Originally Posted by
meanwhile
And, as Ach-ooOO! believes that POV endorsed by more than a dozen papers can be wrong:
Umm, that "more than a dozen" is down to about three at most.
Good God, did you even KNOW that of that dozen papers was one recommending "a ban on heavy goods vehicles in urban areas should be considered."? And that another one of your "papers" was titled "Heat Transfer Variations of Bicycle Helmets"?
While two more of your precious "papers" said "Authors' conclusions: Bicycle helmet legislation appears to be effective in increasing helmet use and decreasing head injury rates in the populations for which it is implemented." and "Those who were wearing a helmet were less likely to have an injury to their head or neck (7% compared to 14%) and this difference was more distinct for children."
Did you even BOTHER to READ your "support"? And you DARED to call me an idiot?!?!
You've got a helluva long way to climb back up after making posts like this:
Originally Posted by
meanwhile
The only problem with this chart is that it was prepared either by or for an idiot...
...
and this
Originally Posted by
meanwhile
This is idiot logic. ...
and, finally, your crown jewel:
Originally Posted by
meanwhile
It's the only truly credible site on the net - it's edited by professional helmet engineers and statisticians.
Nope. You just weren't smart enough to understand what they had written.
Actually, they did the opposite. But you weren't smart enough to understand:
...
OMFG. You called cyclehelmet.org "the only truly credible site on the net".
What a joke site.
And you DARE say crap like "You just weren't smart enough to understand what they had written."?!?!?!