On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 11:05:56 +0100, "OG" 
wrote:

>
>"judith"  wrote in message 
>news:1ispb4tiqh4ke85m8uf59uo1kih81au5fv@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 01:47:02 +0100, "OG" 
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>>Hopefully you have learned from your own recent experience that it is easy
>>>to mis-interpret a report; so why the negativity to the idea that they can
>>>comment on the DfT paper?
>>>
>>
>> Of course they can comment - I was just pointing out that they have
>> obviously chosen that fine neutral name of The Bicycle Helmet Research
>> Foundation with a reason.
>>
>> A member  of the "Editorial Board" says that "you can either promote
>> cycling or promote helmets,the two are incompatible"
>>
>> I think this clearly shows their neutrality and objectivity.
>>
>
>When you start showing your neutrality and objectivity people will take you 
>more seriously. 


You're taking the micky!!

Are you saying that being neutral and objective is a prerequisite for
urc?

I must admit I had not noticed that.

--     
There is plenty of evidence that motorists feel a need to portray 
cyclists as an "out group" and thus exclude themselves from the class 
(Guy Chapman)
And that evidence is where? (Judith Smith)