Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through [Archive]

Chris B.

November 5th 04, 07:23 AM

<Crosspost re-inserted>

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 23:20:55 -0500, "Micheal Artindale"
> wrote:

>Are you for or against it? I am FOR it.
>
>Micheal

I wonder why. Are you aware that mandatory helmet laws implemented in
Alberta, Nova Scotia, New Zealand and parts of Australia have not only
not shown benefits but have actually had negative effects (decreased
numbers of cyclists in all cases and sometimes an increase in the rate
of head injury after the law is enacted)?

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/canada_helmets.html

http://www.imt.ie/displayarticle.asp?AID=5724&NS=1&SID=1

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/nytimes.html

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1023.html

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1020.html

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/hfaq.html

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/fatals.html

Helmets are already mandatory for children in Ontario (not that the
law is enforced). If reducing the rates of injury and death to
cyclists is such a priority, time, money and energy would be far, far
better spent on teaching cyclists to ride lawfully and skillfully on
the road. Children nowadays don't have any idea of how to ride safely
because their parents, who themselves haven't cycled in years if at
all, also have no clue. When one looks at how cycling is portrayed by
the safety zealots, the media and even many cyclists who should know
better, it's no wonder that so many refuse to ride a bike stating
'it's too dangerous'.

Don't you think that it's at all possible that adults are capable of
informing themselves sufficiently to evaluate the risks of the
activities they are engaging in and deciding for themselves what
safety equipment is necessary, if any?

Does cycling without a helmet really need to be be criminal?

Bob Burns

November 5th 04, 01:55 PM

Chris B. wrote:
> <Crosspost re-inserted>
>
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 23:20:55 -0500, "Micheal Artindale"
> > wrote:
>
>> Are you for or against it? I am FOR it.
>>
>> Micheal
>
> I wonder why. Are you aware that mandatory helmet laws implemented in
> Alberta, Nova Scotia, New Zealand and parts of Australia have not only
> not shown benefits but have actually had negative effects (decreased
> numbers of cyclists in all cases and sometimes an increase in the rate
> of head injury after the law is enacted)?
>
> http://www.cycle-helmets.com/canada_helmets.html
>
> http://www.imt.ie/displayarticle.asp?AID=5724&NS=1&SID=1
>
> http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/nytimes.html
>
> http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1023.html
>
> http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1020.html
>
> http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/hfaq.html
>
> http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/fatals.html
>
> Helmets are already mandatory for children in Ontario (not that the
> law is enforced). If reducing the rates of injury and death to
> cyclists is such a priority, time, money and energy would be far, far
> better spent on teaching cyclists to ride lawfully and skillfully on
> the road. Children nowadays don't have any idea of how to ride safely
> because their parents, who themselves haven't cycled in years if at
> all, also have no clue. When one looks at how cycling is portrayed by
> the safety zealots, the media and even many cyclists who should know
> better, it's no wonder that so many refuse to ride a bike stating
> 'it's too dangerous'.
>
> Don't you think that it's at all possible that adults are capable of
> informing themselves sufficiently to evaluate the risks of the
> activities they are engaging in and deciding for themselves what
> safety equipment is necessary, if any?
>
> Does cycling without a helmet really need to be be criminal?

I always wear a helmet. I destroyed one a month ago in a crash- and walked
away. it will not prevent all injuries, but it improves your odds of
walking away. That said, not sure I want a law mandating helmets. Here in
PA they just repealed the motorcycle helmet law.

--
Bob Burns
Mill Hall PA

Dragan Cvetkovic

November 5th 04, 03:19 PM

Chris Phillipo > writes:

> In article >, bikerider@-no-
> spam-thanks-rogers.com says...
>>
>> I wonder why. Are you aware that mandatory helmet laws implemented in
>> Alberta, Nova Scotia, New Zealand and parts of Australia have not only
>> not shown benefits but have actually had negative effects (decreased
>> numbers of cyclists in all cases and sometimes an increase in the rate
>> of head injury after the law is enacted)?
>>
>
> Ho hum, that would be a neat trick considering the helmet laws are not
> even enforced outside of Halifax in Nova Scotia. Which makes me think
> the rest of these "statitics" are in quesiton.

Are you saying that people should obey the law only if it is actually and
actively enforced?

Dragan

--
Dragan Cvetkovic,

To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer

!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!

Mitch Haley

November 5th 04, 03:45 PM

Chris Phillipo wrote:
> Uh, what?? I'm saying that he constantly posts statistics that claim
> helmet use is detrimental to the health of the people because it deters
> them from riding, I counter that in Nova Scotia helmet use is not
> enforced so where exactly is this deterrent for riders?

Australia.
I don't recall anybody claiming that ridership has gone down in NS.

maxo

November 5th 04, 04:00 PM

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:28:26 -0500, Chris B. wrote:

> Apparently they have decided to leave adult cyclists alone for
> now.

Helmet laws do nothing to stop people from riding like idiots.

Ticketing irresponsible riders might...

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 5th 04, 04:10 PM

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:00:24 GMT, maxo > wrote:

>Helmet laws do nothing to stop people from riding like idiots.

They do! They do!

Oh, riding /like idiots/. As you were then.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Dragan Cvetkovic

November 5th 04, 04:11 PM

Chris Phillipo > writes:

> I'm saying that he constantly posts statistics that claim
> helmet use is detrimental to the health of the people because it deters
> them from riding, I counter that in Nova Scotia helmet use is not
> enforced so where exactly is this deterrent for riders?

Chris, these two statements don't oppose and contradict each other.

--
Dragan Cvetkovic,

To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer

!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!

maxo

November 5th 04, 04:24 PM

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:10:06 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

>>Helmet laws do nothing to stop people from riding like idiots.
>
> They do! They do!

I just think this is an absurd way to go about public safety. I'm no more
against helmets than seatbelts and airbags...but address the cause--why
are bikes & riders hitting the pavement--not the symptom--purple owies.

I've lived in places in the world where people are much more bike
savvy than in the US and Canada and follow the rules of the road
better--they don't seem to wear a lot of helmets, though they're catching
on for kids, but they don't seem to fall down as much either. ;)

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 5th 04, 05:11 PM

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:26:31 GMT, Chris Phillipo
> wrote:

>When I see soemone without a helmet I an urked by it but when I see
>soemone riding towards me on the wrong side of the road I can only think
>that Darwinism sure takes a long time to kick in.

When I see someone else riding without a helmet I think :Good, one
less to be counted as a stealth vote for compulsion. The only reason
we don't have a id law now is that wearing rates are so low it would
be unenforceable.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Frank Krygowski

November 5th 04, 05:34 PM

Chris Phillipo wrote:

>
> When I see soemone without a helmet I an urked [sic] by it...

Why on earth?

When I see someone riding without a helmet, I think "Cool - there's
someone riding!"

Your post indicates the anti-bicyclist mindset of the helmet promoters.
You must actually feel that riding a bicycle does more harm than good!

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

AustinMN

November 5th 04, 07:08 PM

Chris Phillipo wrote
> In article >, says...
>>
>> > I'm saying that he constantly posts statistics that claim
>> > helmet use is detrimental to the health of the people because it deters
>> > them from riding, I counter that in Nova Scotia helmet use is not
>> > enforced so where exactly is this deterrent for riders?
>>
>> Chris, these two statements don't oppose and contradict each other.
>>
>>
>
> Come again?

Take a deep breath. Just because a law is not enforced, doesn't mean there
aren't people who obey it.

The existence of the law (whether or not it is enforced) _is_ a deterrent.

Austin

Frank Krygowski

November 5th 04, 07:36 PM

AustinMN wrote:

> Chris Phillipo wrote
>
>> In article >, says...
>>
>>>
>>> > I'm saying that he constantly posts statistics that claim
>>> > helmet use is detrimental to the health of the people because it
>>> deters
>>> > them from riding, I counter that in Nova Scotia helmet use is not
>>> > enforced so where exactly is this deterrent for riders?
>>>
>>> Chris, these two statements don't oppose and contradict each other.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Come again?
>
>
> Take a deep breath. Just because a law is not enforced, doesn't mean
> there aren't people who obey it.
>
> The existence of the law (whether or not it is enforced) _is_ a deterrent.
>

More to the point, just because a law is not enforced - or, more likely,
not _usually_ enforced - doesn't mean that there are people who are put
off by the _possibility_ of enforcement.

Those who think a MHL has no effect on cycling are being very unrealistic.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Benjamin Lewis

November 5th 04, 08:19 PM

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> AustinMN wrote:
>
>> Chris Phillipo wrote
>>
>>> In article >, says...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'm saying that he constantly posts statistics that claim
>>>>> helmet use is detrimental to the health of the people because it
>>>> deters
>>>>> them from riding, I counter that in Nova Scotia helmet use is not
>>>>> enforced so where exactly is this deterrent for riders?
>>>>
>>>> Chris, these two statements don't oppose and contradict each other.
>>>
>>> Come again?
>> Take a deep breath. Just because a law is not enforced, doesn't mean
>> there aren't people who obey it. The existence of the law (whether or
>> not it is enforced) _is_ a deterrent.
>
> More to the point, just because a law is not enforced - or, more likely,
> not _usually_ enforced - doesn't mean that there are people who are put
> off by the _possibility_ of enforcement.

To go even further, the mere existence of a law purported to be for
"safety" purposes, even if it is *guaranteed* to be unenforced, can
potentially be a deterrent, since it spreads the idea, sometimes
unconsciously, that the activity is dangerous.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Evelyn the dog, having undergone further modification, pondered the
significance of short-person behavior in pedal-depressed panchromatic
resonance and other highly ambient domains... "Arf", she said.

Maggie

November 5th 04, 09:01 PM

> Does cycling without a helmet really need to be be criminal?

Who are you hurting beside yourself if you choose not to wear a
helmet? What is the crime? I think children should wear helmets, but
adults should make their own choice. I rode on the back of a
motorcycle without a helmet. The laws were not enforced back then, but
I am glad my son wears one when he goes out on his motorcycle. It was
a choice. Stupid or not, it was our choice not to wear helmets. My son
must have one on or he will be pulled over. I am glad its not a choice
for him.

AustinMN

November 5th 04, 09:44 PM

Chris Phillipo wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>> Subject: Re: Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through
>> From: "AustinMN" >
>> Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc, rec.bicycles.soc, ont.bicycle
>>
>> Chris Phillipo wrote
>> > In article >, says...
>> >>
>> >> > I'm saying that he constantly posts statistics that claim
>> >> > helmet use is detrimental to the health of the people because it
>> >> > deters
>> >> > them from riding, I counter that in Nova Scotia helmet use is not
>> >> > enforced so where exactly is this deterrent for riders?
>> >>
>> >> Chris, these two statements don't oppose and contradict each other.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Come again?
>>
>> Take a deep breath. Just because a law is not enforced, doesn't mean
>> there
>> aren't people who obey it.
>>
>> The existence of the law (whether or not it is enforced) _is_ a
>> deterrent.
>>
>> Austin
>>
>
> Are you listening? I said ridership is UP not DOWN. His study is
> flawed in it's collection methods.

Then your location is a fluke. Virtually everywhere else MHL's are put in
place, ridership declines.

But my suspicion is that your collection methods are more flawed than the
one who found ridership is down. You do base your statement on a scientific
survey, not your own impression, right?

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

Frank Krygowski

November 5th 04, 09:44 PM

Chris Phillipo wrote:

>
>
> Are you listening? I said ridership is UP not DOWN. His study is
> flawed in it's collection methods.

IIRC, ridership is finally "up" in some other jurisdictions that
instituted helmet laws. But wait! It's "up" compared to what it was 10
years ago, when the laws were introduced. Does that mean the effect of
MHLs is to increase riding?

Hardly! The immediate effect of MHLs has been to reduce riding
significantly. Enforced MHLs have been shown to reduce riding by about
30%, and even more among certain age groups. Given enough time, other
changes _may_ lead to a recovery. For example, population growth may
eventually allow one to say "there are now more riders than before" -
but that doesn't mean there are more riders than there _would_ have been!

I'm curious how someone can believe a MHL increases ridership. In fact,
I'm curious how someone can believe it's neutral. Certainly, there will
be _some_ people who will say "If I'm forced to wear a helmet, I'm not
riding." Certainly there will be those who say "Damn, if it's so
dangerous they require a helmet, I don't want to do it at all!"

Where do you find people who say "Oh, I'm not allowed to ride without a
helmet, eh? Great! That makes me want to take up cycling!"

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Frank Krygowski

November 5th 04, 09:47 PM

Maggie wrote:

>>Does cycling without a helmet really need to be be criminal?
>
>
> Who are you hurting beside yourself if you choose not to wear a
> helmet? What is the crime? I think children should wear helmets, but
> adults should make their own choice.

I think parents should be allowed to make the choice for their children.

My kids are grown, but they _certainly_ did a lot of riding without bike
helmets. In fact, I assume _all_ of us did.

A parent is allowed to let his kid climb a tree without a helmet. He's
allowed to let his kid play pickup baseball without a helmet. He's
allowed to let his kid ride his pony without a helmet. In each of
these, and many other situations, the choice is reasonably left up to
the parent.

What in the world is so dangerous about cycling that justifies
overpowering parental judgement?

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Peter Storey

November 5th 04, 10:23 PM

Chris B. > quoted someone thusly
in message >...

> "That includes N.D.P. MPP Michael Prue, who lost his brother to a bike
> accident in 1998. ?There isn't a day goes by that I don't see someone
> on the streets of Toronto, an adult, with no helmet on their head, and
> I want to get out of my car or off the sidewalk and I want to grab
> them and I want to shake them,? he reflects. ?I want to tell them that
> this was an absolutely wrong thing, a bad thing to happen."

Oh dear! Shaking them? MPP Prue really should read up on rotational
injuries that are not prevented --- and may be exacerbated -- by
wearing a helmet.

Peter Storey

Chris B.

November 5th 04, 10:35 PM

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 14:36:05 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> wrote:

>AustinMN wrote:
>
>> Chris Phillipo wrote
>>
>>> In article >, says...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > I'm saying that he constantly posts statistics that claim
>>>> > helmet use is detrimental to the health of the people because it
>>>> deters
>>>> > them from riding, I counter that in Nova Scotia helmet use is not
>>>> > enforced so where exactly is this deterrent for riders?
>>>>
>>>> Chris, these two statements don't oppose and contradict each other.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Come again?
>>
>>
>> Take a deep breath. Just because a law is not enforced, doesn't mean
>> there aren't people who obey it.
>>
>> The existence of the law (whether or not it is enforced) _is_ a deterrent.
>>
>
>More to the point, just because a law is not enforced - or, more likely,
>not _usually_ enforced - doesn't mean that there are people who are put
>off by the _possibility_ of enforcement.
>
>Those who think a MHL has no effect on cycling are being very unrealistic.

Frank, why did you remove the cross post? It is very much on topic
for ont.bicycle.
--

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
robber-barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber-
baron's cruelty may at some point be satiated; but those who
torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they
do so with the approval of their own conscience."

- C.S. Lewis

Mitch Haley

November 6th 04, 12:01 AM

Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>
> To go even further, the mere existence of a law purported to be for
> "safety" purposes, even if it is *guaranteed* to be unenforced, can
> potentially be a deterrent, since it spreads the idea, sometimes
> unconsciously, that the activity is dangerous.

Not to mention spreading the silly idea that the government is your parent.

Bill Z.

November 6th 04, 02:09 AM

Dragan Cvetkovic > writes:

> Chris Phillipo > writes:
>
> > In article >, bikerider@-no-
> > spam-thanks-rogers.com says...
> >>
> >> I wonder why. Are you aware that mandatory helmet laws implemented in
> >> Alberta, Nova Scotia, New Zealand and parts of Australia have not only
> >> not shown benefits but have actually had negative effects (decreased
> >> numbers of cyclists in all cases and sometimes an increase in the rate
> >> of head injury after the law is enacted)?
> >>
> >
> > Ho hum, that would be a neat trick considering the helmet laws are not
> > even enforced outside of Halifax in Nova Scotia. Which makes me think
> > the rest of these "statitics" are in quesiton.
>
> Are you saying that people should obey the law only if it is actually and
> actively enforced?

He's saying what I have said for years on this topic: that laws that
are not obeyed or enforced have zero impact on human behavior. People
are not going to stop cycling because of a helmet law that is neither
obeyed nor enforced.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Frank Krygowski

November 6th 04, 02:25 AM

Chris B. wrote:

>
>
> Frank, why did you remove the cross post? It is very much on topic
> for ont.bicycle.

Because my system won't let me post there. When I try, the entire post
hangs. I agree it's very much on topic there. Feel free to copy.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

November 6th 04, 02:28 AM

Chris Phillipo wrote:

>
>
> That had nothing to do with the point of my post but I'm sure that this
> bill, like almost all others, has no provision in it for extra law
> enforment spending.

Which means, of course, that any time the cops give to enforcing it is
time taken away from real productive activity.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

November 6th 04, 02:33 AM

Ken [NY) wrote:

>
> To the fellow who was thinking about fleeing to Canada from
> the horrors of Bush's low tax rates, you might want to think about
> this proposed law.
>

But then, there's the opportunity to get free of Neanderthal right
wingers and their simplistic "thinking." The choice isn't easy!

Ah well. We're off topic, aren't we?

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Chris B.

November 6th 04, 04:48 AM

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:25:14 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> wrote:

>Chris B. wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Frank, why did you remove the cross post? It is very much on topic
>> for ont.bicycle.
>
>Because my system won't let me post there. When I try, the entire post
>hangs. I agree it's very much on topic there. Feel free to copy.

I hadn't even considered that, sorry.

I must say, I'm not usually so provincial.
--

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
robber-barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber-
baron's cruelty may at some point be satiated; but those who
torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they
do so with the approval of their own conscience."

- C.S. Lewis

Bill Z.

