New Forest cyclist unscathed after crashing into tractor bucket on descent

fixedwhip wrote:

Nice to see the anti-helmet brigade have arrived on the scene as fast as usual.

I don't know anyone who is anti-helmet, but I know a lot of people who are anti-lies, myths, rumours, fairy tales, anecdotes and "helmet saved my life" stories.  But perhaps you like all those things; your choice.  I'll stick to reliable data.

fixedwhip wrote:

I just don't understand why people go out of their way to tell the world that they don't wear a helmet and that everyone else is a fool for wearing one, as if wearing one is an admission of lack of skill or a tendency to cycle dangerously. We get it. You're a big boy who doesn't need a helmet. We all wish we could be as cool, skilled, and responsible as you.

How do you know that somebody is vegan? Don't worry, they'll tell you.

How do you know a cyclist doesn't wear a helmet? Don't worry, they'll tell you.

Rapha Nadal wrote:

How do you know a cyclist doesn't wear a helmet? Don't worry, they'll tell you.

How do you know a cyclist is gullible?  They'll tell you their helmet saved their life, and of all their mates.

fixedwhip wrote:

Nice to see the anti-helmet brigade have arrived on the scene as fast as usual. It's fine to choose not to wear a helmet, in the same way that it's fine to choose not to wear a seatbelt, but I certainly know which one I would choose. I had an accident a few months ago and can remember the sound of the side of my helmet scraping along the ground for a good few seconds. Had I not been wearing my helmet, I would have been missing a patch of hair and probably a bit of ear too. But because I was, no damage to my head at all. I just don't understand why people go out of their way to tell the world that they don't wear a helmet and that everyone else is a fool for wearing one, as if wearing one is an admission of lack of skill or a tendency to cycle dangerously. We get it. You're a big boy who doesn't need a helmet. We all wish we could be as cool, skilled, and responsible as you.

Though your helmet increased the size of your head, making it more likely that you came in contact with the road.

In this story, the bloke had a glancing blow. Perhaps if he had no helmet, he would not have hit the bucket.

Reminds me of that scene from Ricky gervais 'afterlife' where he interviews a very fat lady in hospital who was pierced by a stake. "The fat saved my life". " Yeah, but did you not think if you hadn't been so fat, the stake may have missed you completely and you wouldn't be in hospital ?"

Mungecrundle wrote:

Yea! 3 cheers for people who never make errors of judgement. Truly we mortals are blessed that the infallible gods of cycling ride amongst us.

Or maybe we just never hear back from the subset of not helmet wearers who do have head injuries.

Lets just say it 'mitigated' some injuries and the extent to which the person would have been injured is difficult to calculate.

Organon wrote:

Or maybe we just never hear back from the subset of not helmet wearers who do have head injuries.

Lets just say it 'mitigated' some injuries and the extent to which the person would have been injured is difficult to calculate.

If only.  Every time there is a collision involving a cyclist wearing a helmet, the helmet zealots use it to promote their cause by saying it saved the life of the cyclist, just as in this instance.  The fact that they are making invalid assumptions, not supported by the facts, doesn't prevent them.  Have you written to them to tell them it didn't save his life, and might, and only might, have mitigated his injuries?

As pointed out in a previous post, he could have avoided the situation entirely if he'd been riding within his capabilities, but because he was wearing a helmet, he rode beyond them and crashed.

I've fallen off a few times, and been knocked off a few times, all without a helmet, but I'm not dead.  If I'd been wearing a helmet for any of those collisions, I'm sure the para-medics and police would all swear that it had saved my life.

Cycle helmets, like the lottery, are a tax on gullibility.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Yea! 3 cheers for people who never make errors of judgement. Truly we mortals are blessed that the infallible gods of cycling ride amongst us.

I've made errors in judgement, plenty of them, but this is RECKLESS not a plain careless error.

