SheikYerbouti wrote:Sue Abbott may have a position that many sympathise with, but she comes across as slightly loony
Most radicals and instigators of change do come across as "loonies"... In fact many people think lycra clad cyclists are loonies!
In fact you would be hard pressed to find a 'progressive' cause where the pioneers weren't "loonies". Women's rights, environmentalism, etc....
Look at this "loonie" who before she acted women weren't allowed in bars in Australia.
(Mind you 'regressive' causes are also full of loonies. Pauline Hanson... Trump... Hitler...)
fat and old wrote:Re the Sue Abbot use of the diffuse axonal injury argument...If you were to strike the ground with your head hard enough (I have no idea how "hard" this has to be) to suffer this injury without having a helmet what would be the likely outcome? Has any comparative study been done?
LOL! How would this comparative study pass the ethics committee!
Seriously though, it is trivial to create simulated scenarios where helmets increase the damaging forces on the brain. Axial forces arise from parallel velocity whereas regular blunt trauma arise from perpendicular velocity. Of course then it comes down to likelihoods of each scenario.... (Suffice to say on the balance of the two risks, I'll choose the helmet if I'm going for a tumble...)
fat and old wrote:And she does nothing to help the situation through her behavior.
She is doing far more than most people. She is getting press coverage. And the ratio of positive tabloid comments to negative is higher than most cycling stories!
uart wrote:So we have magistrates in Australia that still don't understand the connection between fossil fuel usage and global warming. Seriously?
We have politicians who don't understand or refuse to believe the connection.