🚀 go-pugleaf

judith wrote:
> Some will recall a couple of months ago, the fuckwit Chapman,  when
. discussing cycle helmets stated on a number of occasions:
.
. "The Minister for Transport said that Her Majesty's Government know of
. no case which shows that increased helmet use has led to a provable
. reduction in head injuries in real populations" - and that this was in
. a letter from David Jamieson, Minister Department for Transport, to
. Michael Jack MP, Oct 2003.
.
. When asked to produce the letter - Chapman said he couldn't  - he
. didn't have a copy.  Now that seemed odd to me - Chapman quotes a
. letter which shows something which clearly supports his case - but he
. won't produce it.  Why is that?
.
. He told me to write to Michael Jack and/or the DfT and get a copy (No
. doubt thinking - ho, ho, ho -  she'll not be able to get that).
.
. So I did - and I now have a copy of the original letter.
.
. And now his reluctance to produce the letter becomes obvious - because
. it didn't actually say "they knew of no case" - they said:
.
. "It is extremely difficult to draw conclusions about the effectiveness
. of cycle helmets by relating wearing rates to actual injuries. We have
. no specific data to draw upon."
.
. Now why couldn't Chapman have said that? - Perhaps it didn't support
. the point he was trying to argue.
.
. However - it was quickly followed by:
.
. "But in any case the key issue is whether or not cycle helmets can
. protect from injury. Both <a letter. and the fact sheet (item 8) refer
. to our research which concludes that they can indeed protect from
. injury."
.
. The letter also states: You should know that there is a large volume
. of correspondence between <the CTC. and this Department on the subject
. of cycle helmets and <a CTC member. has also had two wide ranging
. meetings with officials. So we have gone to some trouble to explain
. our policy position.
.
. So they have gone to some trouble - but Chapman and others (CTC) still
. won't accept what the DfT say.
.
. Perhaps they're telling them things they don't want to hear.
.
. The DfT have also stated in the latest correspondence that their
. current position is "there is evidence that bicycle helmets can be
. effective at reducing the incidence and severity of head, brain and
. upper facial injuries and that they can be effective in reducing
. injury for users of all ages, though particularly for children."

Do you know if that is formally stated anywhere?



. So there you have it - yet another failure by the duplicitous and
. deceitful  Chapman to lie his way out of an argument yet again.
.
. (I believe Ian Walker has also received the information which  I have
. - but for some reason has decided not to publicise it - I wonder why?)
.
. --
. I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
. Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
. their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
. I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
. Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
. He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
. of last amendment

Oh dear judith.  It looks like you're "trolling" (i.e. disagreeing
with a URC "established truth") again.  As an sworn-in officer of the
Unwanted Self-Appointed Usenet Police, I order you to stop, and rid
yourself of the absurd idea that you are somehow entitled to your
opinion.  If you don't, I might start spamming URC again, and stuff
the regulars who don't want me to.

After all, one of the telltale signs of someone that tries to police
others all the time, like I do, is that they don't care who is
adversely impacted by the self-appointed policing, or what the results
of the "policing" actually are, as the "policing" is not done for the
benefit of anyone but themselves, since they like to try to control
others and feel important, to make up for the lack of real power that
they in fact have.

*That* is why I kept posting "Don't feed the troll" despite the
regulars not liking it; *that* is why I deliberately slow down other
traffic all the time despite it making the roads more dangerous and
unpleasant for everyone, not just "speeders"; *that* is why I put my
full beam on at anyone who overtakes me, even if it blinds others
coming the other way.  My "policing" is not about safety, helping
others or anything else like that; it's just a symptom of my pathetic
and fruitless longing for power and control over others, and the fact
that I have absolutely no consideration for anyone other than myself.

By the way, do you know why I call myself "_"?  Well, it's actually
the polite version of my full (and accurate) username:
"cunt_motherfucker".  Once you take out the obscenities, "_" is all
that's left.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:42:32 +0000, judith <judithsmith@live.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>Some will recall a couple of months ago, the fuckwit Chapman,  when
>discussing cycle helmets stated on a number of occasions:
>
>"The Minister for Transport said that Her Majesty's Government know of
>no case which shows that increased helmet use has led to a provable
>reduction in head injuries in real populations" - and that this was in
>a letter from David Jamieson, Minister Department for Transport, to
>Michael Jack MP, Oct 2003.
>
>When asked to produce the letter - Chapman said he couldn't  - he
>didn't have a copy.  Now that seemed odd to me - Chapman quotes a
>letter which shows something which clearly supports his case - but he
>won't produce it.  Why is that?
>
>He told me to write to Michael Jack and/or the DfT and get a copy (No
>doubt thinking - ho, ho, ho -  she'll not be able to get that).
>
>So I did - and I now have a copy of the original letter.
>
>And now his reluctance to produce the letter becomes obvious - because
>it didn't actually say "they knew of no case" - they said:
>
>"It is extremely difficult to draw conclusions about the effectiveness
>of cycle helmets by relating wearing rates to actual injuries. We have
>no specific data to draw upon."
>
>Now why couldn't Chapman have said that? - Perhaps it didn't support
>the point he was trying to argue.
>
>However - it was quickly followed by: 
>
>"But in any case the key issue is whether or not cycle helmets can
>protect from injury. Both <a letter> and the fact sheet (item 8) refer
>to our research which concludes that they can indeed protect from
>injury."
>
>The letter also states: You should know that there is a large volume
>of correspondence between <the CTC> and this Department on the subject
>of cycle helmets and <a CTC member> has also had two wide ranging
>meetings with officials. So we have gone to some trouble to explain
>our policy position.
>
>So they have gone to some trouble - but Chapman and others (CTC) still
>won't accept what the DfT say.
>
>Perhaps they're telling them things they don't want to hear. 
>
>The DfT have also stated in the latest correspondence that their
>current position is "there is evidence that bicycle helmets can be
>effective at reducing the incidence and severity of head, brain and
>upper facial injuries and that they can be effective in reducing
>injury for users of all ages, though particularly for children."
>
>So there you have it - yet another failure by the duplicitous and
>deceitful  Chapman to lie his way out of an argument yet again.
>
>(I believe Ian Walker has also received the information which  I have
>- but for some reason has decided not to publicise it - I wonder why?)
>
>--   
>I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
>Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
>their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
>I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
>Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
>He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
>of last amendment
>
>
>
>