I've ridden down mountain passes with tight chicanes that had a thousand feet drop t'other side of the barriers but I ensured I scrubbed off the speed to make sure I got around the corner AND took account that other motor traffic that I couldn't see around those tight bends might well be swinging out across the dividing line so I couldn't take liberties. I've ridden on major trunk roads and NSL dual carriageways at rush hour taking strong primary so I was reducing the chances of being squeezed/close passed, even if the natural instinct is to ride in the gutter. I've ridden many a time on the inside of an HGV/bus, filtered on the outside of static traffic in the opposite lane but always making the calculation as to what possibilities may occur, even then I've made slight errors, miscalculations but because I held something in hand, wasn't pushing matters to the nth degree which too many people do, even those errors that I do make haven't ended up with me praising some deity for my life being spared.

This isn't abnormal/out of the ordinary, it's what a lot of people do every day, many good cyclists do this every day, I'm far from being alone in my thinking/approach to making progress but still being safe. When I did my advanced driving the police instructor (one of the guys who trains/instructs their traffic police) who was assessing me said something about one aspect of my narration on the test drive, he actually made a mistake in presuming xx, I'd made account for it, he was a bit arrogant and said it wasn't something to consider, I disagreed particularly given the narrowness of the highway, the proximity of the potential hazard and the diminished thinking of those exiting near to the road (a pub at lunchtime in a village). People make errors BUT if you allow for errors by adding in a margin not just for oneself but errors by others then you are vastly more likely to not end up in the situation that the person in the article did. Learning and probably more important recognising your error in the first instance is huge.

Part and parcel as to why helmets (in any activity) end up not being the panacea people think they are - or should that be not reflected in the statistics, is that those that adorn them take far greater risks when donning them, particularly those who ride at a level that you might say is 'competitive' even if they aren't in a race and also children/those with limited/restricted judgement for whatever reason.

Making silly snide comments that aren't conbstructive isn't helpful in any way shape or form.

Whatever the reason I'm glad the rider is ok, I just hope that he has learnt a valuable life lesson, however given the number of incidents that noddy hat wearers seem to experience I doubt it given he's obviously a risk taker given one of the twitter responses!

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

Yea! 3 cheers for people who never make errors of judgement. Truly we mortals are blessed that the infallible gods of cycling ride amongst us.

I've made errors in judgement, plenty of them, but this is RECKLESS not a plain careless error.

I've ridden down mountain passes with tight chicanes that had a thousand feet drop t'other side of the barriers but I ensured I scrubbed off the speed to make sure I got around the corner AND took account that other motor traffic that I couldn't see around those tight bends might well be swinging out across the dividing line so I couldn't take liberties. I've ridden on major trunk roads and NSL dual carriageways at rush hour taking strong primary so I was reducing the chances of being squeezed/close passed, even if the natural instinct is to ride in the gutter. I've ridden many a time on the inside of an HGV/bus, filtered on the outside of static traffic in the opposite lane but always making the calculation as to what possibilities may occur, even then I've made slight errors, miscalculations but because I held something in hand, wasn't pushing matters to the nth degree which too many people do, even those errors that I do make haven't ended up with me praising some deity for my life being spared.

This isn't abnormal/out of the ordinary, it's what a lot of people do every day, many good cyclists do this every day, I'm far from being alone in my thinking/approach to making progress but still being safe. When I did my advanced driving the police instructor (one of the guys who trains/instructs their traffic police) who was assessing me said something about one aspect of my narration on the test drive, he actually made a mistake in presuming xx, I'd made account for it, he was a bit arrogant and said it wasn't something to consider, I disagreed particularly given the narrowness of the highway, the proximity of the potential hazard and the diminished thinking of those exiting near to the road (a pub at lunchtime in a village). People make errors BUT if you allow for errors by adding in a margin not just for oneself but errors by others then you are vastly more likely to not end up in the situation that the person in the article did. Learning and probably more important recognising your error in the first instance is huge.