November 6th 04, 05:05 AM

Chris B. > writes:

> On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:25:14 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > wrote:
>
> >Chris B. wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Frank, why did you remove the cross post? It is very much on topic
> >> for ont.bicycle.
> >
> >Because my system won't let me post there. When I try, the entire post
> >hangs. I agree it's very much on topic there. Feel free to copy.
>
> I hadn't even considered that, sorry.
>

Krygoswki's claim doesn't make much sense - normally you get an
error if you can't post and the newsreader just reports it. If
he really can't post, then he should first try a different newsreader
to rule out a bug in the version of Mozilla he uses (5.0) and
then report the problem to his employer (he seems to be posting
from work.)

Maggie

November 6th 04, 02:21 PM

> My kids are grown, but they _certainly_ did a lot of riding without bike
> helmets. In fact, I assume _all_ of us did. A parent is allowed to
let his kid climb a tree without a helmet. He's allowed to let his
kid play pickup baseball without a helmet. He's allowed to let his
kid ride his pony without a helmet. In each of these, and many other
situations, the choice is reasonably left up to the parent. What in
the world is so dangerous about cycling that justifies overpowering
parental judgement?

This makes sense to me. There were certainly no helmet laws when I was
a child and there were none for my children. I sometimes wonder how I
survived childhood and also how my children survived. I rode in the
back of my fathers pickup truck with my brother all through my
childhood. If you put your kid in the back of a pick up in the NY/NJ
area today, you would be arrested for child abuse or neglect. We
didn't have car seats, seat belts, helmets, and our cribs had slats we
could stick our heads through,and wooden high chairs we could climb
out of very easily. HOW DID WE SURVIVE??? When I had my first child
there were no still no car seat laws. Some of my greatest memories of
childhood were building cars out of wood crates and roller skate
wheels and flying down the steepest hills we could find with no
brakes. How the heck did we survive? My brother and I still laugh
about those days. We fell out of our treehouse when it collapsed and
survived and in the process learned to build a better tree house. To
ride our bikes, we just hopped on and rode. We never went to a LBS for
anything. If the bike broke we found a way to put it back together.
When the chain fell off we stopped and fixed it until it fell off
again. When the brakes broke we used our feet. It is funny to think
about that is this age of hi tech and safety laws. I must admit I had
a few black eyes and battle scars from hanging around with an older
brother but.... Maybe there are just too many laws protecting our
safety now. I would not trade those old stories of childhood for
anything. Even with the black eyes. When do laws become a hindrence
rather than a help?
Peace and stuff
http://hometown.aol.com/lbuset/

JFJones

November 6th 04, 02:46 PM

Frank Krygowski > wrote in message >...
> Chris B. wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Frank, why did you remove the cross post? It is very much on topic
> > for ont.bicycle.
>
> Because my system won't let me post there. When I try, the entire post
> hangs. I agree it's very much on topic there. Feel free to copy.

You can post via Google. It can be accessed via the three newsgroups, eg
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&safe=off&group=ont.bicycle

JFJones

November 6th 04, 02:52 PM

(Bill Z.) wrote in message >...
> Dragan Cvetkovic > writes:
>
> > Chris Phillipo > writes:
> >
> > > In article >, bikerider@-no-
> > > spam-thanks-rogers.com says...
> > >>
> > >> I wonder why. Are you aware that mandatory helmet laws implemented in
> > >> Alberta, Nova Scotia, New Zealand and parts of Australia have not only
> > >> not shown benefits but have actually had negative effects (decreased
> > >> numbers of cyclists in all cases and sometimes an increase in the rate
> > >> of head injury after the law is enacted)?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Ho hum, that would be a neat trick considering the helmet laws are not
> > > even enforced outside of Halifax in Nova Scotia. Which makes me think
> > > the rest of these "statitics" are in quesiton.
> >
> > Are you saying that people should obey the law only if it is actually and
> > actively enforced?
>
>
> He's saying what I have said for years on this topic: that laws that
> are not obeyed or enforced have zero impact on human behavior. People
> are not going to stop cycling because of a helmet law that is neither
> obeyed nor enforced.
>
> Bill

Unlike cynical Bill, some people have ethical values that prevent them
becoming lawbreakers. They quit cycling through self-enforcement or in
the case of kids parental enforcement.

Marcus Coles

November 6th 04, 03:24 PM

According to Canadian Cyclist
http://www.canadiancyclist.com/dailynews/November/11.4.0412.39PM17.shtml
it has been sent to committee for study.

It would seem to me that some benefit might be obtained by targeting the
members of this committee. Does anybody know the correct procedure
for such communication.

Another case of politicians making decisions with bad information and
once this happens laws may be modified but never repealed as that would
cause loss of face for the originators of such poorly considered statutes.

Since CPSC bicycle helmets are designed for low speed, low energy
impacts and more head injuries occur from slipping in the bathtub or
shower than bicycling perhaps as an alternative mandating the use in
that environment would make far more sense. ;^)

Marcus Coles

Bill Z.

November 6th 04, 05:15 PM

(JFJones) writes:

> (Bill Z.) wrote in message >...
> > Dragan Cvetkovic > writes:
> > >
> > > Are you saying that people should obey the law only if it is actually and
> > > actively enforced?
> >
> > He's saying what I have said for years on this topic: that laws that
> > are not obeyed or enforced have zero impact on human behavior. People
> > are not going to stop cycling because of a helmet law that is neither
> > obeyed nor enforced.
> >
> > Bill
>
> Unlike cynical Bill, some people have ethical values that prevent them
> becoming lawbreakers. They quit cycling through self-enforcement or in
> the case of kids parental enforcement.

Some of us are ethical enough to report what we see accurately. On
quite a number of occassions around here, I've seen kids riding
without helmets and the police ignoring them, and this is in a state
where we do have a helmet law that applies to anyone 17 (18?) or
under.

That's the reality, moronic self-styled "moralists" who confuse
reporting the facts with a person's own ethical standards
notwithstanding. I might add that many parents probably don't even
know the law exists (it isn't publicized very well), in which case
Jone's "ethical values" / "self-enforcement" claims would be
particularly daft. "Ethical values" do not compel you to obey a
law that you don't know exists.

My guess is that Jones is a Bush supporter---he's sufficiently
out of touch with the real world. Any bets?

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

AustinMN

November 6th 04, 11:21 PM

Chris Phillipo wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>> Then your location is a fluke. Virtually everywhere else MHL's are put
>> in
>> place, ridership declines.
>>
>> But my suspicion is that your collection methods are more flawed than the
>> one who found ridership is down. You do base your statement on a
>> scientific
>> survey, not your own impression, right?
>>
>> Austin
>> --
>> I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
>> There are no X characters in my address
>>
>>
>
> I base my statement on having sold more bikes in the past 2 years than
> ever before and there being a club with over 100 members vs. 10 from 2
> years ago.

If you sell bicycles, then you really ought to know that ownership does not
equal ridership. Today, probably 95% of all bicycles sold never see 100
miles, ever.

Club ridership is also misleading. There is more club ridership, but not to
many years ago almost nobody rode in clubs.

Austin

AustinMN

November 6th 04, 11:24 PM

Chris Phillipo wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> Unlike cynical Bill, some people have ethical values that prevent them
>> becoming lawbreakers. They quit cycling through self-enforcement or in
>> the case of kids parental enforcement.
>>
>>
> Well not counting you, I haven't met that person.

I've met a dozen. I'm even married to a woman who has said "If they make me
wear a helmet, I'm not riding." I know her well enough that it makes no to
her difference if the law is enforced or not.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

dgk

November 7th 04, 01:54 AM

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:32:38 GMT, "Ken [NY]" > wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:33:04 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> claims:
>
>>Ken [NY) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> To the fellow who was thinking about fleeing to Canada from
>>> the horrors of Bush's low tax rates, you might want to think about
>>> this proposed law.
>>>
>>
>>But then, there's the opportunity to get free of Neanderthal right
>>wingers and their simplistic "thinking." The choice isn't easy!
>
> Those "Neanderthal right wingers" just sent a mandate to Mr.
>Bush to continue his policies, so forgive them (us) their gloating and
>their "simplistic thinking". People in the heartland don't like to
>think in curley-cues, preferring straight thought.

Mandate? 48% of Americans voted against him and many who voted for him
did so inspite of his policies. No mandate there. To me, it is likely
that his victory came from the fact that his team made the voting
machines that left us no paper trail to verify. I think they cheated.

Peter

November 7th 04, 02:04 AM

Bill Z. wrote:
> (JFJones) writes:

>>Unlike cynical Bill, some people have ethical values that prevent them
>>becoming lawbreakers. They quit cycling through self-enforcement or in
>>the case of kids parental enforcement.
>
>
> Some of us are ethical enough to report what we see accurately. On
> quite a number of occassions around here, I've seen kids riding
> without helmets and the police ignoring them, and this is in a state
> where we do have a helmet law that applies to anyone 17 (18?) or
> under.

Of course this says nothing to refute the statement by Jones which was
about self-enforcement and parental enforcement and specifically not
about police enforcement.

My commute route goes past an elementary school, an intermediate
school, and a high school. I still see a considerable number of
kids cycling, albeit not nearly as many as before the helmet law
was passed. Almost all have helmets, but only about 20% of those
helmets are on their heads - most of the others are dangling from
the handlebars.

Now maybe there's some new fashion that makes it trendy to have
a helmet hanging from your handlebars, but I think the more likely
explanation is that the helmet law is in fact being enforced, but not
while the kids are enroute. Instead it's enforced at one or
both ends of the trip - at the school and/or at the home. Not by
police, but by parents and/or school personnel.

The other thing I conclude is that most of the kids dislike wearing
the helmet so much that they'd rather take it off once out of sight
of school and/or home and put up with the inconvenience of having it
flop around from their bars than continue wearing it. Given that
degree of dislike it's not surprising that some fraction would
choose not to ride at all once a helmet law is passed.

Michael

November 7th 04, 02:46 AM

I'm undecided. People who don't wear helmets are stupid plain as day. Maybe
our gene pool need a little weeding, but lemme tell you a small story....

I'm a downhiller the more air the better, I think any drop less than 5 feet
is for sissies. So ya I ride good, Really good. (Lately easing back 'cause
my fiancee worries too much) Usually in the city I don't wear my lid cause
it's a full face. Last spring, normal commute to work, done it 100's of
times. I mean I was a courier dammit. It was particulally cold that day so
I wore my helmet. It keeps my head warm. I got cut off by a cab (What with
those guys?) I fell. I Seperated my AC joint, Sprained my wrist, and my head
bounced off the ground so hard I got whiplash. I was in bed for over a week.

I'm willing to bet I'd either be dead or drooling on myself if I didn't
have that helmet on. since then? I ride to the store 1/2 a block away I'm
wearin it. I don't want my kids to have to change my Diapers When I'm 35.
But hey if your dumb enough to ride with out one Ya kinda deserve it. But I
don't want people hurt. So ya I'm undecided

"Chris B." > wrote in message
...
> The law would apply to people who skateboard, ride scooters or in-line
> skate. Apparently they have decided to leave adult cyclists alone for
> now.
>
> http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20041104-009/page.asp
>
> My favourite part:
>
> "That includes N.D.P. MPP Michael Prue, who lost his brother to a bike
> accident in 1998. "There isn't a day goes by that I don't see someone
> on the streets of Toronto, an adult, with no helmet on their head, and
> I want to get out of my car or off the sidewalk and I want to grab
> them and I want to shake them," he reflects. "I want to tell them that
> this was an absolutely wrong thing, a bad thing to happen."
>
> --
> "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
> victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
> robber-barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber-
> baron's cruelty may at some point be satiated; but those who
> torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they
> do so with the approval of their own conscience."
>
> - C.S. Lewis

Rick

November 7th 04, 03:41 AM

Maggie wrote:
>>My kids are grown, but they _certainly_ did a lot of riding without bike
>>helmets. In fact, I assume _all_ of us did. A parent is allowed to
>
> let his kid climb a tree without a helmet. He's allowed to let his
> kid play pickup baseball without a helmet. He's allowed to let his
> kid ride his pony without a helmet. In each of these, and many other
> situations, the choice is reasonably left up to the parent. What in
> the world is so dangerous about cycling that justifies overpowering
> parental judgement?
>
>
> This makes sense to me. There were certainly no helmet laws when I was
> a child and there were none for my children. I sometimes wonder how I
> survived childhood and also how my children survived. I rode in the
> back of my fathers pickup truck with my brother all through my
> childhood. If you put your kid in the back of a pick up in the NY/NJ
> area today, you would be arrested for child abuse or neglect. We
> didn't have car seats, seat belts, helmets, and our cribs had slats we
> could stick our heads through,and wooden high chairs we could climb
> out of very easily. HOW DID WE SURVIVE??? ...stuff deleted

There is an overwhelming sense of fear in our society, to the point that
it is laughable. They check your shoes before going into public
buildings because one idiot tried (unsuccessfully, mind you) to do
something bad with shoes on a plane. What's next? Wingtips of mass
destruction?

My brothers and I used to throw knives and screwdrivers in a game
called, "eat the knife" (it was a more innocent time - grin). We
intentionally knocked each other off bikes jousting or dogfighting. The
modern era is so marked by fear that parents won't let their children
play sandlot ball because their future careers could be ruined. It is
insane. Sure, we got hurt and the doctors put us back together so that
we could do it again.

The reality is that children will do dangerous things, learn from their
mistakes, and dust themselves off. Seldom were the injuries serious
enough to warrant medical attention, and even rarer did we go on to do
the really dangerous things that rebelious teens attempt today (such as
kayaking Niagra Falls). Kids learn not to make certain mistakes twice. I
am uncertain whether we are doing them any great favor by trying to
protect them from a natural element of growth.

Rick

Bill Z.

November 7th 04, 06:35 AM

Peter > writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > (JFJones) writes:
>
> >>Unlike cynical Bill, some people have ethical values that prevent them
> >>becoming lawbreakers. They quit cycling through self-enforcement or in
> >>the case of kids parental enforcement.
> > Some of us are ethical enough to report what we see accurately. On
> > quite a number of occassions around here, I've seen kids riding
> > without helmets and the police ignoring them, and this is in a state
> > where we do have a helmet law that applies to anyone 17 (18?) or
> > under.
>
> Of course this says nothing to refute the statement by Jones which was
> about self-enforcement and parental enforcement and specifically not
> about police enforcement.

It refutes what he said, which was a baseless personal attack about
my ethics, when I merely reported the behavior I've observed. And
his comments about "self-enforcement and parental enforcement" are
pure BS - he hasn't shown that most people have a clue that a helmet
law exists. It was sort of publicized when the California one was
passed, but that was some 10 years ago and there hasn't been a word
since. If you moved to the state more recently, or weren't interested
in cycling when the law was passed, you wouldn't have a clue that
there was such a law.

> My commute route goes past an elementary school, an intermediate
> school, and a high school. I still see a considerable number of
> kids cycling, albeit not nearly as many as before the helmet law
> was passed. Almost all have helmets, but only about 20% of those
> helmets are on their heads - most of the others are dangling from
> the handlebars.

Which is illegal. Did the police notify their parents?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Peter

November 7th 04, 07:18 AM

Bill Z. wrote:
> Peter > writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
(JFJones) writes:
>>
>>>>Unlike cynical Bill, some people have ethical values that prevent them
>>>>becoming lawbreakers. They quit cycling through self-enforcement or in
>>>>the case of kids parental enforcement.
>>>
>>>Some of us are ethical enough to report what we see accurately. On
>>>quite a number of occassions around here, I've seen kids riding
>>>without helmets and the police ignoring them, and this is in a state
>>>where we do have a helmet law that applies to anyone 17 (18?) or
>>>under.
>>
>>Of course this says nothing to refute the statement by Jones which was
>>about self-enforcement and parental enforcement and specifically not
>>about police enforcement.
>
>
> It refutes what he said, which was a baseless personal attack about
> my ethics, when I merely reported the behavior I've observed.

You stated (and continue to state) that if a law is not
enforced by the police then it must not have any effect on people.
He was pointing out that that won't be true for people who
choose to obey laws for reasons not directly related to police
enforcement. Repeating your previous observation about lack of
police enforcement is in no way a refutation.

> And
> his comments about "self-enforcement and parental enforcement" are
> pure BS - he hasn't shown that most people have a clue that a helmet
> law exists. It was sort of publicized when the California one was
> passed, but that was some 10 years ago and there hasn't been a word
> since. If you moved to the state more recently, or weren't interested
> in cycling when the law was passed, you wouldn't have a clue that
> there was such a law.

Not true if you have kids who attend school. The helmet law and the
school's policy regarding it were mentioned several times at Back-to-
School events for parents. Notices about the law are also posted in
most state parks that I've visited as well as school bulletin boards.
>
>
>>My commute route goes past an elementary school, an intermediate
>>school, and a high school. I still see a considerable number of
>>kids cycling, albeit not nearly as many as before the helmet law
>>was passed. Almost all have helmets, but only about 20% of those
>>helmets are on their heads - most of the others are dangling from
>>the handlebars.
>
>
> Which is illegal. Did the police notify their parents?

What police? The police presumably have better things to do.
Most of my observations of children riding to school have been
on a bike trail where I've only seen one police officer in the
last ten years. He was hiding behind a bush with his radar gun
on the only downhill in 30 miles of trail steep enough to let
cyclists slightly exceed the 15 mph speed limit by coasting.

But as I said, the presence of helmets shows that the schools,
possibly with help from the parents, are enforcing the rule at
the end of the ride, i.e. upon arrival at the school. The fact
that the helmets are not being worn is a good indication that the
kids dislike the helmet rule and that its existence is likely to
serve as a disincentive to ride for some fraction of them.

Wolfgang Strobl

November 7th 04, 08:44 AM

(Maggie):

>> Does cycling without a helmet really need to be be criminal?
>
>Who are you hurting beside yourself if you choose not to wear a
>helmet? What is the crime? I think children should wear helmets, but
>adults should make their own choice.

