Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Talk about "Cranky Pants" on The Conversation

Well, it's been hastily removed by the powers-that-be now so I can't remember exactly what I did say earlier this evening on The Conversation but it was something along the lines of...

...when you look at the academic ping-pong (I love that phrase!!!) that's been happening over the last 20 years with regards to helmets, it's a bit rich when one side accuses the other side of bias

and then I went on to say something like...

...the only thing helmets protect you from are fines (because I love saying that)

...and oh boy did I make this guy mad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Raphael Grzebieta commented:

"And you are? You may have the right to an opinion but your opinion has no right to be treated as equal to the opinion of any expert who has published peer-reviewed research in the field. Scientifically, your opinion counts for naught. To paraphrase Patrick Stokes (, you may be entitled to your opinion but that does not in any way give you any entitlement or equal right to be heard on the matter of helmet safety or the benefits of the Mandatory Helmet Law because you are not scientifically qualified. You have no peer-reviewed evidence nor have you ever carried out any peer-reviewed research or published in a peer-review journal on the matter. You simply ride a bike without a helmet and protest and read some literature from which you are not qualified to assess what is scientifically valid. You can have an opinion on it but it counts for naught when you express it. I really do get tired of protestors and bloggers like you who think they are doing some great service to the community when in fact all you are doing is provoking people to ride without a helmet which could result in them receiving a serious head injury. Have you ever seen a person, adult or child, suffer a serious brain injury ( Probably not – you obviously don’t care. Just make sure you sign a waiver that when you get hit by a car or fall to the ground and receive a serious head injury that we tax payers don’t have to pay for your hospital and rehabilitation bills. "

To add your say go to

What a spray!!! - who does he think he is? - and why has he removed both mine and his comments? Can't he handle open discussion with the community? What glorious qualification do you need to post on The Conversation anyway? - and how does he know that his premises are correct? Is he trying to intimidate me? Why is he so plagued by such aggression?

My respect for The Conversation has gone out of the window


  1. Odd how the "evidence" he cites is not in it self peer reviewed? Strange that... ;-)

    1. Methinks yon million dollar helmet lobby has a lean and hungry look!!! - and methinks also they come to bury me not praise me!!!...

      ha! ha! ha!...I've just been to the Italian Film Festival here in Sydney and seen "Cesare deve morire" (Caesar must die) - truly amazing - best rendition of Julius Caesar ever!!!!!

  2. Just ignore this pomposity. There's no science in this 'debate'; in the European countries with high cycle-use you hardly see helmets. Only the speed-freaks wear them and they'll leave them at home when they get on their regular sit up and beg bike. This summer I wore a helmet because I was going to do some cycling in the French mountains, but at home in Holland I go bare-headed.

    The people who support the helmet are probably jealous because they never learned to ride a bike, or they have shares in the companies that produce them.

    1. Thank you - I totally agree with you - but have to admit I was somewhat 'gobsmacked' to be informed that I was not entitled to an opinion!!!

      ...the pomposity indeed!

  3. What a tosser. Amazing the hypocrisy that there's no sympathy for motorists or pedestrians that "suffer a serious brain injury", and it's even more irrational when they make up over 97% of annual road deaths.

    1. It's an industry in itself over here, defending mandatory helmet laws, notwithstanding sound international evidence disagreeing with this Australian position.

      My 'position' remains that given the 'academic ping-pong' on the merits of helmets & helmet laws, the issue of wearing one should be a matter for choice as it is in the majority of other nations across the globe.