Part and parcel as to why helmets (in any activity) end up not being the panacea people think they are - or should that be not reflected in the statistics, is that those that adorn them take far greater risks when donning them, particularly those who ride at a level that you might say is 'competitive' even if they aren't in a race and also children/those with limited/restricted judgement for whatever reason.

Making silly snide comments that aren't conbstructive isn't helpful in any way shape or form.

Whatever the reason I'm glad the rider is ok, I just hope that he has learnt a valuable life lesson, however given the number of incidents that noddy hat wearers seem to experience I doubt it given he's obviously a risk taker given one of the twitter responses!

But as you repeatedly make clear, you think you are a far better cyclist than pretty much any cyclist who ever lived including pros.

Funny how someone who believes they are the bees fucking knees on a bicycle seems to get run over quite so often and cannot seem to go more than 1/2 a mile without coming up with yet another story about yet another other idiot driver putting his life in danger though...

Mungecrundle wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

Yea! 3 cheers for people who never make errors of judgement. Truly we mortals are blessed that the infallible gods of cycling ride amongst us.

I've made errors in judgement, plenty of them, but this is RECKLESS not a plain careless error.

I've ridden down mountain passes with tight chicanes that had a thousand feet drop t'other side of the barriers but I ensured I scrubbed off the speed to make sure I got around the corner AND took account that other motor traffic that I couldn't see around those tight bends might well be swinging out across the dividing line so I couldn't take liberties. I've ridden on major trunk roads and NSL dual carriageways at rush hour taking strong primary so I was reducing the chances of being squeezed/close passed, even if the natural instinct is to ride in the gutter. I've ridden many a time on the inside of an HGV/bus, filtered on the outside of static traffic in the opposite lane but always making the calculation as to what possibilities may occur, even then I've made slight errors, miscalculations but because I held something in hand, wasn't pushing matters to the nth degree which too many people do, even those errors that I do make haven't ended up with me praising some deity for my life being spared.

This isn't abnormal/out of the ordinary, it's what a lot of people do every day, many good cyclists do this every day, I'm far from being alone in my thinking/approach to making progress but still being safe. When I did my advanced driving the police instructor (one of the guys who trains/instructs their traffic police) who was assessing me said something about one aspect of my narration on the test drive, he actually made a mistake in presuming xx, I'd made account for it, he was a bit arrogant and said it wasn't something to consider, I disagreed particularly given the narrowness of the highway, the proximity of the potential hazard and the diminished thinking of those exiting near to the road (a pub at lunchtime in a village). People make errors BUT if you allow for errors by adding in a margin not just for oneself but errors by others then you are vastly more likely to not end up in the situation that the person in the article did. Learning and probably more important recognising your error in the first instance is huge.

Part and parcel as to why helmets (in any activity) end up not being the panacea people think they are - or should that be not reflected in the statistics, is that those that adorn them take far greater risks when donning them, particularly those who ride at a level that you might say is 'competitive' even if they aren't in a race and also children/those with limited/restricted judgement for whatever reason.

Making silly snide comments that aren't conbstructive isn't helpful in any way shape or form.

Whatever the reason I'm glad the rider is ok, I just hope that he has learnt a valuable life lesson, however given the number of incidents that noddy hat wearers seem to experience I doubt it given he's obviously a risk taker given one of the twitter responses!

But as you repeatedly make clear, you think you are a far better cyclist than pretty much any cyclist who ever lived including pros. Funny how someone who believes they are the bees fucking knees on a bicycle seems to get run over quite so often and cannot seem to go more than 1/2 a mile without coming up with yet another story about yet another other idiot driver putting his life in danger though...

Most pros and amateurs these days are dumb as fuck, they are far worse than their generation before them. We know this is a fact in terms of traumatic injuries and crashes. As an athlete I'm not a third of what they are, in bike handling terms I fall short too, in terms of actual thinking and understanding there's few in the pro peleton who are anywhere near close to me and many thousands of others in terms of being safe on the public highway.