Ahem. What business do people like you have with _my_ children? Thanks,
but no thanks. I think parents have the duty to protect their children
against the malicious claptrap of illinformed busybodies selling
harmfull snake-oil products of all sorts. Like bicycle helmets, for
example.

Btw, what do motorcycle helmets have to do with bicycling?

--
Thank you for observing all safety precautions

Wolfgang Strobl

November 7th 04, 08:49 AM

maxo >:

>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:10:06 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>>>Helmet laws do nothing to stop people from riding like idiots.
>>
>> They do! They do!
>
>I just think this is an absurd way to go about public safety. I'm no more
>against helmets than seatbelts and airbags. [...]

You're of course free to have an opiinion on everything, but this is
somewhat misleading. There is a difference. Seatbelts work. So do
airbags, to a much lesser extend and only when combined with a properly
worn belts. Bicycle helmets, on the other hand, have been shown _not_ to
work.

--
Radhelme sind die Bachblüten des Straßenverkehrs

JFJones

November 7th 04, 03:00 PM

(Bill Z.) wrote in message >...
> (JFJones) writes:
>
> > (Bill Z.) wrote in message >...
> > > Dragan Cvetkovic > writes:
> > > >
> > > > Are you saying that people should obey the law only if it is actually and
> > > > actively enforced?
> > >
*****Note what Zaumen said here and then read his comment below*****
> > > He's saying what I have said for years on this topic: that laws that
> > > are not obeyed or enforced have zero impact on human behavior. People
> > > are not going to stop cycling because of a helmet law that is neither
> > > obeyed nor enforced.
> > >
> > > Bill
*****
> >
> > Unlike cynical Bill, some people have ethical values that prevent them
> > becoming lawbreakers. They quit cycling through self-enforcement or in
> > the case of kids parental enforcement.
>
> Some of us are ethical enough to report what we see accurately. On
> quite a number of occassions around here, I've seen kids riding
> without helmets and the police ignoring them, and this is in a state
> where we do have a helmet law that applies to anyone 17 (18?) or
> under.

Zaumen makes a statement about zero impact of helmet laws and then
posts a non-sequitur about the kids he sees on the street. Wasn't this
about the ones that quit? Idiot.

>
> That's the reality, moronic self-styled "moralists" who confuse
> reporting the facts with a person's own ethical standards
> notwithstanding. I might add that many parents probably don't even
> know the law exists (it isn't publicized very well), in which case
> Jone's "ethical values" / "self-enforcement" claims would be
> particularly daft. "Ethical values" do not compel you to obey a
> law that you don't know exists.
>
> My guess is that Jones is a Bush supporter---he's sufficiently
> out of touch with the real world. Any bets?
>
> Bill

Bill Z.

November 7th 04, 03:23 PM

Peter > writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Peter > writes:
> >
> >>Bill Z. wrote:
> >>
> (JFJones) writes:
> >>
> You stated (and continue to state) that if a law is not
> enforced by the police then it must not have any effect on people.
> He was pointing out that that won't be true for people who
> choose to obey laws for reasons not directly related to police
> enforcement. Repeating your previous observation about lack of
> police enforcement is in no way a refutation.

Now you are lying. He made a statement about *my* ethics when I
reported the observed behavior, and he made no statement about others.
And he provided no evidence regarding what typical behavior is.

If you think it is to obey the law, I suggest you compare how fast
people drive above the speed limit when the police are present and
when they are not. Or, if you don't want to time that, sit at an
intersection with a traffic light for 10 minutes and count the red
light runners. People run red lights all the time around here - way
too often for it to be by accident, and even though red light running
can get people killed. Oh, and to be conservative, I only count it as
really running the light if the light had turned green in on the cross
street when they enter the intersection, to eliminate confusion over
short yellow phases.

> > And his comments about "self-enforcement and parental enforcement"
> > are pure BS - he hasn't shown that most people have a clue that a
> > helmet law exists. It was sort of publicized when the California
> > one was passed, but that was some 10 years ago and there hasn't
> > been a word since. If you moved to the state more recently, or
> > weren't interested in cycling when the law was passed, you
> > wouldn't have a clue that there was such a law.
>
> Not true if you have kids who attend school. The helmet law and the
> school's policy regarding it were mentioned several times at Back-to-
> School events for parents. Notices about the law are also posted in
> most state parks that I've visited as well as school bulletin boards.

Your school's policies have nothing to do with wearing a helmet on a city
street. At most they can require a helmet while on school property,
and any flyers and other such information will be widely ignored. I
get all sorts of information in utility fliers, for example, and that
goes directly into the trash - it resembles advertising and if it looks
like advertising, it gets treated as advertising.

Also, in poorer communities (where the level of helmet use seems to be
far lower than in the more affluent communities), chances are that any
such law is not mentioned at all. They have more important issues to
handle and very limited resources.

> > Which is illegal. Did the police notify their parents?
>
> What police? The police presumably have better things to do.

Oh, so you admit the law isn't being enforced and people are breaking
it.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

November 7th 04, 03:25 PM

Wolfgang Strobl > writes:

> maxo >:
>
> >On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:10:06 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> >
> >>>Helmet laws do nothing to stop people from riding like idiots.
> >>
> >> They do! They do!
> >
> >I just think this is an absurd way to go about public safety. I'm no more
> >against helmets than seatbelts and airbags. [...]
>
> You're of course free to have an opiinion on everything, but this is
> somewhat misleading. There is a difference. Seatbelts work. So do
> airbags, to a much lesser extend and only when combined with a properly
> worn belts. Bicycle helmets, on the other hand, have been shown _not_ to
> work.

Wolfgang is back, repeating the same things he's said for years.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Frank Krygowski

November 7th 04, 04:01 PM

Michael wrote:

>
> I'm willing to bet I'd either be dead or drooling on myself if I didn't
> have that helmet on.

And I'm willing to bet you wouldn't. Why? Because the absolutely
_tremendous_ rise in bike helmet use hasn't caused a significant change
in serious head injuries per cyclist. In fact, if anything, there are
more head injuries per cyclist than before.

If all these helmets are really doing what you believe, the benefits
should be detectable.

Much more likely, IMO: all these helmets are producing stories that go
like this: "Wow, dude, my helmet touched the ground!!! It must have
saved my life!!!"

And 20 years ago, that story would have been "Darn, I _almost_ bumped my
head a little."

since then? I ride to the store 1/2 a block away I'm
> wearin it.

Hey, don't stop there. You do lots of other things with more risk of
head injury. Walking down stairs? Climbing a ladder? Walking across
the street? Strap that baby on!

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

November 7th 04, 04:27 PM

Bill Z. wrote:

>
>
> Wolfgang is back, repeating the same things he's said for years.
>

:-) :-) :-)

Can you believe it's Bill Zaumen saying that? :-)

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Bill Z.

November 7th 04, 04:53 PM

(JFJones) writes:

> (Bill Z.) wrote in message >...
> > (JFJones) writes:
> >
> Zaumen makes a statement about zero impact of helmet laws and then
> posts a non-sequitur about the kids he sees on the street. Wasn't this
> about the ones that quit? Idiot.

The only "idiots" are people like Jones, who now is trying to change
the topic. The issue was not if a few people quit, but if people quit
in any significant numbers. Unenforced, poorly advertised, and widely
ignored laws are not going to cause people to give up cycling in any
significant numbers. The idea that a helmet law, under these
circumstances, would have any noticable impact on the number of
cyclists out there is just plain silly. It's about as silly as the
religious right wing's apparent belief that two guys walking down the
street holding hands in San Francisco is somehow going to break up a
marriage in Ohio (to give an example using the hot-button issue du
jour.)

> > My guess is that Jones is a Bush supporter---he's sufficiently
> > out of touch with the real world. Any bets?

Well? No reply, I see. :-)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

November 7th 04, 04:56 PM

Frank Krygowski > writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Wolfgang is back, repeating the same things he's said for years.
> >
>
> :-) :-) :-)
>
> Can you believe it's Bill Zaumen saying that? :-)

Krygowski is trying to cover up the fact that Wolfgang has as much of
an anti-helmet agenda as Krygowski does. BTW, if I remember
correctly, he used to post with the x-no-archive flag set, I presume
because he was posting from work, so don't expect to find his
rants on the subject in the archives.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

November 7th 04, 05:02 PM

Frank Krygowski > writes:

> Michael wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm willing to bet I'd either be dead or drooling on myself if I didn't
> > have that helmet on.
>
> And I'm willing to bet you wouldn't. Why? Because the absolutely
> _tremendous_ rise in bike helmet use hasn't caused a significant
> change in serious head injuries per cyclist. In fact, if anything,
> there are more head injuries per cyclist than before.
>
> If all these helmets are really doing what you believe, the benefits
> should be detectable.

There's been an increase in red-light running and other reckless
behavior, plus a huge increase in the average vehicle size, all of
which make cycling more dangerous than before. With a large
vehicle, you are far more likely to have you head hit in primary
impact then when the vehicle is small enough that you can see
over it. And the larger size cuts your sight lines considerably.

And that's been going on during the same time period that helmet
use increased.

> Much more likely, IMO: all these helmets are producing stories that go
> like this: "Wow, dude, my helmet touched the ground!!! It must have
> saved my life!!!"

This is typical Krygowksi bull**** - putting words in people's mouths.
In fact, I've never seen him reply to a post in which someone reported
an incident where a helmet might have helped without discounting the
helmet. Not *one* incident whatsoever.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Wolfgang Strobl

November 7th 04, 06:10 PM

(Bill Z.):

>Wolfgang is back, repeating the same things he's said for years.
^
Hi Bill. Still digging? :-}

--
Thank you for observing all safety precautions

Cheto

November 7th 04, 08:31 PM

"dgk" > wrote in message
...

.. To me, it is likely
> that his victory came from the fact that his team made the voting
> machines that left us no paper trail to verify. I think they cheated.

Oh geez....Are we going to have to listen to this stupid bull**** for the
next four years? Show some proof or stick it.

Cheto

Frank Krygowski

November 8th 04, 12:09 AM

Bill Z. wrote:

> Frank Krygowski > writes:
> BTW, if I remember
> correctly, he used to post with the x-no-archive flag set...

As usual, you're either remembering wrong or inventing things.

Bill, I'm continually astounded that you don't embarrass yourself to
silence.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

November 8th 04, 12:37 AM

Bill Z. wrote:

> Frank Krygowski > writes:
>
>>If all these helmets are really doing what you believe, the benefits
>>should be detectable.
>
>
> There's been an increase in red-light running and other reckless
> behavior, plus a huge increase in the average vehicle size, all of
> which make cycling more dangerous than before.

Ah. Interesting conjecture. But I see you've posted no evidence to
support it - as usual.

Now's the time for you to post some evidence of both the increase in red
light running, and the increased cycling danger.

I think what would suffice for the latter would be data showing an
increase in serious injuries to parts of the body other than the head,
significantly greater than the increase in serious head injuries.

So, Bill: Got data?

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

November 8th 04, 01:05 AM

Ken [NY] wrote:

> In 1996, Clinton got 49% of the vote,
> a plurality, but not a majority. I don't remember anyone saying he had
> no mandate to pursue his announced policies.

Do you remember Clinton _claiming_ he had a mandate? If so, you should
give a quote. If not, quit making yourself look foolish.

>
> "When ye encounter the infidels,3 strike off their heads till ye have
> made a great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast the
> fetters."
> --Koran, SURA1 47.-MUHAMMAD [XCVI.]

" Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the
priest who represents the Lord your God must be put to death. Such evil
must be purged from Israel." (Deuteronomy 17:12)

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

November 8th 04, 01:14 AM

Ken [NY] wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:41:17 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > claims:
>
[Ken NY:]
>>> Sorry, Sir, but I did not send it off into a political thread,
>>>I just followed it, due to my simplistic thinking, I guess. We
>>>commoners are like that.
>> [fk:]
>>Bull****, Ken. This thread was about a helmet bill in Canada. You most
>>certainly did send it off into a political thread. Certainly, you can't
>>be _ignorant_ of that fact!
>
>[Ken NY:]
> Well, I was refering to something a gentleman wrote in another
> thread:

That was obvious. You made a fool of yourself by bringing that topic
unbidden into _this_ thread, then pretending you didn't. If you're not
capable of keeping your conversations straight, you should either take
notes or stop posting.

BTW, I note the propensity of hard-ass right wingers to save all their
forgiveness for themselves. What ever happened to personal
responsibility? What ever happened to owning up to ones' mistakes? Are
those are only for other folks?

Now perhaps you should return to the topic of the thread - or better,
some simpler bike-related topic. The simpler the topic, the less
trouble you'll have.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Rick

November 8th 04, 03:23 AM

....stuff deleted
>> There's been an increase in red-light running and other reckless
>> behavior, plus a huge increase in the average vehicle size, all of
>> which make cycling more dangerous than before.
>
> Now's the time for you to post some evidence of both the increase in red
> light running, and the increased cycling danger.
>
....more deleted

Frank,

You very well know that there is little, if any, such data available.
Having driven in the 60's, however, I can definitely state that once the
majority of drivers attempted to stop for yellow lights, and now the
majority accellerate to enter the intersection before the light changes
from yellow to red. Watch intersections and count the number of folks
lock up their brakes to stop in time and the number will be zero. This
practice was not only common when I started driving, it was pretty much
the norm and you could observe it several times a day.

The overall affect of this on cycling safety is unclear, however. My
belief is that drivers today are much less tolerent, less capable, and
overall, less aware than those of today. This is, IMO, that the driver
today is severely overloaded by the amount of electronic equipment that
claims their attention.

Rick

Bill Z.

November 8th 04, 06:23 AM

Frank Krygowski > writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Frank Krygowski > writes:
> > BTW, if I remember
> > correctly, he used to post with the x-no-archive flag set...
>
> As usual, you're either remembering wrong or inventing things.

See
<http://www.google.com/groups?selm=355ca440.54640388%40news.gmd.de&output=gplain>
where Wolfgang Strobl said precisely that - that he used the
x-no-archive flag. I don't see why he'd lie about it given that he
was explaining to someone why a search of DejaNews (before Google
bought it) wouldn't work, and seemed to be trying to help that person
out.

> Bill, I'm continually astounded that you don't embarrass yourself to
> silence.

What you should be embarassed by, Krygowski, is your bald-faced lies
and baseless statements like the above when you really don't have
the facts and are too inept to check for yourself. All you had to
do was to search messages in rec.bicycles.soc whose author is Strobl
and with the phrase x-no-archive. It took a couple of minutes and
is not particularly difficult.

But, your behavior is typical of you, and that is precisely why I
have no respect for you - it is not an error on your part given
how often you do this sort of thing.

Oh, and one other thing - I posted it with the caveat "if I remembered
correctly." It meant what it said. Your statement about "inventing
things" is simply character assassination. You'd fit quite well
in Bush's election campaign - those *******s have the same ethics
you do.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

November 8th 04, 06:38 AM

Frank Krygowski > writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Frank Krygowski > writes:
> >
> >>If all these helmets are really doing what you believe, the benefits
> >>should be detectable.
> > There's been an increase in red-light running and other reckless
> > behavior, plus a huge increase in the average vehicle size, all of
> > which make cycling more dangerous than before.
>
> Ah. Interesting conjecture. But I see you've posted no evidence to
> support it - as usual.

Read the ****ing newspapers.

See <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/12/05/MNW14097.DTL>
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1996/12/31/NEWS8420.dtl>
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1996/09/12/MN74703.DTL>
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1996/09/11/MN57241.DTL>
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1995/11/14/EDITORIAL4921.dtl>

The last URL states

"I had worked in San Francisco since 1979, except for one year
in Colorado. I returned to The City in December 1994 and no
longer felt safe here.

"There were so many instances of red-light running. You could
see 50, 60 a day at Sutter and Kearny."

This is a well known problem. I shouldn't have to post "evidence"
for what you should know if you merely kept up with current events.

>
> Now's the time for you to post some evidence of both the increase in
> red light running, and the increased cycling danger.

See above, including the cyclist fatalities. Couple that change in
behavior with larger vehicles and the results are simply obvious
to anyone with half a brain.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Peter Keller

November 8th 04, 07:11 AM

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 06:23:45 +0000, Bill Z. wrote:

>
>> Bill, I'm continually astounded that you don't embarrass yourself to
>> silence.
>
> What you should be embarassed by, Krygowski, is your bald-faced lies
> and baseless statements like the above when you really don't have
> the facts and are too inept to check for yourself. All you had to
> do was to search messages in rec.bicycles.soc whose author is Strobl
> and with the phrase x-no-archive. It took a couple of minutes and
> is not particularly difficult.
>
> But, your behavior is typical of you, and that is precisely why I
> have no respect for you - it is not an error on your part given
> how often you do this sort of thing.
>
> Oh, and one other thing - I posted it with the caveat "if I remembered
> correctly." It meant what it said. Your statement about "inventing
> things" is simply character assassination. You'd fit quite well
> in Bush's election campaign - those *******s have the same ethics
> you do.

Isn't it funny the way people who don't like a position (that mandatory
helmet laws are harmful and counterproductive) but can't find any facts
to back up their position, attack the person (messenger) instead?
Truth is absolute, and does not depend on the personal characteristics of
the person telling the truth. So if a person attacks me personally I
merely take that as evidence that he (no, it usually isn't a she) can't
find anything wrong with my statements.
What little we hear about the MHL here in NZ is usually against the law.
The pro-law people seem to have gone mute.

Peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 8th 04, 10:21 AM

Peter, you are wasting your time. As far as Zaumen is concerned there
are only two types of people in the world: people who agree with him,
and liars.

The former group contains, at last count, exactly one member: Zaumen
himself, and strangely, all the expertise seems to be among the
"liars." Bill has a real talent for unforced errors, gratuitous
ignorance, and arguig himself into a hole. The hole in question being
positioned - well, you can probably guess where ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 8th 04, 10:25 AM

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:09:21 GMT, Chris Phillipo
> wrote:

>It's not a crime. You get a ticket, you don't go to jail.

