]

It's a bit rich to threaten posters with moderation, when TyT has called everyone who disagrees with him a fool.

 

[benb]

As I have mentioned previously some pedestrians do indeed wear helmets. There may be a case for further classes of pedestrians to wear helmets. As I have also mentioned above there are other safety measures in place for pedestrians.

With best wishes.

Change pedestrians to cyclists and your statement would also apply, so why are cyclists singled out for your criticism? Why is it only cyclists who, in your opinion, are fools if they do not wear a helmet?

 

[Andy84]

This seems to be going round in circles!

As you keep sidestepping my actual question, I'll assume that you've realised the error in your thinking, and are just too proud to admit it.

 

[Norm]

As you keep sidestepping my actual question, I'll assume that you've realised the error in your thinking, and are just too proud to admit it.

I'll do the same, as he's completely failed to address many of the points or answer any of the questions, I find myself in the embarrassing position of agreeing with LYB.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

I went up a ladder to clear the gutters on Friday and didn't wear a helmet. Does that invalidate my life insurance?

 

[ufkacbln]

The figure of 60% was not "plucked" it is from the work of Sharon Thornhill who analysed ALL head injuries admitted to a large DGH over a year

Her findings are impartial in that they ave no agenda or bias towards proving the cause? the paper looks at disability a year after the injury, but the analysis of the cause does illustrate nicely where funds are being spent.

If you really object to paying for people who could have prevented injury then it is common sense to look at the areas that cost most?

The characteristics of the cohort agreed with previous surveys1: 1255 (42%) were men aged 40 years or less, 575 (19%) were men and women aged 65 years or more, and most (90%) were classified as having a mild injury. The most common causes of injury were falls (43%) or assaults (34%); alcohol was often involved (61%), and a quarter reported treatment for a previous head injury.

No twisting of statistics , simply an independent analysis of the causes of head injury requiring admission to a DGH


if you wish to critique the evidence provided then the full paper is here

Now it would be nice if you could now state why Sharon Thornhill is mistaken or admit that woth hospital admission that the biggest single cost to the NHS is from alcohol related incidents, and that by your logic the few ctyclst injuries are objectionable, but the far greater number of alcohol,related injuries is acceptable

Both are preventable by wearing helmets