HTH

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Making silly snide comments that aren't constructive isn't helpful in any way shape or form...

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

...noddy hat wearers 

Rapha Nadal wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Making silly snide comments that aren't constructive isn't helpful in any way shape or form...

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

...noddy hat wearers 

Is it a hat Yes, does Noddy wear a hat, yes. typical of you really, I expected nothing less, calling it a noddy hat is not snide, get a grip ffs. 

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Is it a hat Yes, does Noddy wear a hat, yes. typical of you really, I expected nothing less, calling it a noddy hat is not snide, get a grip ffs. 

Are helmets hats? No, they are helmets, hence the different word. Do astronauts wear 'space hats?' Do you seek to denigrate their function through comparison with a hat, yes. Are bike helmets conical like a so-called Noddy hat? No. So you are wrong on two counts straight away. Can we expect to see your usual bile filled clap trap in the comments, inevitably. I hope your magical reserves of skill and arrogance never run out; you are in for a surprise, thankfully you won't have long to regret your position. 

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Rapha Nadal wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Making silly snide comments that aren't constructive isn't helpful in any way shape or form...

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

...noddy hat wearers 

Is it a hat Yes, does Noddy wear a hat, yes. typical of you really, I expected nothing less, calling it a noddy hat is not snide, get a grip ffs. 

You may wish to look up the definition of "snide" and then the tone of your delivery.  

rkemb wrote:

"Incredible that there is so little damage to helmet"

"but I can tell you for a fact that his cycle helmet saved his life"

These two statements may be considered inconsistent. "Little damage to helmet" but "for a fact saved his life". Possibly the first indicates that the collision -- bad as it may have been -- was not as potentially damaging as assumed. Or... helmets are magically resistant to damage?

There are some important differences between the average head and a cycle helmet.

Looking at the marks on the helmet, it looks like he was lucky and it was a glancing blow on the  side of the helmet, the side which is coated in a smooth, non-abrasive plastic, that can therefore slide along the side of the bucket he hit, deflecting the impact rather than having to directly absorb it.

The average head is not covered in smooth plastic, but relatively easily tearable skin, and hair. The hair and skin catching on the corner would quite probably catch on the corner and rather than simply slide on by, tear at the hair and pull the head harder against the corner of the bucket.
 

If it saved his life, is debatable, but it almost certainly saved him a much worse head injury, a head injury that could have caused him to have even less control of his landing, where again his head would be at risk of a significant impact.

Wear a helmet or don't, your head, your choice. I know that falling off my bike as a child at low speed, I have had numerous lumps on my head, and cuts, but since I started with a helmet, the worst I've had is scrubbed arms and legs and an injured pride.

StuInNorway wrote:

Wear a helmet or don't, your head, your choice.

I do wear a helmet. As you say, it is my choice. What I am against is the automatic assumption that the helmet saved his life; or that helmets always save lives, which seems to be the narrative in these stories. Cycling is, in general, very safe. Countries that have cycling as a high modal share of transport generally have low levels of helmet-wearing. Encouraging people to think that you have to wear a helmet to be safe cycling puts people off cycling. That's what I am against.

StuInNorway wrote:

rkemb wrote:

"Incredible that there is so little damage to helmet"

"but I can tell you for a fact that his cycle helmet saved his life"

These two statements may be considered inconsistent. "Little damage to helmet" but "for a fact saved his life". Possibly the first indicates that the collision -- bad as it may have been -- was not as potentially damaging as assumed. Or... helmets are magically resistant to damage?

There are some important differences between the average head and a cycle helmet.

Looking at the marks on the helmet, it looks like he was lucky and it was a glancing blow on the  side of the helmet, the side which is coated in a smooth, non-abrasive plastic, that can therefore slide along the side of the bucket he hit, deflecting the impact rather than having to directly absorb it.