Are you sure of that? Over here, the pro-speeding lobby love tom
claim that speeding is not a crime because you don't go to jail, but
they are flat wrong. The fact that the state prosecutes the offence
makes it a criminal matter, and it is heard in the criminal courts.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 8th 04, 10:27 AM

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:57:50 -0500, "DT"
> wrote:

>I think many parents and youth are simply unaware of the inherent dangers
>of sport and the benefits if wearing helmets as was the cace with
>seatbelts. The law will change all.

I think this is a crock of ****. If you look at the percentage of
head injuries in cyclists and pedestrians in NZ, and co-plot against
helemt wearing rates, it is absolutely plain that there is no
measurable effect. You can't guess from the chart which line is peds
and which cyclists.

In the USA, the cyclist head injury rate has risen by 40% in the last
ten years, as helmet use has increased threefold to 50%, with cyclist
numbers reducing by 21%.

As ever with road safety, what is "obvious" is wrong.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 8th 04, 10:29 AM

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 15:25:06 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

>Wolfgang is back, repeating the same things he's said for years.

Your house a bit short of mirrors, then, Bill?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 8th 04, 10:30 AM

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:27:41 GMT, "Ken [NY)" >
wrote:

>To the fellow who was thinking about fleeing to Canada from
>the horrors of Bush's low tax rates, you might want to think about
>this proposed law.

LOL! One of your better ones, Ken :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 8th 04, 11:23 AM

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 21:46:23 -0500, "Michael"
> wrote:

>I'm undecided. People who don't wear helmets are stupid plain as day.

If I had a dollar for every helmet zealot who has made this ridiculous
assertion, I could afford to offset the huge amounts the helmet lobby
spend on supporting Handwringers Anonymous to make the claims that the
helmet makers cannot make for legal reasons (the legal reason being:
the claims are bull****).

>lemme tell you a small story....

Oh look, a "helmet saved my life" anecdote. Never seen one of those
before, have we?

Since helmets are so effective you will doubtlesss be able to explain
the well-documented 40% increase in cyclist head injury rates in the
USA as helmet use rose from 18% to 50% and cycling dropped by 21%.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Frank Krygowski

November 8th 04, 02:33 PM

Bill Z. wrote:

> Frank Krygowski > writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>

"Krygowski is trying to cover up the fact that Wolfgang has as much of
an anti-helmet agenda as Krygowski does. BTW, if I remember
correctly, he used to post with the x-no-archive flag set, I presume
because he was posting from work, so don't expect to find his
rants on the subject in the archives."

[fk:]

>>As usual, you're either remembering wrong or inventing things.
>
>
> See
> <http://www.google.com/groups?selm=355ca440.54640388%40news.gmd.de&output=gplain>
> where Wolfgang Strobl said precisely that - that he used the
> x-no-archive flag. I don't see why he'd lie about it given that he
> was explaining to someone why a search of DejaNews (before Google
> bought it) wouldn't work, and seemed to be trying to help that person
> out.
>
>

My apologies. In the paragraph with the quotes above, I thought the "no
archive" thing was talking about me. The antecedent of "he" wasn't at
all clear. I knew _I_ had never disabled archiving.

> What you should be embarassed by, Krygowski, is your bald-faced lies
> and baseless statements like the above when you really don't have
> the facts and are too inept to check for yourself. All you had to
> do was to search messages in rec.bicycles.soc whose author is Strobl
> and with the phrase x-no-archive. It took a couple of minutes and
> is not particularly difficult.
>
> But, your behavior is typical of you, and that is precisely why I
> have no respect for you - it is not an error on your part given
> how often you do this sort of thing.

Looks to me like the error was in sentence structure. But no matter.
As always, it's fun reading your posts, Bill. ;-)

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Dragan Cvetkovic

November 8th 04, 03:01 PM

"AustinMN" > writes:

> There are no X characters in my address

Indeed there are none.

Dragan

--
Dragan Cvetkovic,

To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer

!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 8th 04, 03:57 PM

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:05:39 GMT, Chris Phillipo
> wrote:

>> >It's not a crime. You get a ticket, you don't go to jail.

>> Are you sure of that? Over here, the pro-speeding lobby love tom
>> claim that speeding is not a crime because you don't go to jail, but
>> they are flat wrong. The fact that the state prosecutes the offence
>> makes it a criminal matter, and it is heard in the criminal courts.

>Speeding is public endangerment with a deadly weapon. Please keep your
>posts on topic if at all possible.

Very droll. So, are you sure of that? Because the proposed law over
here would have been criminal law, and existing traffic laws (example
above) are criminal law.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 8th 04, 04:00 PM

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:03:38 GMT, Chris Phillipo
> wrote:

>The helmet lobby? Do they fly black helicopters? I bet those
>hypocritical *******s don't even wear helmets while doing it!

What point are you trying to make here?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 8th 04, 04:55 PM

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:02:32 GMT, Chris Phillipo
> wrote:

>> Very droll. So, are you sure of that? Because the proposed law over
>> here would have been criminal law, and existing traffic laws (example
>> above) are criminal law.

>I said no one is going to jail for not wearing a helmet and I stand by
>that. Show me proof to the contrary.

No, what you actually said was that because no-one is going to jail,
it is not a crime. That does not follow. I am asking: are you sure
that the helmet law is outside the criminal code? Because the law
proposed in the UK< and to the best of my knowledge the laws in Aus
and NZ, are criminal law. This is actually a completely straight
question.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 8th 04, 04:58 PM

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:03:56 GMT, Chris Phillipo
> wrote:

>> >The helmet lobby? Do they fly black helicopters? I bet those
>> >hypocritical *******s don't even wear helmets while doing it!

>> What point are you trying to make here?

>That the helmet lobby in Canada is a figment of someone's overactive
>imagination.

The helmet lobby exists. It is indisputable. People are out there
lobbying for helmet laws, and that is why you have this bill in
progress. There are people all over the world lobbying for helmet
laws.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Frank Krygowski

November 8th 04, 05:10 PM

Chris Phillipo wrote:

>
>
> I said no one is going to jail for not wearing a helmet and I stand by
> that. Show me proof to the contrary.

FWIW, in Australia there _have_ been instances of people going to jail
for repeatedly violating mandatory helmet laws. Those people were
minority folks or poor folks.

I can't say the same would happen in Canada, of course. But it has
happened.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Frank Krygowski

November 8th 04, 05:32 PM

Bill Z. wrote:

> Frank Krygowski > writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Frank Krygowski > writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If all these helmets are really doing what you believe, the benefits
>>>>should be detectable.
>>>
>>>There's been an increase in red-light running and other reckless
>>>behavior, plus a huge increase in the average vehicle size, all of
>>>which make cycling more dangerous than before.
>>
>>Ah. Interesting conjecture. But I see you've posted no evidence to
>>support it - as usual.
>
>
> Read the ****ing newspapers.

:-) Wipe the froth off your mouth and keyboard, Bill. You're losing
control yet again!

>
> See <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/12/05/MNW14097.DTL>
> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1996/12/31/NEWS8420.dtl>
> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1996/09/12/MN74703.DTL>
> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1996/09/11/MN57241.DTL>
> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1995/11/14/EDITORIAL4921.dtl>

Thanks - but what you've given there isn't much in the way of data. In
particular, you haven't proved that bicycling's gotten more dangerous.
Given that the red light cameras are catching these people, it's
entirely plausible that things are _safer_ for cycling. Yes, I know
there were people who said they felt walking was more dangerous - but
really, I was hoping for _data_, not uncorroborated opinions!

>>Now's the time for you to post some evidence of both the increase in
>>red light running, and the increased cycling danger.
>
>
> See above, including the cyclist fatalities. Couple that change in
> behavior with larger vehicles and the results are simply obvious
> to anyone with half a brain.

Actually, the sites you referenced talked about just one cyclist
fatality and _three_ gravely injured pedestrians - at least one of which
was a head injury. It wasn't clear if they were fatalities or not.

If a person were to take your contribution seriously, it seems they'd
get going promoting helmets for pedestrians, no?

Is that your next mission?

In any case, your idea is that helmets are helping safety, but the help
is undetectable because it's being offset by an even greater increase in
cyclist danger. So far, you've provided no data, only newspaper stories
from 8 or 9 years ago.

Got data?

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Frank Krygowski

November 8th 04, 05:38 PM

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:03:56 GMT, Chris Phillipo
> > wrote:
>

>
>>[The] helmet lobby in Canada is a figment of someone's overactive
>>imagination.
>
>
> The helmet lobby exists. It is indisputable. People are out there
> lobbying for helmet laws, and that is why you have this bill in
> progress. There are people all over the world lobbying for helmet
> laws.
>
> Guy

There's _certainly_ a helmet lobby in the US! I know several people who
actively promote mandatory helmets, including lobbying legislatures!

There's also Randy Swart's site, in which he lobbies for mandatory
helmets for all ages. And Philip Graitcer's site which does the same.
Both are well connected and (apparently) well financed.

Chris, where do you think these MHL ideas come from?

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

AustinMN

November 8th 04, 07:21 PM

Chris Phillipo wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> If you sell bicycles, then you really ought to know that ownership does
>> not
>> equal ridership. Today, probably 95% of all bicycles sold never see 100
>> miles, ever.
>>
>> Club ridership is also misleading. There is more club ridership, but not
>> to
>> many years ago almost nobody rode in clubs.
>>
>> Austin
>>
>>
>
> Grasp for a few more straws, you'll be able to build your own haystack.

You have a stake in the outcome, in case you didn't notice. Since you make
money selling bicycle helmets you need the result to come out a certain way.

Austin

AustinMN

November 8th 04, 07:23 PM

AustinMN

November 8th 04, 07:25 PM

Dragan Cvetkovic" > wrote in message
...
> "AustinMN" > writes:
>
>> There are no X characters in my address
>
> Indeed there are none.
>
> Dragan

Yes, indeed. An oversight since corrected.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 8th 04, 07:31 PM

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:32:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> wrote in message >:

>really, I was hoping for _data_, not uncorroborated opinions!

LOL! Excellent use of irony, Mr. K :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Frank Krygowski

November 8th 04, 08:45 PM

Ken [NY] wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 20:14:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > claims:
>
>
>>
>>[Ken NY:]
>>
>>>>> Sorry, Sir, but I did not send it off into a political thread,
>>>>>I just followed it, due to my simplistic thinking, I guess. We
>>>>>commoners are like that.
>>>>
>>>> [fk:]
>>>>Bull****, Ken. This thread was about a helmet bill in Canada. You most
>>>>certainly did send it off into a political thread. Certainly, you can't
>>>>be _ignorant_ of that fact!
>>>
>>>[Ken NY:]
>>> Well, I was refering to something a gentleman wrote in another
>>>thread:
>>
>>That was obvious. You made a fool of yourself by bringing that topic
>>unbidden into _this_ thread, then pretending you didn't. If you're not
>>capable of keeping your conversations straight, you should either take
>>notes or stop posting.
>
>
> Nothing wrong with my "conversations", Frank. I can bring in a
> quote from another thread anytime I want to.

Sure you can. What you _can't_ do is say "Sorry, Sir, but I did not
send it off into a political thread, I just followed it, due to my
simplistic thinking, I guess. We commoners are like that."

Hmmm. Maybe I should retract that. You can say anything that occurs to
you, and you did say the above. But the effect is not what you'd like.
All that happens is your mistake is out there for everyone else to see.

>>BTW, I note the propensity of hard-ass right wingers to save all their
>>forgiveness for themselves. What ever happened to personal
>>responsibility? What ever happened to owning up to ones' mistakes? Are
>>those are only for other folks?
>
>
> When I make a mistake, I own up to it. Something the left
> never seems to do.

This is where you're supposed to say "And you're right, I _was_ the
first person to divert this thread into obnoxious politics."

But I note that you're still reserving all your forgiveness for
yourself, and refusing to admit your obvious mistake. Why is that?
Surely, you _can't_ believe you're making yourself look intelligent!

Now really, don't you think it's time to drop this and get back on topic?

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Frank Krygowski

November 8th 04, 08:51 PM

Ken [NY] wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 20:05:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > claims:
>
>
>>Ken [NY] wrote:
>>
>>>"When ye encounter the infidels,3 strike off their heads till ye have
>>>made a great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast the
>>>fetters."
>>> --Koran, SURA1 47.-MUHAMMAD [XCVI.]
>>
>>
>>" Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the
>>priest who represents the Lord your God must be put to death. Such evil
>>must be purged from Israel." (Deuteronomy 17:12)
>
>
> Ah, see any Jews or Christians on television, slashing off
> heads of civilians?

I seem to recall some Texas governor presiding over record numbers of
executions, while loudly calling himself a Christian. (But you're right
about televising it; that would be bad for election campaigns.)

Funny thing, though. There _are_ lots of Christians that are against
the death penalty. As I understand it, it's supposed to have something
to do with one of those Ten Commandments.

Now why not take your prejudices to some appropriate newsgroup?

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 8th 04, 10:05 PM

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:21:52 -0600, "AustinMN" >
wrote in message >:

>You have a stake in the outcome, in case you didn't notice. Since you make
>money selling bicycle helmets you need the result to come out a certain way.

Correct. And compulsion is not it, unless he's planning on retiring
Real Soon Now.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

AustinMN

November 9th 04, 12:28 AM

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:21:52 -0600, "AustinMN" >
> wrote in message >:
>
>>You have a stake in the outcome, in case you didn't notice. Since you
>>make
>>money selling bicycle helmets you need the result to come out a certain
>>way.
>
> Correct. And compulsion is not it, unless he's planning on retiring
> Real Soon Now.

I'd thought of that, but I'm not sure he's capable of thinking that through.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

Bill Z.

November 9th 04, 02:30 AM

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:

> Peter, you are wasting your time. As far as Zaumen is concerned there
> are only two types of people in the world: people who agree with him,
> and liars.

Guy, of course, is lying again. I've never called anyone a "liar" for
simply disagreeing with me. I have for claiming I've said things that
I never said or posting libelous statements that they couldn't back
up.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

November 9th 04, 02:32 AM

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:

> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 15:25:06 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
> Zaumen wrote:
>
> >Wolfgang is back, repeating the same things he's said for years.
>
> Your house a bit short of mirrors, then, Bill?

More infantile name calling from Guy. What a moron.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

B i l l S o r n s o n

November 9th 04, 02:32 AM

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Ken [NY] wrote:

>>>> "When ye encounter the infidels,3 strike off their heads till ye
>>>> have made a great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast
>>>> the fetters."
>>>> --Koran, SURA1 47.-MUHAMMAD [XCVI.]
>>>
>>>
>>> " Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of
>>> the priest who represents the Lord your God must be put to death.
>>> Such evil must be purged from Israel." (Deuteronomy 17:12)
>>
>>
>> Ah, see any Jews or Christians on television, slashing off
>> heads of civilians?
>
> I seem to recall some Texas governor presiding over record numbers of
> executions, while loudly calling himself a Christian. (But you're
> right about televising it; that would be bad for election campaigns.)
>
> Funny thing, though. There _are_ lots of Christians that are against
> the death penalty. As I understand it, it's supposed to have
> something to do with one of those Ten Commandments.

Just the fact that you'd compare kidnapping innocent men /and women/ and
cutting off their heads to capital punishment of /convicted murderers/
(after years and years of legal appeals while being incarcerated and treated
/relatively/ humanely) speaks volumes...ABOUT YOU, FRANK.

> Now why not take your prejudices to some appropriate newsgroup?

Is there an alt.head-in-the-sand?!?

Bill "sign yourself up" S.

Bill Z.

November 9th 04, 02:41 AM

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:

> On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:32:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > wrote in message >:
>
> >really, I was hoping for _data_, not uncorroborated opinions!
>
> LOL! Excellent use of irony, Mr. K :-)

Of course, you'll see these two completely ignore the URLs I posted,
not to mention the fact that Krygowski was claiming helmets don't
work but apparently (given their reaction) neither want to talk about
controling for changes in driver behavior over the time frame when
helmet use went up substantially. It's the usual double standard
on their part.

Also, a few minutes spent outside at an intersection looking at
drivers in the Bay Area will convince you that there is a major
problem with people running red lights and otherwise behaving far more
recklessly than was typical 30 years ago. It is simply common
knowledge, and is hardly surprising. Just plot a graph of the
population changes over the past 30 years with the number of police
officers on the road handing out moving violations. If you don't think
that has an impact, then ask why a standard police procedure is to
step up enforcement a few days before they do a speed survey to set
the speed limit when a city would like the limit reduced.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

November 9th 04, 03:11 AM

Peter Keller > writes:

> On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 06:23:45 +0000, Bill Z. wrote:
>
>
> >
> >> Bill, I'm continually astounded that you don't embarrass yourself to
> >> silence.
> >
> >
> > But, your behavior is typical of you, and that is precisely why I
> > have no respect for you - it is not an error on your part given
> > how often you do this sort of thing.
> >
> > Oh, and one other thing - I posted it with the caveat "if I remembered
> > correctly." It meant what it said. Your statement about "inventing
> > things" is simply character assassination. You'd fit quite well
> > in Bush's election campaign - those *******s have the same ethics
> > you do.
>
> Isn't it funny the way people who don't like a position (that mandatory
> helmet laws are harmful and counterproductive) but can't find any facts
> to back up their position, attack the person (messenger) instead?

Isn't it funny how anti-helmet people will post statements such as
yours while ignoring what Krygowski said, namely "Bill, I'm
continually astounded that you don't embarrass yourself to silence,"
(and that is after I had posted an accurate account of what
transpired.)

> Truth is absolute, and does not depend on the personal characteristics of
> the person telling the truth.

Krygowksi's actions are self explanatory. He's been doing that for
a good decade, and you appear to be as hypocritical as he is.