The below is utterly typical of Chapman and his continued deception.
What is also typical is that his miserable, pathetic sycophants on URC
will simply accept his deplorable conduct, as they always do.  Chapman
repeatedly LIES, DECEIVES and EVADES when it comes to matters of ROAD
SAFETY, just so that he can push one of his various selfish agendas,
and never mind whether safety is compromised as a result.  What a
fuckwit.  And what a group of spineless, useless wankers who
unquestioningly support him and behave as though he can do no wrong,
just because he hates motorists.  Even the fact that he MURDERS ROAD
USERS doesn't change their fawning admiration of him.  It does all
rather point to the fact that those who hate motorists and choose to
lie about it are generally extremely fucked up people in all sorts of
ways.  It's very disturbing.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:42:32 +0000, judith <judithsmith@live.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>Some will recall a couple of months ago, the fuckwit Chapman,  when
>discussing cycle helmets stated on a number of occasions:
>
>"The Minister for Transport said that Her Majesty's Government know of
>no case which shows that increased helmet use has led to a provable
>reduction in head injuries in real populations" - and that this was in
>a letter from David Jamieson, Minister Department for Transport, to
>Michael Jack MP, Oct 2003.
>
>When asked to produce the letter - Chapman said he couldn't  - he
>didn't have a copy.  Now that seemed odd to me - Chapman quotes a
>letter which shows something which clearly supports his case - but he
>won't produce it.  Why is that?
>
>He told me to write to Michael Jack and/or the DfT and get a copy (No
>doubt thinking - ho, ho, ho -  she'll not be able to get that).
>
>So I did - and I now have a copy of the original letter.
>
>And now his reluctance to produce the letter becomes obvious - because
>it didn't actually say "they knew of no case" - they said:
>
>"It is extremely difficult to draw conclusions about the effectiveness
>of cycle helmets by relating wearing rates to actual injuries. We have
>no specific data to draw upon."
>
>Now why couldn't Chapman have said that? - Perhaps it didn't support
>the point he was trying to argue.
>
>However - it was quickly followed by: 
>
>"But in any case the key issue is whether or not cycle helmets can
>protect from injury. Both <a letter> and the fact sheet (item 8) refer
>to our research which concludes that they can indeed protect from
>injury."
>
>The letter also states: You should know that there is a large volume
>of correspondence between <the CTC> and this Department on the subject
>of cycle helmets and <a CTC member> has also had two wide ranging
>meetings with officials. So we have gone to some trouble to explain
>our policy position.
>
>So they have gone to some trouble - but Chapman and others (CTC) still
>won't accept what the DfT say.
>
>Perhaps they're telling them things they don't want to hear. 
>
>The DfT have also stated in the latest correspondence that their
>current position is "there is evidence that bicycle helmets can be
>effective at reducing the incidence and severity of head, brain and
>upper facial injuries and that they can be effective in reducing
>injury for users of all ages, though particularly for children."
>
>So there you have it - yet another failure by the duplicitous and
>deceitful  Chapman to lie his way out of an argument yet again.
>
>(I believe Ian Walker has also received the information which  I have
>- but for some reason has decided not to publicise it - I wonder why?)
>
>--   
>I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
>Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
>their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
>I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
>Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
>He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
>of last amendment
>
>
>
>

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:01:51 +0000, Hills <me@privacy.net> wrote:

<snip>

>. The DfT have also stated in the latest correspondence that their
>. current position is "there is evidence that bicycle helmets can be
>. effective at reducing the incidence and severity of head, brain and
>. upper facial injuries and that they can be effective in reducing
>. injury for users of all ages, though particularly for children."
>
>Do you know if that is formally stated anywhere?


Yes - on the DfT website : Bicycle helmets: review of effectiveness

It's a good report - it has some little gems:

On average between 1998/2000 inclusive in Great Britain 28 children
and 123 adults were killed as pedal bicyclists each year.

For each child killed, there were 26 serious and 189 slight injuries
and for each adult killed there were 17 serious and 106 slight
injuries.

Bicycle helmets have been found to be effective at reducing the
incidence and severity of head, brain and upper facial injury.

Bicycle helmets have been found to be effective in reducing injury for
users of all ages, though particularly for children.

Bicycle helmet legislation has been associated with head injury
reductions.

Bicycle helmet legislation with supporting educational activities is
an effective means of increasing observed helmet use.


--   
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

you can either promote cycling or show cycling is dangerous by
publishing statistics, the two are incompatible (Judith Smith)