The average head is not covered in smooth plastic, but relatively easily tearable skin, and hair. The hair and skin catching on the corner would quite probably catch on the corner and rather than simply slide on by, tear at the hair and pull the head harder against the corner of the bucket.
 

If it saved his life, is debatable, but it almost certainly saved him a much worse head injury, a head injury that could have caused him to have even less control of his landing, where again his head would be at risk of a significant impact.

Wear a helmet or don't, your head, your choice. I know that falling off my bike as a child at low speed, I have had numerous lumps on my head, and cuts, but since I started with a helmet, the worst I've had is scrubbed arms and legs and an injured pride.

You missed the option whereby not wearing a helmet you'll have missed the bucket completely, that extra circumference is massively important, it can be the difference between hitting your head and still having a series of head/neck injuries and not. You also missed the option that a non helmet wearer may well not have ridden so recklessly and wouldn't have been anywhere near the tractor at all.

You don't know that skin would tear' how could you know what kind of blow and where an unhelmetted head would have IF it did strike the bucket at all, what if it was a glancing blow, not one where the bucket digs into the helmet as it clearly did?

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

StuInNorway wrote:

rkemb wrote:

"Incredible that there is so little damage to helmet"

"but I can tell you for a fact that his cycle helmet saved his life"

These two statements may be considered inconsistent. "Little damage to helmet" but "for a fact saved his life". Possibly the first indicates that the collision -- bad as it may have been -- was not as potentially damaging as assumed. Or... helmets are magically resistant to damage?

There are some important differences between the average head and a cycle helmet.

Looking at the marks on the helmet, it looks like he was lucky and it was a glancing blow on the  side of the helmet, the side which is coated in a smooth, non-abrasive plastic, that can therefore slide along the side of the bucket he hit, deflecting the impact rather than having to directly absorb it.

The average head is not covered in smooth plastic, but relatively easily tearable skin, and hair. The hair and skin catching on the corner would quite probably catch on the corner and rather than simply slide on by, tear at the hair and pull the head harder against the corner of the bucket.
 

If it saved his life, is debatable, but it almost certainly saved him a much worse head injury, a head injury that could have caused him to have even less control of his landing, where again his head would be at risk of a significant impact.

Wear a helmet or don't, your head, your choice. I know that falling off my bike as a child at low speed, I have had numerous lumps on my head, and cuts, but since I started with a helmet, the worst I've had is scrubbed arms and legs and an injured pride.

You missed the option whereby not wearing a helmet you'll have missed the bucket completely, that extra circumference is massively important, it can be the difference between hitting your head and still having a series of head/neck injuries and not. You also missed the option that a non helmet wearer may well not have ridden so recklessly and wouldn't have been anywhere near the tractor at all.

You don't know that skin would tear' how could you know what kind of blow and where an unhelmetted head would have IF it did strike the bucket at all, what if it was a glancing blow, not one where the bucket digs into the helmet as it clearly did?

Quite.

A helmet absorbs, at best, 7N of force.  Many manage less. To do so will squash the polystyrene dead flat (it doesn't recover, so is a good indicator of how much force has been applied to it).

That helmet doesn't even have the flimsy plastic shell significantly broken. The polystyrene looks as though it has abosorbed no force at all.

Of course, now that the magic hat is damaged, the owner will be rushing out to buy another "life saver". The cost may kill his wallet though. 

A better description of the event might be, "The helmet induced over-confidence and a foolish risk take that eventuated in a lucky escape". 

Cugel

rkemb wrote:

"Incredible that there is so little damage to helmet"

"but I can tell you for a fact that his cycle helmet saved his life"

These two statements may be considered inconsistent. "Little damage to helmet" but "for a fact saved his life". Possibly the first indicates that the collision -- bad as it may have been -- was not as potentially damaging as assumed. Or... helmets are magically resistant to damage?

Took the words out of my mouth.