Oh, and in case you didn't notice, the post I responded to was a purely
personal attack on his part with nothing in it about helmets. Sounds
to me like you are a real hypocrite - you guys post personal attack
after personal attack and then whine if you get even a peep in response.
And that also has been going on for at least a decade.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Frank Krygowski

November 9th 04, 03:17 AM

Bill Z. wrote:

>
> Of course, you'll see these two completely ignore the URLs I posted...

Not at all! I read them and responded to the parts that were pertinent.
You can't blame _me_ that they were largely irrelevant!

Again, I asked for data. You gave me nine year old news stories about
four injuries, three of whom were pedestrians. You gave me no data. As
usual.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Bill Z.

November 9th 04, 04:16 AM

Frank Krygowski > writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> >
> > Of course, you'll see these two completely ignore the URLs I posted...
>
> Not at all! I read them and responded to the parts that were
> pertinent. You can't blame _me_ that they were largely irrelevant!

Where did you respond? Maybe you should repeat it as a real response
never arrived.

> Again, I asked for data. You gave me nine year old news stories about
> four injuries, three of whom were pedestrians. You gave me no data.
> As usual.

You made a claim that no benefits have been seen for helmet use. It is
*your* responsibility to show that your claim is correct, including
controling for all relevant factors that might effect the results.
Those *include* changes in driver behavior.

As to the age of the stories, the substantial increase in helmet use
happened about 10 years ago (a bit more, actually), so those years
*are* relevant. The California helmet law as also passed at around
that time.

Also, pedestrian fatalities *are* relevant (the issue was evidence of
increasingly irresponsible driving.) Of course you know that and are
IMHO pretending otherwise.

I can tell you from personal experience that in the 1970s, if a
pedestrian even looked like he or she was going to cross at an
intersection, drivers in the Bay Area would stop. Now (illegally)
they if anything speed up. If you *do* stop for a pedestrian,
which is required by law, the drivers behind you will throw a
fit and start honking their horns.

So don't try to pretend that driver behavior has not gotten
substantially worse. It has gotten worse.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Frank Krygowski

November 9th 04, 04:54 AM

Bill Z. wrote:

> Frank Krygowski > writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Of course, you'll see these two completely ignore the URLs I posted...
>>
>>Not at all! I read them and responded to the parts that were
>>pertinent. You can't blame _me_ that they were largely irrelevant!
>
>
> Where did you respond? Maybe you should repeat it as a real response
> never arrived.

I quote:

"Thanks - but what you've given there isn't much in the way of data. In
particular, you haven't proved that bicycling's gotten more dangerous.
Given that the red light cameras are catching these people, it's
entirely plausible that things are _safer_ for cycling. Yes, I know
there were people who said they felt walking was more dangerous - but
really, I was hoping for _data_, not uncorroborated opinions!"

>
>
>>Again, I asked for data. You gave me nine year old news stories about
>>four injuries, three of whom were pedestrians. You gave me no data.
>>As usual.
>
>
> You made a claim that no benefits have been seen for helmet use.

That's true!

It is
> *your* responsibility to show that your claim is correct, including
> controling for all relevant factors that might effect the results.
> Those *include* changes in driver behavior.

Wow. Maybe you should run that by a specialist in logic, Bill.

I claimed there have been no benefits seen for helmet use. I've given
citations elsewhere in this, and related, threads.

If you claim the reason for the lack of benefit is directly attributed
to changes in driver behavior - or to bad fairies, for that matter! -
it's up to _you_ to prove _your_ point. (And news stories that give one
lay person's opinion prove nothing!)

> Also, pedestrian fatalities *are* relevant (the issue was evidence of
> increasingly irresponsible driving.) Of course you know that and are
> IMHO pretending otherwise.

Do you have data indicating that California pedestrian fatalities have
risen in the past 15 years or so? If so, let's have the _data_.

>
> I can tell you from personal experience...

Quit blathering. Let's have the _data_.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Bill Z.

November 9th 04, 05:32 AM

Frank Krygowski > writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
>
> "Thanks - but what you've given there isn't much in the way of data.
> In particular, you haven't proved that bicycling's gotten more
> dangerous. Given that the red light cameras are catching these people,
> it's entirely plausible that things are _safer_ for cycling. Yes, I
> know there were people who said they felt walking was more dangerous -
> but really, I was hoping for _data_, not uncorroborated opinions!"
>

Sigh. The red light cameras (located at a handful of intersections
in a city located in a much larger area), were put in *in response*
to a serious problem with red-light runners.

See <http://www.its.berkeley.edu/techtransfer/resources/pub/nl/00fall/seeingred.html> which states

"In San Francisco, with its compact driving environment and dense
network of signalized intersections, red-light running reached a
political crisis in 1994. This paper reports on a pilot photo
enforcement program which resulted in a 40 percent drop in violations
in the first six months at the enforced intersections."

See <http://www.ccsf.edu/Events_Pubs/Guardsman/052297/news.html#red%20light>
which says, "In response to the recent epidemic of red-light running, the San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) has developed a one-year pilot program called the Red Light Cameras Program."

You can also read
<http://www.walksf.org/DPTPedFatalityReportFor98/report.html>
and
<http://www.sannet.gov/engineering-cip/services/public/rlphoto/faq.shtml>
and
<http://www.laub.com/ptf.asp>.

Don't pretend that there hasn't been a serious problem.

> > You made a claim that no benefits have been seen for helmet use.
>
> That's true!
>
> It is
> > *your* responsibility to show that your claim is correct, including
> > controling for all relevant factors that might effect the results.
> > Those *include* changes in driver behavior.
>
> Wow. Maybe you should run that by a specialist in logic, Bill.

Maybe you should learn what it takes to do serious research.
>
> Quit blathering. Let's have the _data_.

You *have* plenty of data. You'll simply ignore it. What you don't
have is data backing up your claims. You specifically made a claim
about helmets, and now are trying to weasel out of the fact that you
have no valid data on which to base those claims due to your inability
to control for changes in driver behavior.

Calling it "blathering" is simply an attempt on your part to get out
of having to back up your claims.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Chris B.

November 9th 04, 06:55 AM

Here's a transcript of the 'debate' for anyone who is interested:

http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/house_debates/38_parl/Session1/L084.htm#P75_2972

Of course there are the typical lies and contraditions one would
expect but even now, knowing just how much cyclists self-loathe,
it still kind of surprises me just how much fear mongering and 'his
brains splattered all over the road' anecdotes are tied in with
cycling.

Note that the anti-cyclists have also stepped up their attack in the
UK.

Tragic though the phasing out of cycling on public roadways is, it is
even more tragic when one considers that bicycle helmets could have
been the basis for a landmark psychological experiment.

--
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
robber-barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber-
baron's cruelty may at some point be satiated; but those who
torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they
do so with the approval of their own conscience."

- C.S. Lewis

Michael

November 9th 04, 09:28 AM

Don't wanna wear one? Fine by be. Wanna drool on your grandkids when your
50. Go right ahead, There's a good chance nothing will happen to you.
Thiere is a risk something will, Me I prefer my kids don't need to change my
Diapers, but hey thats just me.

Like I said I'm still undecided I just know what works for me

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:03:56 GMT, Chris Phillipo
> > wrote:
>
>
> >> >The helmet lobby? Do they fly black helicopters? I bet those
> >> >hypocritical *******s don't even wear helmets while doing it!
>
> >> What point are you trying to make here?
>
> >That the helmet lobby in Canada is a figment of someone's overactive
> >imagination.
>
> The helmet lobby exists. It is indisputable. People are out there
> lobbying for helmet laws, and that is why you have this bill in
> progress. There are people all over the world lobbying for helmet
> laws.
>
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Frank Krygowski

November 9th 04, 04:28 PM

Bill Z. wrote:

> Frank Krygowski > writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>
>>"Thanks - but what you've given there isn't much in the way of data.
>>In particular, you haven't proved that bicycling's gotten more
>>dangerous. Given that the red light cameras are catching these people,
>>it's entirely plausible that things are _safer_ for cycling. Yes, I
>>know there were people who said they felt walking was more dangerous -
>>but really, I was hoping for _data_, not uncorroborated opinions!"
>>
>
>
> Sigh. The red light cameras (located at a handful of intersections
> in a city located in a much larger area), were put in *in response*
> to a serious problem with red-light runners.
>
> See <http://www.its.berkeley.edu/techtransfer/resources/pub/nl/00fall/seeingred.html> which states
>
> "In San Francisco, with its compact driving environment and dense
> network of signalized intersections, red-light running reached a
> political crisis in 1994. This paper reports on a pilot photo
> enforcement program which resulted in a 40 percent drop in violations
> in the first six months at the enforced intersections."

A 40% _drop_ since 1994? I thought you were saying things were _worse_. ??

>
> See <http://www.ccsf.edu/Events_Pubs/Guardsman/052297/news.html#red%20light>
> which says, "In response to the recent epidemic of red-light running, the San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) has developed a one-year pilot program called the Red Light Cameras Program."

Yes, and they too talk about great _reductions_ in the number of red
light runners due to their cameras. For example: "New DPT statistics
show that the number of red-light running violations caught on camera
has dropped by 29.24% since November 1996. "

>
> You can also read
> <http://www.walksf.org/DPTPedFatalityReportFor98/report.html>

"During the 1960's San Francisco averaged 48 pedestrian fatalities
annually, with a high of 62 fatalities in 1963 and a low of 38 in 1966.
The 1970's showed a marked decrease in pedestrian fatality rates, with
an average of 37.3 pedestrian fatalities per year. 1974 had the low for
the decade, with 31 pedestrian fatalities, and 1975 was the high with 49
pedestrian fatalities.2 The 1980's saw another drop in pedestrian
deaths, with an average of 28.2 pedestrians killed each year. 1986 was
the low with 20 fatalities, and 1988 was the high with 38 fatal
collisions.3 In the nine and a half year period 1990 - mid 1999, 307
pedestrians were killed on San Francisco streets, an average of 32.3
fatalities per year."

The graph makes it clear: the overall trend is down, with only the usual
statistical fluctuation due to small numbers overall.

> and
> <http://www.sannet.gov/engineering-cip/services/public/rlphoto/faq.shtml>

Nothing there documenting an increase in pedestrian deaths or injuries,
AFAICT.

> and
> <http://www.laub.com/ptf.asp>.

I'm all for pedestrian advocacy - but that site is another that does not
have data to indicate the danger to pedestrians is _worsening_.
(Comparing pedestrian deaths between San Fran and the rest of the
country is like comparing rodeo deaths between Oklahoma and Maine.)

> You *have* plenty of data. You'll simply ignore it.

You don't understand, Bill. When you claim things have gotten _more_
dangerous for bicyclists and pedestrians, you're supposed to put up
figures that show _increasing_ problems, not problems being fixed!

And BTW, unless you're also pushing for pedestrian helmets (not without
precedent, I admit - http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/jpeds.html) then you
should be posting data about cycling. No?

But returning to your point: your contention is that helmets protect
very well, but it doesn't show up in the numbers because cycling has
gotten more dangerous due to red light running.

You've posted newspaper articles where individual pedestrians complain
about danger; and you say this proves [hah!] it's more dangerous for
both cyclists and pedestrians.

Here's the data on pedestrian and bicycle fatalities for 15 recent years.

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/chart.gif

Is it getting more dangerous to be a pedestrian?

Are the helmets protecting the cyclists? If so, why is the gradual
downward trend in cyclist fatalities not even as good as the gradual
downward trend in pedestrian fatalities?

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Frank Krygowski

November 9th 04, 04:35 PM

Michael wrote:

> Don't wanna wear one? Fine by be. Wanna drool on your grandkids when your
> 50. Go right ahead, There's a good chance nothing will happen to you.

I'm past 50 by a good margin. No drooling yet. And you're right,
there's an outstandingly excellent chance nothing will happen to me
while riding.

> Thiere is a risk something will, Me I prefer my kids don't need to change my
> Diapers, but hey thats just me.
>
> Like I said I'm still undecided I just know what works for me

You're allowed to make your own decisions - assuming you live in a place
with a rational government, that is. I'm not trying to force you to
take off your helmet. Feel free to wear it while bicycling. You can
also feel free to wear it for other activities with higher per-hour head
injury risks.

But oddly enough, I've never known the "drooling when you're 50"
fearmongers to say the same thing about the number one cause of serious
American head injuries: riding in cars!

I've never heard them say the same thing about the number two cause:
falling around the home.

It's only bicycling that gets slammed. Despite its low per-hour injury
and death rate, lower than walking near traffic. Despite its tiny
contribution to the national head injury total.

Why disparage bicycling?

Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is!

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Steven M. Scharf

November 9th 04, 05:08 PM

"Bill Z." > wrote in message
...
> > Quit blathering. Let's have the _data_.
>
> You *have* plenty of data. You'll simply ignore it. What you don't
> have is data backing up your claims. You specifically made a claim
> about helmets, and now are trying to weasel out of the fact that you
> have no valid data on which to base those claims due to your inability
> to control for changes in driver behavior.

I don't understand why people who don't want to wear helmets have to resort
to such fantastic fabrications in order to attempt to justify their decision
to others. I agree that wearing a helmet is uncomfortable, and that
statistically the chances of an accident where a helmet would provide the
margin of safety are very small. But you can't ignore the statistics
regarding comparative head injuries of cyclists involved in accidents, which
compare the severity of injuries of helmet wearers versus
non-helmet-wearers; in those cases, the helmet provides a big advantage.

Frank is famous for going on the personal attack when he has no data, just
ignore him. I kill-filed him long ago.

Steven M. Scharf

November 9th 04, 05:19 PM

"Bill Z." > wrote in message
...

> You made a claim that no benefits have been seen for helmet use. It is
> *your* responsibility to show that your claim is correct, including
> controling for all relevant factors that might effect the results.
> Those *include* changes in driver behavior.

The anti-helmet people base their opposition on the second factor, and it is
true that the likelihood of such a crash is extremely small, but often the
occurence of such a crash is beyond their control.

The pro-helmet people base their decision on the chance that they will be
part of the tiny percentage of people that are involved in a crash where
head injuries are likely. There is plenty of data that shows that helmet
wearers are far less likely to experience serious injury.

I don't think anyone disagrees that you're safer with a helmet, it's just a
question of whether the safety advantage is so small that it's immaterial.

Frank Krygowski

November 9th 04, 06:39 PM

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

> But it highlights the effect that hot-button issues can have on ill-informed
> people like Jones and Frank.

What was it you said about personal attacks? ;-)

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Alex Rodriguez

November 9th 04, 07:07 PM

In article et>,
says...

>I always wear a helmet. I destroyed one a month ago in a crash- and walked
>away. it will not prevent all injuries, but it improves your odds of
>walking away. That said, not sure I want a law mandating helmets. Here in
>PA they just repealed the motorcycle helmet law.

Helmets only help in accidents that involve your head hitting something
hard. In many accidents your head does not hit something hard, so they
don't improve the odds of walking away in those types of accidents.
With that said, I always wear a helmet and encourage others to do so,
but I do not want to enact a law to do that.
--------------
Alex

Paul R

November 9th 04, 07:55 PM

"Chris Phillipo" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > Correct. And compulsion is not it, unless he's planning on retiring
> > Real Soon Now.
> >
> > Guy
> > --
> >
>
> This is quite interesting, time to make up your mind. Either MHLs cause
> people to buy more helmets or it causes people to stop riding. You are
> really going to have to pick one or the other to be credible. Would you
> like a pair of John Kerry brand flip flops?

Chris, who's the zealot? What the hell is wrong with you?

Actually, MHL will cause both to happen - lots of people will buy helmets
and lots of people will stop riding. Most experienced cyclists do not wear
helmets (at least in Toronto). The vast majority of casual cyclists do not
wear helmets. They will either buy one and continue cycling, break the laws
and ride without a helmet or stop cycling.

Lot's of people will buy a helmet and then realize they hate wearing it and
stop cycling. The fewer cyclists on the streets, the more dangerous are the
streets for cyclists. Period.

re: John Kerry flip flops - that says a lot more about you, your opinions
and, most importantly, the information you seek out to make your opinions
than it does about the opinions you attack.

That's what I think,
Paul

Paul R

November 9th 04, 07:58 PM

>
> Well in Canada they give out tickets which you pay, they don't drag you
> into court to be tried for a criminal offense. That's why this "law" is
> nothing more than a cash grab for the first year, then everyone forgets
> about it and there's no enforcement one way or the other.

If you don't pay the ticket you could most certainly be sent to jail.

That's a pretty good argument to not create the law in the first place. If
it's not going to be enforced, or will be inconsistently enforced, it's a
bad law.

Otherwise, it's simply another instrument for police harassment. Or, is that
what you're advocating?

Paul

Peter

November 9th 04, 08:13 PM

Paul R wrote:

>>Well in Canada they give out tickets which you pay, they don't drag you
>>into court to be tried for a criminal offense. That's why this "law" is
>>nothing more than a cash grab for the first year, then everyone forgets
>>about it and there's no enforcement one way or the other.
>
>
> If you don't pay the ticket you could most certainly be sent to jail.

The proposed law also gives the police the right to arrest you and
take you into custody if you're riding without a helmet and don't
produce adequate identification. Go on a ride without your driver's
license or other ID and you could find yourself detained.
>
> That's a pretty good argument to not create the law in the first place. If
> it's not going to be enforced, or will be inconsistently enforced, it's a
> bad law.
>
> Otherwise, it's simply another instrument for police harassment. Or, is that
> what you're advocating?

Agreed. We already have too many unenforced laws on the books.
Unfortunately members of parliament (and congress) don't get
as much political credit for repealing laws as they do for
thinking up new ones.