The officer who said it was a fact should be dismissed or sent for re-training if they can't tell the difference between assumption and fact.  The evidence shows that the helmet was not very damaged, but it definitely saved a life?  Don't these people think before they speak.

The rider says that it is cracked, but that shows that it failed.  Helmets are supposed to work by absorbing energy by compression, not by cracking.  Take a piece of expanded polystyrene, from which helmets are made, and try to compress it, then try to snap it, and tell me which one required almost no effort.

This is another cyclist going too fast for their own abilities, and they would have gone much slower if they weren't convinced that the helmet would save their life, so a self-fulfilling prophecy really.  The data shows that helmetted cyclists have more collisions because they take more risks, and the death rate does not fall with increasing helmet wearing.

This just looks like another para-medic, convinced of the efficacy of helmets, using his own failures to promote his views and sell helmets.  Another anecdote with totally unreliable witnesses making utterly invalid assumptions, when all the real world data shows they are wrong.  Why are people like this allowed to vote?

burtthebike wrote:

The officer who said it was a fact should be dismissed or sent for re-training if they can't tell the difference between assumption and fact.  The evidence shows that the helmet was not very damaged, but it definitely saved a life?  Don't these people think before they speak.

... Really!? You think a highly trained Police Officer should be dismissed for saying what he sees? The lack of Police Officers is a much bigger problem I would have thought.

burtthebike wrote:

The rider says that it is cracked, but that shows that it failed.  Helmets are supposed to work by absorbing energy by compression, not by cracking.  Take a piece of expanded polystyrene, from which helmets are made, and try to compress it, then try to snap it, and tell me which one required almost no effort.

Once again, you daon't understand physics. Polystyrene is a brittle plastic. Expanded polystyrene is made up of balls that when heated by steam expand and fuse together. Because of the stiff/brittle properties of PS, as a foam it becomes a very good shock absorber in compression where all the thin walls can collapse and crumple microscopically. In tension however it's rubbish, usually propagating cracks along the fused lines between balls. So what tends to happen in an impact is the PS will collapse in the area where it's been crushed, making it pull  away and crack from the still intact PS material around it... The squashed material though tends to partly spring back making it hard to see the underlying damage, meaning that - the cracks are usually the visable evidence that the helmet has absorbed an impact. This is entirely contrary to your dangerous misinformation that cracks mean the helmet hasn't absorbed an impact properly.

By the way, as an aside, the collapsing of all the microscopic bubbles and walls inside the PS, which makes it so good at absorbing impact, also massively and permanently degrades it's ability to absorb a second impact, which is a bigger problem, as it can be so difficult to see (whihc is why cracks in some ways are a good thing as it does show people that there is some damage.

As the designer of a helmet using a totally new multi-impact material, I do understand the downsides of PS, but you're barking up the wrong tree, so please get this right in future.

burtthebike wrote:

This is another cyclist going too fast for their own abilities, and they would have gone much slower if they weren't convinced that the helmet would save their life, so a self-fulfilling prophecy really.

This I do agree with. My personal view is we should provide rider education with much clearer messaging around the limitations of helmets, so they don't mistakenly think it makes them invisable and therefore take stupid risks, but then leave it up to people to decide for themselves either way.

And I don't think we should insult paramedics saying they are not worthy of vote. Let's just get back to discussing the evidence (accurately) shall we.

AndyRed3d wrote:

... Really!? You think a highly trained Police Officer should be dismissed for saying what he sees?

No, I think a police officer should analyse the data and reach a logical view, not jump to conclusions.  That's why they are supposed to be trained, and any officer who does jump to conclusions isn't fit to be an officer and isn't highly trained; they're an idiot.

Your opinion might differ, but just look at the vast number of wrongful convictions, all of which as far as I know, caused by police making assumptions rather than looking at the facts.

burtthebike wrote:

Your opinion might differ, but just look at the vast number of wrongful convictions, all of which as far as I know, caused by police making assumptions rather than looking at the facts.