Paul R

November 9th 04, 08:25 PM

"Chris Phillipo" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article >, says...
> > > This is quite interesting, time to make up your mind. Either MHLs
cause
> > > people to buy more helmets or it causes people to stop riding. You are
> > > really going to have to pick one or the other to be credible. Would
you
> > > like a pair of John Kerry brand flip flops?
> >
> > Chris, who's the zealot? What the hell is wrong with you?
>
> Chris B. for one,
> >
> > Actually, MHL will cause both to happen - lots of people will buy
helmets
> > and lots of people will stop riding. Most experienced cyclists do not
wear
> > helmets (at least in Toronto). The vast majority of casual cyclists do
not
> > wear helmets. They will either buy one and continue cycling, break the
laws
> > and ride without a helmet or stop cycling.
> >
>
> I don't know where to begin with this statement, since in contradicts
> itself in so many ways.

name one contradiction.

> > Lot's of people will buy a helmet and then realize they hate wearing it
and
> > stop cycling. The fewer cyclists on the streets, the more dangerous are
the
> > streets for cyclists. Period.
> >
>
> Valid opinion, although haven't met the person that has done that, and I
> actually live in a province with a MHL, but you are the expert so I
> defer to your experience.

You don't live in a province with a large city. You should defer to my
experience. Riding in Halifax is a lot different than riding in Toronto.

I'm far safer on my bike when downtown than in the suburbs. The main reason
for that because a car is continuously passing cyclists downtown. They are
used to us. They expect us to be there. It is not the same in the suburbs or
small cities where there are far fewer vehicles on the roads. A mandatory
helmet law will not affect you in the same way it will me.

> > re: John Kerry flip flops - that says a lot more about you, your
opinions
> > and, most importantly, the information you seek out to make your
opinions
> > than it does about the opinions you attack.
>
> Try making some sense, please.
>

By using that tired old Kerry flip-flop argument you are showing us how
easily you are fooled by right wing news networks.

Paul R

November 9th 04, 08:27 PM

"Chris Phillipo" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article >, says...
> > If you don't pay the ticket you could most certainly be sent to jail.
> >
>
> Which is a different offense.
>
> > That's a pretty good argument to not create the law in the first place.
If
> > it's not going to be enforced, or will be inconsistently enforced, it's
a
> > bad law.
>
> The word I would use is "irrelevant" law, but yes you are correct.
> Which is why I wouldn't spend too much time and money fighting it.

talk about contradictions. You've sure expended a fair bit of time defending
it on this newsgroup.

Paul

ps here's what you snipped:

Chris Plillipo:

Well in Canada they give out tickets which you pay, they don't drag you
into court to be tried for a criminal offense. That's why this "law" is
nothing more than a cash grab for the first year, then everyone forgets
about it and there's no enforcement one way or the other.

AustinMN

November 9th 04, 08:29 PM

Chris Phillipo wrote:
> This is quite interesting, time to make up your mind. Either MHLs cause
> people to buy more helmets or it causes people to stop riding. You are
> really going to have to pick one or the other to be credible.

Nonsense. MHL's do both.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

AustinMN

November 9th 04, 08:32 PM

Chris Phillipo wrote:

> Actually no, like I said, since it's not enforced, people are no more or
> less inclined to buy a helmet. Or if we are to beleive the zealots,
> everyone will stop riding and no one will be buying a helmet.

I realize English may be a second language for you, but you need to realize
that even in English, words have meanings!

I challenge you to find a post in this thread where _anyone_ said that
_everyone_ would stop riding.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

AustinMN

November 9th 04, 08:36 PM

Chris Phillipo wrote:
> Well in Canada they give out tickets which you pay, they don't drag you
> into court to be tried for a criminal offense. That's why this "law" is
> nothing more than a cash grab for the first year, then everyone forgets
> about it and there's no enforcement one way or the other.

Hmmm...do you have a right to a hearing? If not, then it becomes an avenue
for serious abuse at the sole discretion of the one issuing the ticket. If
yes, then where is the hearing held? Do you know _anything_ about the legal
system in Canada?

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

Paul R

November 9th 04, 08:49 PM

> > >
> > > I don't know where to begin with this statement, since in contradicts
> > > itself in so many ways.
> >
> > name one contradiction.
>
> "lots of people will buy helmets and lots of people will stop riding. "

The key word in my sentence above is 'and'. Clearly your reading
comprehension is weak. Or, more likely, you're just interested in scoring
points, not discussing the issues around mandatory helmet laws.

> Are these very stupid people going to buy helmets for the express
> purpose of not riding?

Won't a lot of people go out and buy a helmet because they are law abiding
citizens then realize, after using it, that they'd rather just drive instead
of wearing it? This is pretty simple to me. Not sure why you find it so
difficult.

> > You don't live in a province with a large city. You should defer to my
> > experience. Riding in Halifax is a lot different than riding in Toronto.
>

> Oh yes, Halifax is a backwater town of 10,000 and all cyclists in Nova
> Scotia are required to ride within it's limits. Where do you get this
> stuff? Riding in Toronto I always wore a helmet, and I don't remember
> being hit by a car as a result.

You're not even reading what I write. I ask you to have enough respect to at
least try to understand what I'm saying before attacking my opinions. I'm
happy to argue on my opinions, but you're putting words in my mouth.

Fer crissakes, where did I say Halifax was a backwater?? It's a very small
(and quite wonderful) city. You could fit 500 Halifaxes in the GTA alone.
I'm talking about the massive difference in scale. The impact of a helmet
law will be far higher in a large city than a small one.

And where did I ever say or imply that wearing a helmet will make things
worse? Wtf?? Obvously it's a good idea to wear a helmet. I'll never go
mountain biking without one. I often wear one when riding in the city.
Please re-read my posts and then refute me, if you still disagree.

> By the way, I'm a left winger or weren't you paying attention. I'll
> note that sarcasm is lost on you.

I really don't care what wing you say you're on. The Kerry flip flop comment
was indicative of a mindset that I find particularly obnoxious - the
under-informed political junkie. That's all I'm going to say on that matter.
It's not my job to educate you.

Clearly, your sarcasm is lost on me.

That's what I think,
Paul

AustinMN

November 9th 04, 08:55 PM

Chris Phillipo wrote:
> In article >, says...
>>
>> > > Actually, MHL will cause both to happen - lots of people will buy
>> helmets
>> > > and lots of people will stop riding. Most experienced cyclists do not
>> wear
>> > > helmets (at least in Toronto). The vast majority of casual cyclists
>> > > do
>> not
>> > > wear helmets. They will either buy one and continue cycling, break
>> > > the
>> laws
>> > > and ride without a helmet or stop cycling.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I don't know where to begin with this statement, since in contradicts
>> > itself in so many ways.
>>
>> name one contradiction.
>
> "lots of people will buy helmets and lots of people will stop riding. "
> Are these very stupid people going to buy helmets for the express
> purpose of not riding?

Who suggested they were the same people? There are lots of people in China
and lots of people in Mexico. Is that a contradiction?

You are either incredibly stupid, think we are incredibly stupid, or you
have a very poor command of the English language. The latter we will not
hold against you.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

Paul R

November 9th 04, 09:04 PM

"Chris Phillipo" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article >, says...
> > > "lots of people will buy helmets and lots of people will stop riding.
"
> >
> > The key word in my sentence above is 'and'. Clearly your reading
> > comprehension is weak. Or, more likely, you're just interested in
scoring
> > points, not discussing the issues around mandatory helmet laws.
> >
> >
>
> I was just about to rip into Austin for invoking the tool of the
> hopeless troll "your reading comprehension must be remis", then I read
> your post. You two are truly not worth anyone's time. I see you repeat
> yourself several times below. plonk.
> --

I apologize to you for stating that your reading comprehension is weak.
However, there is no contradiction in my statement that "lots of people will
buy helmets and lots of people will stop riding". I'm willing to help you
understand this.

Paul

PS you snipped this before calling me a troll:

"You're not even reading what I write. I ask you to have enough respect to
at
least try to understand what I'm saying before attacking my opinions. I'm
happy to argue on my opinions, but you're putting words in my mouth."

AustinMN

November 9th 04, 09:05 PM

Chris Phillipo wrote:
>>> Or if we are to beleive the zealots,
>>> everyone will stop riding and no one will be buying a helmet.

Then AustinMN wrote:
>> I challenge you to find a post in this thread where _anyone_ said that
>> _everyone_ would stop riding.

Then Chris Phillipo wrote:
> It seems you are counting yourself amoung the zealots.

I repeat my challenge...either admit that you are grossly exaggerating what
others are saying, or post a quote of some "zealot" that said "everyone"
would stop riding. Since you won't be able to do the latter, and aren't
likely to do the former, may I suggest you hold your tongue.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

Chris B.

November 9th 04, 09:54 PM

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:06:20 GMT, Chris Phillipo
> wrote:

>In article >, says...
>> > This is quite interesting, time to make up your mind. Either MHLs cause
>> > people to buy more helmets or it causes people to stop riding. You are
>> > really going to have to pick one or the other to be credible. Would you
>> > like a pair of John Kerry brand flip flops?
>>
>> Chris, who's the zealot? What the hell is wrong with you?
>
>Chris B. for one,

LOL!

I knew that your continued inability to counter sound arguments
frustrated you greatly (this thread being full of some very telling
signs) but I had no idea that I in particular had infuriated you so.

You made my day.

Ok, my week actually.

Thanks!

--
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
robber-barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber-
baron's cruelty may at some point be satiated; but those who
torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they
do so with the approval of their own conscience."

- C.S. Lewis

Steven M. Scharf

November 10th 04, 02:38 AM

Paul R wrote:

>Actually, MHL will cause both to happen - lots of people will buy helmets
>and lots of people will stop riding. Most experienced cyclists do not wear
>helmets (at least in Toronto). The vast majority of casual cyclists do not
>wear helmets. They will either buy one and continue cycling, break the
laws
>and ride without a helmet or stop cycling.
>
>Lot's of people will buy a helmet and then realize they hate wearing
it and
>stop cycling. The fewer cyclists on the streets, the more dangerous
are the
>streets for cyclists. Period.

Geez, talk about speculation and conjecture gone wild.

I'm not in favor of MHLs, but where on earth did you come up with all this?

What will actually happen is that the law will be ignored or withdrawn
after the clueless politicians that pushed it through are made to
realize how stupid it is to waste police resources on it. They’ll make a
speech deploring the millions of lives that will be lost as a result of
the law being eliminated.

Or perhaps they'll compromise, and pass a law that says that head
injuries incurred in a bicycle crash are not covered by Canada's health
care coverage, unless the cyclist was wearing a helmet. Kind of similar
to the states where you can be exempt from the motorcycle helmet
requirement if you pay for extra insurance.

Steve
http://bicyclelighting.com
"Let’s pass more laws to make everything safe for everybody"
National Lampoon Sunday Newspaper

Frank Krygowski

November 10th 04, 03:36 AM

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

>
> Frank is famous for going on the personal attack when he has no data,

:-) From what I can see, I'm almost the only person posting data here!

> just
> ignore him. I kill-filed him long ago.

:-) Steven kill-filed me after I pointed out that, as a self-proclaimed
bicycle lighting expert, he really should understand the units of
measurement for light!

Instead of admitting he was confused about fundamental quantities like
"lumens" and "candelas," he stopped talking to me. Ah well!

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Bill Z.

November 10th 04, 03:37 AM

Frank Krygowski > writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Frank Krygowski > writes:
> >
> >>Bill Z. wrote:
> >>
> >>
> > See
> > <http://www.ccsf.edu/Events_Pubs/Guardsman/052297/news.html#red%20light>
> > which says, "In response to the recent epidemic of red-light
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > running, the San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT)
^^^^^^^
> > has developed a one-year pilot program called the Red Light
> > Cameras Program."
>
> Yes, and they too talk about great _reductions_ in the number of red
> light runners due to their cameras. For example: "New DPT statistics
> show that the number of red-light running violations caught on camera
> has dropped by 29.24% since November 1996. "

I've underlined the key phrase for you: an "epidemic." Look up
what that means. And the reductions were at intersections where
the cameras are located, which is a very tiny fraction of the
controled intersections in the city.

>
>
> > You can also read
> > <http://www.walksf.org/DPTPedFatalityReportFor98/report.html>
>
> "During the 1960's San Francisco averaged 48 pedestrian fatalities
> annually, with a high of 62 fatalities in 1963 and a low of 38 in
> 1966. The 1970's showed a marked decrease in pedestrian fatality
> rates, with an average of 37.3 pedestrian fatalities per year. 1974
> had the low for the decade, with 31 pedestrian fatalities, and 1975
> was the high with 49 pedestrian fatalities.2 The 1980's saw another
> drop in pedestrian deaths, with an average of 28.2 pedestrians killed
> each year. 1986 was the low with 20 fatalities, and 1988 was the high
> with 38 fatal collisions.3 In the nine and a half year period 1990 -
> mid 1999, 307 pedestrians were killed on San Francisco streets, an
> average of 32.3 fatalities per year."
>
> The graph makes it clear: the overall trend is down, with only the
> usual statistical fluctuation due to small numbers overall.
>

The extent of red light running went up. So has traffic, but as traffic
gets worse, it slows as well, which helps keep the fatality rate down.
The fatality rate is not the same as the accident rate, even if the
fatal accidents get lots of attention in the press.

> I'm all for pedestrian advocacy - but that site is another that does
> not have data to indicate the danger to pedestrians is
> _worsening_. (Comparing pedestrian deaths between San Fran and the
> rest of the country is like comparing rodeo deaths between Oklahoma
> and Maine.)

Yeah, right.

>
> > You *have* plenty of data. You'll simply ignore it.
>
> You don't understand, Bill. When you claim things have gotten _more_
> dangerous for bicyclists and pedestrians, you're supposed to put up
> figures that show _increasing_ problems, not problems being fixed!
>
> And BTW, unless you're also pushing for pedestrian helmets (not
> without precedent, I admit - http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/jpeds.html)
> then you should be posting data about cycling. No?
>
>
>
> But returning to your point: your contention is that helmets protect
> very well, but it doesn't show up in the numbers because cycling has
> gotten more dangerous due to red light running.

Did I say that "helmets protect very well?" If show, produce a URL
and show where I did. It was *your* contention that helemts protect
not at all, and you did not control for changes in driver behavior
(or changes in the number of cyclist on the road, for that matter.)

> You've posted newspaper articles where individual pedestrians complain
> about danger; and you say this proves [hah!] it's more dangerous for
> both cyclists and pedestrians.

All those pedestrians were complaining about a real problem - reckless
and very aggressive driving. It's a known problem.

> http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/chart.gif

Try again - if that's Burdett's web site I won't believe a word of
it due to him having an anti-helmet axe to grind.
>
> Are the helmets protecting the cyclists? If so, why is the gradual
> downward trend in cyclist fatalities not even as good as the gradual
> downward trend in pedestrian fatalities?

Well, that's easy to explain - the cyclists are getting hit harder or
are getting in worse collisions. You'd expect that due to the large
number of SUVs on the road. But the fact is that you haven't proven
your claim, and your methodology is sloppy.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

November 10th 04, 03:53 AM

"Steven M. Scharf" > writes:

> "Bill Z." > wrote in message
> ...
>

> And be very careful here, there are a lot of people that don't care about
> two guys holding hands, or even a civil union, but get emotional over the
> word marriage being used for anything but what it has traditionally been
> used for. Newsom was an idiot for raising this whole issue. Now you've got
> the right-wing wackos all hot for a constitutional amendment, and as long as
> they're at it, why not one against flag burning and for prayer in schools.

Newsom was definitely not an idiot for raising it (as I should know,
living about 30 miles outside the city.) San Francisco has some major
budget problems as all cities do, and Newsom is going to have to make
some unpopular decisions as a result. By supporting same-sex
marriages, he got lots of points with his constituents as a good guy,
which will help deflect the blame for the cost cutting he'll have to
deal with - it will be viewed as an unfortunately necessity rather
than a somewhat conservative agenda. It may not play well in the
Central Valley, but people there don't vote in his election, and 7
years from now, when he is out due to term limits, attitudes may
very well change (or everyone else will have forgotten.)

If none of this makes sense, get a copy of the film "See How They Run"
which is a documentary about Willie Brown's last race for mayor. As
you watch it, you'll think you are on another planet! Much of it is
hilarious. The voters are even crazier than the candidates! The
race had so many twists and turns that at one point, the Republicans
funded Willie Brown because the guy he ran against in the runnoff
was slightly to the left of Karl Marx (OK, I'm making the Marx part
up, but he is pretty liberal.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Steven M. Scharf

November 10th 04, 03:54 AM

Bill Z. wrote:

>>http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/chart.gif
>
>
> Try again - if that's Burdett's web site I won't believe a word of
> it due to him having an anti-helmet axe to grind.

It is Burdett's site. Quite amusing to see all the mis-statements on
that site, but the way it's written I can see how an uninformed
individual could be taken in by it.

Frank Krygowski

November 10th 04, 04:01 AM

Ken [NY] wrote:

.... an attempt to drive every bike thread off-topic into right wing
nonsense.

You're immune to reason, Ken. I'll try to keep that in mind if I'm
tempted to reply.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

November 10th 04, 04:12 AM

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

>
> Paul R wrote:
>
> >Actually, MHL will cause both to happen - lots of people will buy helmets
> >and lots of people will stop riding. Most experienced cyclists do not
> wear
> >helmets (at least in Toronto). The vast majority of casual cyclists do
> not
> >wear helmets. They will either buy one and continue cycling, break the
> laws
> >and ride without a helmet or stop cycling.
> >
> >Lot's of people will buy a helmet and then realize they hate wearing
> it and
> >stop cycling. The fewer cyclists on the streets, the more dangerous
> are the
> >streets for cyclists. Period.
>
> Geez, talk about speculation and conjecture gone wild.
>
> I'm not in favor of MHLs, but where on earth did you come up with all this?

There have been several papers on cycling safety which noted the "safety
in numbers" effect. One informal one is "Stepping Stones to Bicycle
Safety" by Malcolm Wardlaw, at Bicycling Life.
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/SteppingStones.htm
Other articles in refereed journals have noted the same effect.

>
> What will actually happen is that the law will be ignored or withdrawn
> after the clueless politicians that pushed it through are made to
> realize how stupid it is to waste police resources on it. They’ll make a
> speech deploring the millions of lives that will be lost as a result of
> the law being eliminated.
>

Rescinding these laws has been very, very rare. In fact, the statistics
that indicate the laws failures have a difficult time finding publishers.

Some people have proposed having MHLs written (assuming you can't
prevent the law itself) so that they have a "sunset" provision if it's
proven they don't work. And the "proof" should be in serious head
injuries per cyclist mileage, not merely in terms of "percentage of
cyclists wearing helmets," since by that standard, every cyclist who
quits riding is counted as a _success_!

So far, AFAIK, no laws have been written that way. It's as if the
lawmakers don't want to know.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

AustinMN

November 10th 04, 05:33 AM

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Some people have proposed having MHLs written (assuming you can't prevent
> the law itself) so that they have a "sunset" provision if it's proven they
> don't work. And the "proof" should be in serious head injuries per
> cyclist mileage, not merely in terms of "percentage of cyclists wearing
> helmets," since by that standard, every cyclist who quits riding is
> counted as a _success_!
>
> So far, AFAIK, no laws have been written that way. It's as if the
> lawmakers don't want to know.

Or perhaps they've been reading the helmet wars threads on r.b.misc and
don't believe a consensus could be reached on whether the law worked or not.
;-)

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

Bill Z.

November 10th 04, 05:49 AM

Frank Krygowski > writes:

> >>Ah. Interesting conjecture. But I see you've posted no evidence to
> >>support it - as usual.
> > Read the ****ing newspapers.
>
> :-) Wipe the froth off your mouth and keyboard, Bill. You're losing
> control yet again!

You sound like the fundamentalist Christian I once argued with briefly
as I rode to work on my bike. I mentioned that his groups gory anti-
abortion sign was a hazard as it was placed so as to prevent eye
contact with drivers stopped at across street. His reply was that I
was riding on a very dangerous road (4 lanes, 35 mph speed limit,
completely straight, few intersections, few driveways, and bike lanes
for added room.) I suggested that the most dangerous thing on the
road was his f___ing sign. He looked shocked and said, "Did you use
the 'F' word?"

Rant all you want, Frank, but this is well-known stuff and common
knowledge. All you have to do is to keep up with current affairs.

> > See
> > <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/12/05/MNW14097.DTL>
> > <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1996/12/31/NEWS8420.dtl>
> > <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1996/09/12/MN74703.DTL>
> > <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1996/09/11/MN57241.DTL>
> > <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1995/11/14/EDITORIAL4921.dtl>
>
> Thanks - but what you've given there isn't much in the way of data.

It's a hell of a lot more data than you've produced.

> Actually, the sites you referenced talked about just one cyclist
> fatality and _three_ gravely injured pedestrians - at least one of
> which was a head injury. It wasn't clear if they were fatalities or
> not.

Actually, the sites talked about bad driver behavior.
>
> Got data?

You are repeating yourself. I've shown you plenty of data and you
are ignoring it as usual, and repeating yourself.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

November 10th 04, 05:50 AM

Frank Krygowski > writes:

> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>
> > What will actually happen is that the law will be ignored or
> > withdrawn after the clueless politicians that pushed it through are
> > made to realize how stupid it is to waste police resources on
> > it. TheyÂ’ll make a speech deploring the millions of lives that
> > will be lost as a result of the law being eliminated.
> >
>
> Rescinding these laws has been very, very rare. In fact, the
> statistics that indicate the laws failures have a difficult time
> finding publishers.

Maybe because the statistics you refer to are bogus? That's the usual
reason for not being able to get them published. :-)

Oh, and whether the laws are actually rescinded doesn't particularly
matter if they are not enforced and the public doesn't know about
them.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 10th 04, 01:07 PM

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 18:49:37 GMT, Chris Phillipo
> wrote:

>This is quite interesting, time to make up your mind. Either MHLs cause
>people to buy more helmets or it causes people to stop riding. You are
>really going to have to pick one or the other to be credible. Would you
>like a pair of John Kerry brand flip flops?

Here is what happens:

Pre-law wearing rate: 50%
Post-law wearing rate: 90%
Deterrence rate: 30%

Year 1 result: A lot of helmets get sold
Year 2 result: A lot less bikes get sold
Year 3 result: as year 2
Year 4 result: as year 2
Year 5 result: as year 2

etc.

So, you get a one-year bonus of lots of foam hat sales, followed by
the collapse of your market.

There are no winners from MHLs, or at least there haven't been thus
far. Other than the politicians who can count on the handwringer vote
next time (although the chances of this effect lasting more than one
election are slim).

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 10th 04, 01:13 PM

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 02:38:21 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
> wrote:

>What will actually happen is that the law will be ignored or withdrawn
>after the clueless politicians that pushed it through are made to
>realize how stupid it is to waste police resources on it.

LOL! Yeah, right. Politician puts hands up and says "sure, we made a
mistake." Alternative hypothesis: law is seen to be widely flouted,
so politicos try to "fix" the problem with large-scale clampdowns on
those lawless unhelemted cyclists.

>Or perhaps they'll compromise, and pass a law that says that head
>injuries incurred in a bicycle crash are not covered by Canada's health
>care coverage, unless the cyclist was wearing a helmet. Kind of similar
>to the states where you can be exempt from the motorcycle helmet
>requirement if you pay for extra insurance.

Personal injury weasels already ask for - and often get - reduced
compensation when the cyclist was not wearing a plastic hat, even
though the collision may well have been vastly beyond the theoretical
capabilities of the PFDB.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/download/helmets-contributory-negligence.pdf

Strangely the same thinking does not appear to apply to car drivers,
who suffer head injuries in roughly the same proportion, and who could
obviously wear helmets - really strong ones - without the issues of
sweating and overheating that cyclists get.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 10th 04, 01:18 PM

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 05:50:02 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Maybe because the statistics you refer to are bogus? That's the usual
>reason for not being able to get them published. :-)

Actually it's not quite true, they are published - by the relevant
road ministries of the countries concerned. That's how the CPSC got
their data showing risk per cyclist increasing by 40% as helemt use
rose from 18% to 50%, and how Australian and New Zealand statisticians
found out that there was no change in %HI for cyclists over and above
that found for pedestrians.

The medical press are interventionist by nature, so these facts, plain
as they are, were not of interest to them. Some are changing in this
view as they begin to realise the inherent weaknesses of observational
studies, after a well-publicised series of fiascos.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/Observational_Studies

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 10th 04, 01:23 PM

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 18:42:06 GMT, Chris Phillipo
> wrote:

>if we are to beleive the zealots,
>everyone will stop riding and no one will be buying a helmet.

As a point of simple fact, the helmet debate, as with most acrimonious
debates, is characterised by two camps: zealots and sceptics. Zealots
refuse to read or acknowledge the evidence proposed by sceptics.
Sceptics read both sides of the argument and believe somethign in
between.

A zealot statement might be: helmets do nothing.
A zealot statement might be: helmets are the be-all and end-all of
cycle safety

A sceptic would say: "Arguments that appear to disavow the efficacy or
utility of cycle helmet wearing, or on the other hand claim it as the
major influence in reducing injury to cyclists, are both wide of the
mark. In particular, campaigns seeking to present cycling as an
inevitably dangerous or hazardous activity, or which suggest that
helmet wearing should be made compulsory, risk prejudicing the
delivery of those very benefits to health and environment which
cycling can deliver: they also serve to confuse the general public
about the wider social and economic advantages of cycling. As a
result, the NCS Board is anxious that the question of wearing helmets
is placed in its proper context"

Now you see why the sceptical view - which is in this case undoubtedly
the correct one - never gets seen among the flying soundbytes :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 10th 04, 01:23 PM

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 02:30:00 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

>> Peter, you are wasting your time. As far as Zaumen is concerned there
>> are only two types of people in the world: people who agree with him,
>> and liars.

>Guy, of course, is lying again.

I rest my case.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 10th 04, 01:27 PM

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 18:40:05 GMT, Chris Phillipo
> wrote:

>> what you actually said was that because no-one is going to jail,
>> it is not a crime. That does not follow. I am asking: are you sure
>> that the helmet law is outside the criminal code?

>Well in Canada they give out tickets which you pay, they don't drag you
>into court to be tried for a criminal offense. That's why this "law" is
>nothing more than a cash grab for the first year, then everyone forgets
>about it and there's no enforcement one way or the other.

And? In the UK there are many traffic laws which are dealt with in
exactly this way, but the prosecuting authority is still the Crown,
and if you fail to pay, or decide to challenge, it is the criminal
courts which hear the case. Our traffic law is all part of the
criminal code, even though convictions do not form part of your
criminal record.

So, what I was asking is, althoguh you say it is not a crime, are you
sure?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 10th 04, 01:30 PM

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 03:11:27 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Isn't it funny how anti-helmet people will post statements such as
>yours while ignoring what Krygowski said, namely "Bill, I'm
>continually astounded that you don't embarrass yourself to silence,"

Have you found an anti-helmet person now, Bill? Great! After a
couple of years active campaiginnig on the issue I have only ever met
one, they are as rare as hens' teeth!

FWIW I'm, not amazed you don't embarrass yourself into silence - you
have proven time and again that you lack the critical faculties to be
able to understand that you have embarrassed yourself at all.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 10th 04, 01:33 PM

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 02:32:09 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>> >Wolfgang is back, repeating the same things he's said for years.
>> Your house a bit short of mirrors, then, Bill?
>More infantile name calling from Guy. What a moron.

Your paranoia threshold is down on the bottom stop again, Bill. My
comment was very mild, and I even have scriptural authority for it
(John 8:2-11).

I am not much given to quoting scripture, but it seems appropriate in
context :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 10th 04, 01:34 PM

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 23:40:23 GMT, "Ken [NY]" > wrote:

>Sure there are Christians who are against the death penalty,
>just as there are Christians who believe in it.

Those are the ones who didn't understand John 8:2-11, right?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

November 10th 04, 02:17 PM

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 18:42:06 GMT, Chris Phillipo
> > wrote:
>
>>if we are to beleive the zealots,
>>everyone will stop riding and no one will be buying a helmet.
>
> As a point of simple fact, the helmet debate, as with most acrimonious
> debates, is characterised by two camps: zealots and sceptics. Zealots
> refuse to read or acknowledge the evidence proposed by sceptics.
> Sceptics read both sides of the argument and believe somethign in
> between.
>
> A zealot statement might be: helmets do nothing.
> A zealot statement might be: helmets are the be-all and end-all of
> cycle safety
>
> A sceptic would say: "Arguments that appear to disavow the efficacy or
> utility of cycle helmet wearing, or on the other hand claim it as the
> major influence in reducing injury to cyclists, are both wide of the
> mark. In particular, campaigns seeking to present cycling as an
> inevitably dangerous or hazardous activity, or which suggest that
> helmet wearing should be made compulsory, risk prejudicing the
> delivery of those very benefits to health and environment which
> cycling can deliver: they also serve to confuse the general public
> about the wider social and economic advantages of cycling. As a
> result, the NCS Board is anxious that the question of wearing helmets
> is placed in its proper context"
>
> Now you see why the sceptical view - which is in this case undoubtedly
> the correct one - never gets seen among the flying soundbytes :-)
>

Good summary guy, but the sceptic bit is incomplet. You need another
sentence still!

After "In particular....advantages of cycling" you need something like
"Conversly, claims by some that helmets provide zero or negative safety
benefit to the user are at best unproven and might lead novice or offroad
cyclists for whom helmets may have more benefit to forgo that benefit in
error"

After all, i would put you firmly in the "Anti compulsion zealot" camp but
the "Sceptic" camp wrt helmets in general - sometimes you wear one sometimes
you don't as circumstances guide your judgement of need.

pk

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 10th 04, 02:20 PM

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 02:41:02 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

>> >really, I was hoping for _data_, not uncorroborated opinions!
>> LOL! Excellent use of irony, Mr. K :-)

>Of course, you'll see these two completely ignore the URLs I posted,

No, that's your MO. I read them. I made no comment on them anyway,
merely on Frank's rather nice use of irony. I thought it mught help,
since you have frequently displayed an inability to spot it unaided.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 10th 04, 02:23 PM

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 17:08:53 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
> wrote:

>I don't understand why people who don't want to wear helmets have to resort
>to such fantastic fabrications in order to attempt to justify their decision
>to others.

Well there you got me, neither do I. There is so much robust data to
justify not wearing a helmet that it is hardly necessary, after all.

There is allegedly a lot of evidence to support wearing one, too, but
for some reason the people who want me to wear one all the time always
seem to use the same discredited studies (with the notabole exception
of BHIT who sometimes use made-up figures instead). Anyone would
think the "problem" isn't big enough unless it is exaggerated...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 10th 04, 02:24 PM

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 17:19:11 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
> wrote:

>The anti-helmet people base their opposition on the second factor,

Have you found some anti-helmet people? Great! In two years of
helmet activism I've only met one, they are *really* rare! Who are
they?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Frank Krygowski

November 10th 04, 02:36 PM

Bill Z. wrote:
> Frank Krygowski > writes:
>
>
>>Thanks - but what you've given there isn't much in the way of data.
>
>
> It's a hell of a lot more data than you've produced.

I'd post a rebuttal, but it's obviously unnecessary. Anyone interested
can compare our posts to see who's putting up actual numbers, actual data.

Carry on, Bill. You're fun to watch! ;-)

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 10th 04, 02:37 PM

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 04:28:49 -0500, "Michael"
> wrote:

>Don't wanna wear one? Fine by be. Wanna drool on your grandkids when your
>50. Go right ahead, There's a good chance nothing will happen to you.
>Thiere is a risk something will, Me I prefer my kids don't need to change my
>Diapers, but hey thats just me.

Oh, how original, a faith-based pro-helmet post. Pity the data
doesn't support your faith, really.

10 year trends, as published by CPSC, show that helmet use in the USA
rose from 18% to 50%, head injuries increased 10%, numbers cycling
reduced 21%.

The problem is that zealots like you take the statement "if you crash,
you are probably better off wearing a helmet" and ignore the bit
before the comma.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Frank Krygowski

November 10th 04, 02:46 PM

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
>>> http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/chart.gif
>>
>>
>>
>> Try again - if that's Burdett's web site I won't believe a word of
>> it due to him having an anti-helmet axe to grind.
>
>
> It is Burdett's site. Quite amusing to see all the mis-statements on
> that site, but the way it's written I can see how an uninformed
> individual could be taken in by it.
>

Gentlemen, even if you don't like a person who maintains a website, that
doesn't mean every piece of data posted there is false!

To take the current example: The comparison of pedestrian and bicycle
fatalities at http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/chart.gif is taken from national
data kept by the NHTSA. The data is available online - although I know
from experience that getting it is a little tedious. If you don't
believe the data, double check it. Get it yourself, or at least check a
few points to see if the numbers match.

IIRC, you'll want to search for "Traffic Safety Facts" at the NHTSA
website. The only thing that was done with that graph was to scale
_down_ the plotting of pedestrian deaths, so they can be more easily
compared with cyclist fatality trends. But that's obvious from the
graphs themselves.

I note, by the way, that some people are absolutely immune to data that
violates their preconceived notions, no matter how robust the data may be!

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Frank Krygowski

November 10th 04, 05:02 PM

Ken [NY] wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:51:30 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > claims:
>
>
>>I seem to recall some Texas governor presiding over record numbers of
>>executions, while loudly calling himself a Christian. (But you're right
>>about televising it; that would be bad for election campaigns.)
>
>>
>> Oh come on, Frank. I know you are not the sharpest knife in
>>the drawer, but surely you know that a sitting Governor does not
>>preside over executions. That is the job of the judicial, not the
>>executive branch.
>
>
> Frank, you were complaining that I and other conservatives
> don't confess our mistakes. In that light, I am still waiting for you
> to apologize for your above massive error.

Perhaps I'm not perfect, Ken. But I'm not sure what you consider
mistaken in what I wrote.

AFAIK, a Texas governor (like those in most other states) has the power
to commute or even pardon death sentences. Is that wrong? If you say
it is, please give some evidence.

If that is the case, then every person executed is killed with the
governor's final approval. In other words, he has presiding authority.

And as I recall, the governor in question has frequently proclaimed his
Christian beliefs.

Now I'll admit, I haven't studied up on Texas law. If it turns out the
governor has no authority to do what I said, I'll apologize. All you've
got to do is demonstrate that.

If you can't, I don't plan on answering any more of your attempts to
divert bike discussions into prejudiced right wing propaganda.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 10th 04, 05:21 PM

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:17:53 +0000 (UTC), "PK"
> wrote:

>> A sceptic would say: "Arguments that appear to disavow the efficacy or
>> utility of cycle helmet wearing, or on the other hand claim it as the
>> major influence in reducing injury to cyclists, are both wide of the
>> mark. In particular, campaigns seeking to present cycling as an
>> inevitably dangerous or hazardous activity, or which suggest that
>> helmet wearing should be made compulsory, risk prejudicing the
>> delivery of those very benefits to health and environment which
>> cycling can deliver: they also serve to confuse the general public
>> about the wider social and economic advantages of cycling. As a
>> result, the NCS Board is anxious that the question of wearing helmets
>> is placed in its proper context"

>Good summary guy, but the sceptic bit is incomplet. You need another
>sentence still!

Not really. "Arguments that appear to disavow the efficacy or utility
of cycle helmet wearing, or on the other hand claim it as the major
influence in reducing injury to cyclists, are both wide of the mark"
says exactly what you propose, but in strictly neutral terms.