Citation please. I can think of a number of reasons for something being deemed a "wrongful conviction" without it being due to mere assumption, but i've not put the time in you must have to make a judgement about whether they're all unconnected to the vast number of wrongful convictions.

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Your opinion might differ, but just look at the vast number of wrongful convictions, all of which as far as I know, caused by police making assumptions rather than looking at the facts.

Citation please. I can think of a number of reasons for something being deemed a "wrongful conviction" without it being due to mere assumption, but i've not put the time in you must have to make a judgement about whether they're all unconnected to the vast number of wrongful convictions.

This one, but there are many others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Rachel_Nickell

Colin Stagg was targetted by the police to the exclusion of all others because the policeman in charge thought he was guilty.  Birmingham six, etc.

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Your opinion might differ, but just look at the vast number of wrongful convictions, all of which as far as I know, caused by police making assumptions rather than looking at the facts.

Citation please. I can think of a number of reasons for something being deemed a "wrongful conviction" without it being due to mere assumption, but i've not put the time in you must have to make a judgement about whether they're all unconnected to the vast number of wrongful convictions.

This one, but there are many others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Rachel_Nickell

Colin Stagg was targetted by the police to the exclusion of all others because the policeman in charge thought he was guilty.  Birmingham six, etc.

How's about

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Dando#Investigation

or

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six

Lots of presumptions made there too...

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Your opinion might differ, but just look at the vast number of wrongful convictions, all of which as far as I know, caused by police making assumptions rather than looking at the facts.

Citation please. I can think of a number of reasons for something being deemed a "wrongful conviction" without it being due to mere assumption, but i've not put the time in you must have to make a judgement about whether they're all unconnected to the vast number of wrongful convictions.

This one, but there are many others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Rachel_Nickell

Colin Stagg was targetted by the police to the exclusion of all others because the policeman in charge thought he was guilty.  Birmingham six, etc.

All burt, all. I'm aware of cases where assumptions were pivotal, i'm waiting for your evidence that all wrongful convictions are due to it... or just say that was hyperbole, i'm easy.

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Your opinion might differ, but just look at the vast number of wrongful convictions, all of which as far as I know, caused by police making assumptions rather than looking at the facts.

Citation please. I can think of a number of reasons for something being deemed a "wrongful conviction" without it being due to mere assumption, but i've not put the time in you must have to make a judgement about whether they're all unconnected to the vast number of wrongful convictions.

This one, but there are many others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Rachel_Nickell

Colin Stagg was targetted by the police to the exclusion of all others because the policeman in charge thought he was guilty.  Birmingham six, etc.

All burt, all. I'm aware of cases where assumptions were pivotal, i'm waiting for your evidence that all wrongful convictions are due to it... or just say that was hyperbole, i'm easy.

Which bit of "...as far as I know,..." did you not understand?

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Your opinion might differ, but just look at the vast number of wrongful convictions, all of which as far as I know, caused by police making assumptions rather than looking at the facts.

Citation please. I can think of a number of reasons for something being deemed a "wrongful conviction" without it being due to mere assumption, but i've not put the time in you must have to make a judgement about whether they're all unconnected to the vast number of wrongful convictions.

This one, but there are many others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Rachel_Nickell

Colin Stagg was targetted by the police to the exclusion of all others because the policeman in charge thought he was guilty.  Birmingham six, etc.

All burt, all. I'm aware of cases where assumptions were pivotal, i'm waiting for your evidence that all wrongful convictions are due to it... or just say that was hyperbole, i'm easy.

Which bit of "...as far as I know,..." did you not understand?

All of it. However when you state "the vast number of wrongful convictions, all of which as far as I know, caused by police making assumptions" i'd expect a certain reasonable, high percentage, of that 'vast' number to be familar to you if what you say is true - or you're just making sweeping generalisations based on nothing much to try and make a point. I'm asking which , that's all