As a helmet-sceptics mantra it lacks very little :-)

>After "In particular....advantages of cycling" you need something like
>"Conversly, claims by some that helmets provide zero or negative safety
>benefit to the user are at best unproven and might lead novice or offroad
>cyclists for whom helmets may have more benefit to forgo that benefit in
>error"

But that would itself be incomplete without a reference to the proven
existence of risk compensation in road cyclists, including children,
and then the sentence is even longer. The NCS Board did a good job of
summarising the balance, and I endorse their view.

>After all, i would put you firmly in the "Anti compulsion zealot" camp but
>the "Sceptic" camp wrt helmets in general - sometimes you wear one sometimes
>you don't as circumstances guide your judgement of need.

An anti-compulsion zealot? That's like being an extreme moderate :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 10th 04, 05:22 PM

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:46:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> wrote:

>Gentlemen, even if you don't like a person who maintains a website, that
>doesn't mean every piece of data posted there is false!

You mean there are facts on BHSI? Tell me it ain't so!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Steven M. Scharf

November 10th 04, 05:29 PM

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 04:28:49 -0500, "Michael"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Don't wanna wear one? Fine by be. Wanna drool on your grandkids when your
>>50. Go right ahead, There's a good chance nothing will happen to you.
>>Thiere is a risk something will, Me I prefer my kids don't need to change my
>>Diapers, but hey thats just me.
>
>
> Oh, how original, a faith-based pro-helmet post. Pity the data
> doesn't support your faith, really.
>
> 10 year trends, as published by CPSC, show that helmet use in the USA
> rose from 18% to 50%, head injuries increased 10%, numbers cycling
> reduced 21%.
>
> The problem is that zealots like you take the statement "if you crash,
> you are probably better off wearing a helmet" and ignore the bit
> before the comma.

He didn't ignore the part before the comma at all. Didn't you see what
he wrote? "There's a good chance nothing will happen to you." This is
why many people choose to not wear helmets. The risk of being involved
in a head injury crash is small enough that the annoyance of a helmet
isn't worth it to them. They understand that they'd be less likely to be
injured in the event of a crash if they were wearing a helmet.

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 10th 04, 05:49 PM

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:29:56 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
> wrote:

>> The problem is that zealots like you take the statement "if you crash,
>> you are probably better off wearing a helmet" and ignore the bit
>> before the comma.

>He didn't ignore the part before the comma at all. Didn't you see what
>he wrote? "There's a good chance nothing will happen to you." This is
>why many people choose to not wear helmets. The risk of being involved
>in a head injury crash is small enough that the annoyance of a helmet
>isn't worth it to them. They understand that they'd be less likely to be
>injured in the event of a crash if they were wearing a helmet.

No, that's not actually the point. The point is that, given we have
seen in NZ that a doubling of helmet use to near 100% levels has not
changed the head injury rate, and given that helmets must prevent at
least some injuries, then they must cause at least as many as they
prevent.

The mechanism usually advanced to explain this is risk compensation.

Interestingly, of the four criteria any one of which is reckoned to
predict compensatory behaviour, cycle helmets score high on all four.

There is no doubt in my mind that the routine exaggeration of the
protective effect of helmets by the pro compulsion lobby is a
contributory cause here. And I kow they exaggerate because I have had
a pro helmet advert pulled by our advertising standards body.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Steven M. Scharf

November 10th 04, 05:50 PM

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:46:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Gentlemen, even if you don't like a person who maintains a website, that
>>doesn't mean every piece of data posted there is false!
>
>
> You mean there are facts on BHSI? Tell me it ain't so!

http://bhsi.org is a very good site.

Look at their section on Helmet and Injury Statistics. What's the
first thing thay say "They don't agree, so take your pick!" They present
all the studies, even the ones that show little benefit from helmet use.
Considering that they are a helmet advocacy organization, isn't it great
that they aren't afraid to present studies which don't support their goal.

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 10th 04, 06:04 PM

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:50:04 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
> wrote:

>> You mean there are facts on BHSI? Tell me it ain't so!

>http://bhsi.org is a pile of ****e.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

IFYPFY ;-)

>Look at their section on Helmet and Injury Statistics. What's the
>first thing thay say "They don't agree, so take your pick!" They present
>all the studies, even the ones that show little benefit from helmet use.
>Considering that they are a helmet advocacy organization, isn't it great
>that they aren't afraid to present studies which don't support their goal.

I asked Randy why he was still elading with the TR&T 85% / 88% figure
even though the authrs have pubishged revised, much lower estimates.
This is what he said:

"We are aware of the second study, but by the time it appeared
the 85% figure was so deeply ingrained in the injury
prevention community that a change will not be helpful."

Any site whihc regards "helpfulness" as more improtant than the facts
is not credible.

Here's another site which has all the facts:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org

And another

http://www.cycle-helmets.com

Avery's helmet FAQ is good too:

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/hfaq.html

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Bill Z.

November 10th 04, 10:55 PM

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:

> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 05:50:02 GMT, (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Maybe because the statistics you refer to are bogus? That's the usual
> >reason for not being able to get them published. :-)
>
> Actually it's not quite true, they are published - by the relevant
> road ministries of the countries concerned.

Krygowski complained about stuff that couldn't get published (he
didn't specify which papers he was talking about) and attempts by you
to obfuscate that won't work. You can't conclude that government
agencies do publish those things when Krygowski never said what those
things are in the first place (at must he just described them as
"results" that agreed with his viewpoint.)

<rest of Guy's nonsense ignored - he's already showed that he is just
mouthing off.>

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

November 10th 04, 10:56 PM

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:

> On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 03:11:27 GMT, (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Isn't it funny how anti-helmet people will post statements such as
> >yours while ignoring what Krygowski said, namely "Bill, I'm
> >continually astounded that you don't embarrass yourself to silence,"
>
> Have you found an anti-helmet person now, Bill? Great! After a
> couple of years active campaiginnig on the issue I have only ever met
> one, they are as rare as hens' teeth!

Oh you count. So does Burdett, Kunich, Strobl, Krygowski, and a few
other charter members of the crew.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

November 10th 04, 10:58 PM

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:

> On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 02:30:00 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
> Zaumen wrote:
>
> >> Peter, you are wasting your time. As far as Zaumen is concerned there
> >> are only two types of people in the world: people who agree with him,
> >> and liars.
>
> >Guy, of course, is lying again.
>
> I rest my case.

Typical "Guy" ploy. You get a crew of liars on one side of the issue,
and when called on their behavior, they pretend you are calling
*everyone* you disagree with a liar, and then they complain when you
point out that this statement of theirs is in fact a lie.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

November 10th 04, 11:00 PM

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:

> On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 02:32:09 GMT, (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >> >Wolfgang is back, repeating the same things he's said for years.
> >> Your house a bit short of mirrors, then, Bill?
> >More infantile name calling from Guy. What a moron.
>
> Your paranoia threshold is down on the bottom stop again, Bill. My
> comment was very mild, and I even have scriptural authority for it
> (John 8:2-11).

Pointing out these characters' track record is not "paranoia." Look
up the term if you don't know what it means.

> I am not much given to quoting scripture, but it seems appropriate in
> context :-)

Well, we are dealing with anti-helmet fanatics.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

November 10th 04, 11:01 PM

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:

> On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 02:41:02 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
> Zaumen wrote:
>
> >> >really, I was hoping for _data_, not uncorroborated opinions!
> >> LOL! Excellent use of irony, Mr. K :-)
>
> >Of course, you'll see these two completely ignore the URLs I posted,
>
> No, that's your MO. I read them. I made no comment on them anyway,
> merely on Frank's rather nice use of irony. I thought it mught help,
> since you have frequently displayed an inability to spot it unaided.

You mean you had nothing to contribute to the converstation and knew
that Krygowski was misrepresenting things, but played along with him
anyway?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

November 10th 04, 11:03 PM

Frank Krygowski > writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Frank Krygowski > writes:
> >
> >>Thanks - but what you've given there isn't much in the way of data.
> > It's a hell of a lot more data than you've produced.
>
> I'd post a rebuttal, but it's obviously unnecessary. Anyone
> interested can compare our posts to see who's putting up actual
> numbers, actual data.
>
> Carry on, Bill. You're fun to watch! ;-)
>

You are repeating yourself, no doubt in the hope that nobody will
notice that you are drawing bogus conclusions.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

November 10th 04, 11:05 PM

Frank Krygowski > writes:

> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>
> > Bill Z. wrote:
> >
> >>> http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/chart.gif
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Try again - if that's Burdett's web site I won't believe a word of
> >> it due to him having an anti-helmet axe to grind.
> > It is Burdett's site. Quite amusing to see all the mis-statements on
> > that site, but the way it's written I can see how an uninformed
> > individual could be taken in by it.
> >
>
> Gentlemen, even if you don't like a person who maintains a website,
> that doesn't mean every piece of data posted there is false!

When someone as as big an axe to grind as Burdett does, and when you
are trying to grind the same axe, it certainly is relevant. Everything
either of you two say on this subject has to be crosschecked because
both of you will spin, spin, spin.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 10th 04, 11:32 PM

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:55:10 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

>Krygowski complained about stuff that couldn't get published (he
>didn't specify which papers he was talking about) and attempts by you
>to obfuscate that won't work.

Well, Bill, we'll just have to wait and see if my own paper, recently
submitted to an internationally renowned journal, gets published.

Frank is right to say that the group of publications willing to take
sceptical papers is small, although I sense a change since the
weaknesses of observational studies have been exposed in respect of
MMR and HRT / CHD. Pless has published a paper showing that risk
compensation happens, which is progress.

Not that you'll ever know, of course, because you don't read past the
abstracts.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 10th 04, 11:34 PM

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:58:58 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

>> >> Peter, you are wasting your time. As far as Zaumen is concerned there
>> >> are only two types of people in the world: people who agree with him,
>> >> and liars.

>> >Guy, of course, is lying again.

>> I rest my case.

> [blah blah] liars [blah blah] liar [blah blah] lie.

Additional corroboration duly noted.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 10th 04, 11:36 PM

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:56:54 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

>> Have you found an anti-helmet person now, Bill? Great! After a
>> couple of years active campaiginnig on the issue I have only ever met
>> one, they are as rare as hens' teeth!

>Oh you count. So does Burdett, Kunich, Strobl, Krygowski, and a few
>other charter members of the crew.

Ah, you're still unable to distinguish an agnostic from an atheist,
then. The mark of a zealot, of course.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 10th 04, 11:39 PM

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:00:43 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

>> >> >Wolfgang is back, repeating the same things he's said for years.
>> >> Your house a bit short of mirrors, then, Bill?
>> >More infantile name calling from Guy. What a moron.

>> Your paranoia threshold is down on the bottom stop again, Bill.

>Pointing out these characters' track record is not "paranoia." Look
>up the term if you don't know what it means.

But that wasn't what I was talking about. I observed that you were
accusing others of behaviour which you yourself clearly exhibit; I did
so in a very mild way. Some people might take that as a heads-up.
You, of course, took it as an excuse for a head-up-your-own-arse.

>Well, we are dealing with anti-helmet fanatics.

Really? Where? I'm longing to meet one!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 10th 04, 11:41 PM

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:01:54 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message >:

>> >> >really, I was hoping for _data_, not uncorroborated opinions!
>> >> LOL! Excellent use of irony, Mr. K :-)

>> >Of course, you'll see these two completely ignore the URLs I posted,

>> No, that's your MO. I read them. I made no comment on them anyway,
>> merely on Frank's rather nice use of irony. I thought it mught help,
>> since you have frequently displayed an inability to spot it unaided.

>You mean you had nothing to contribute to the converstation and knew
>that Krygowski was misrepresenting things, but played along with him
>anyway?

Nope. Frank called you on your usual fact-free assertions. I
laughed. Nowt wrong with that. You are a such clown you surely must
be used to people laughing at you by now.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Peter Keller

November 11th 04, 12:42 AM

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:49:27 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:29:56 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
> > wrote:
>
>>> The problem is that zealots like you take the statement "if you crash,
>>> you are probably better off wearing a helmet" and ignore the bit
>>> before the comma.
>
>>He didn't ignore the part before the comma at all. Didn't you see what
>>he wrote? "There's a good chance nothing will happen to you." This is
>>why many people choose to not wear helmets. The risk of being involved
>>in a head injury crash is small enough that the annoyance of a helmet
>>isn't worth it to them. They understand that they'd be less likely to be
>>injured in the event of a crash if they were wearing a helmet.
>
> No, that's not actually the point. The point is that, given we have
> seen in NZ that a doubling of helmet use to near 100% levels has not
> changed the head injury rate, and given that helmets must prevent at
> least some injuries, then they must cause at least as many as they
> prevent.
>
> The mechanism usually advanced to explain this is risk compensation.
>
> Interestingly, of the four criteria any one of which is reckoned to
> predict compensatory behaviour, cycle helmets score high on all four.
>
> There is no doubt in my mind that the routine exaggeration of the
> protective effect of helmets by the pro compulsion lobby is a
> contributory cause here. And I kow they exaggerate because I have had
> a pro helmet advert pulled by our advertising standards body.
>
> Guy

There has been some comment that the reason why passing of MHL's don't
produce much in the way of positive results is because the police don't
enforce them and that many bicyclists flout the law and go lidless anyway.
I can assure you that, here in New Zealand, that is NOT the case.
Unfortunately, here in NZ riding without a helmet is not
really an option, as the police here are utterly savage and ferocious in
enforcing this stupid counterproductive law. I simply gave up after
several episodes of starting any encounter with the police from the big
disadvantage that I had already broken the law. But at least I am still
riding, not like many of my countrypeople. The numbers of child bike
riders have reduced by about 80% since this draconian law was passed and
enforced; and the number of lady bike riders by about 90%. It is rare now
to see bicycling commuters less than 35 years old.
I am fortunate to be married to a non-New Zealander, which gives me an
instant emigration possibility which I will probably take up rather soon.

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

Bill Z.

November 11th 04, 06:51 AM

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:

> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:55:10 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
> Zaumen wrote:
>
> >Krygowski complained about stuff that couldn't get published (he
> >didn't specify which papers he was talking about) and attempts by you
> >to obfuscate that won't work.
>
> Well, Bill, we'll just have to wait and see if my own paper, recently
> submitted to an internationally renowned journal, gets published.

Anyone can submit a paper, Guy, so I'm hardly impressed (particularly
with unnamed journals.) I'll snip the rest of your messages today. I
just got back from seeing a performance at the opera, only to find
that you are back into baby-talk mode, complete with infantile name
calling. Any respectable adult would quite frankly be embarassed to
behave as you do.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Peter Keller

November 11th 04, 07:09 AM

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 06:51:59 +0000, Bill Z. wrote:

> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:55:10 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
>> Zaumen wrote:
>>
>> >Krygowski complained about stuff that couldn't get published (he
>> >didn't specify which papers he was talking about) and attempts by you
>> >to obfuscate that won't work.
>>
>> Well, Bill, we'll just have to wait and see if my own paper, recently
>> submitted to an internationally renowned journal, gets published.
>
> Anyone can submit a paper, Guy, so I'm hardly impressed (particularly
> with unnamed journals.) I'll snip the rest of your messages today. I
> just got back from seeing a performance at the opera, only to find
> that you are back into baby-talk mode, complete with infantile name
> calling. Any respectable adult would quite frankly be embarassed to
> behave as you do.

I take it as a compliment to be NOT in your list of respectable adults.
However, this is irrelevant as the message is independent of the
messenger.
Biking is NOT inherently dangerous.
It is difficult to reduce an already very low death and injury rate.
Helmets have NOT been associated with ANY consistent reduction in death or
injury rate.
Personally, I find helmets ****ingly uncomfortable, and resent being made
to wear them by ANYONE.

Peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

Bill Z.

November 11th 04, 08:04 AM

Peter Keller > writes:

> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 06:51:59 +0000, Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > "Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:
> >
> >> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:55:10 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
> >> Zaumen wrote:
> >>
> >> >Krygowski complained about stuff that couldn't get published (he
> >> >didn't specify which papers he was talking about) and attempts by you
> >> >to obfuscate that won't work.
> >>
> >> Well, Bill, we'll just have to wait and see if my own paper, recently
> >> submitted to an internationally renowned journal, gets published.
> >
> > Anyone can submit a paper, Guy, so I'm hardly impressed (particularly
> > with unnamed journals.) I'll snip the rest of your messages today. I
> > just got back from seeing a performance at the opera, only to find
> > that you are back into baby-talk mode, complete with infantile name
> > calling. Any respectable adult would quite frankly be embarassed to
> > behave as you do.
>
> I take it as a compliment to be NOT in your list of respectable
> adults. However, this is irrelevant as the message is independent
> of the messenger. Biking is NOT inherently dangerous.

Trying to change the topic and pretending I was talking to you instead
of Guy? Or are you daft enough to expect me to waste *my* time
wading through insulting posts on the off change that this troll has
something reasonable to say, burried somewhere in his endless garbage?

> It is difficult to reduce an already very low death and injury rate.
> Helmets have NOT been associated with ANY consistent reduction in
> death or injury rate. Personally, I find helmets ****ingly
> uncomfortable, and resent being made to wear them by ANYONE.

Well, I'm not forcing anyone to wear one and am not lobbying for
helmet laws, so go complain about someone who is. Someone who is
is likely to be your insurance company. You might have to give
your elected representative more in campaign donations that these
companies do. Good luck.

Some of the anti-helmet have serious personal problems, as is evident
by their whining about people telling them to use helmets. I guess
they lack the intestinal fortitude to tell such a person to get lost,
so they whine here instead.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Peter Keller

November 11th 04, 08:58 AM

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:04:11 +0000, Bill Z. wrote:

>>
>> I take it as a compliment to be NOT in your list of respectable
>> adults. However, this is irrelevant as the message is independent
>> of the messenger. Biking is NOT inherently dangerous.
>
> Trying to change the topic and pretending I was talking to you instead
> of Guy? Or are you daft enough to expect me to waste *my* time
> wading through insulting posts on the off change that this troll has
> something reasonable to say, burried somewhere in his endless garbage?
>
>
>> It is difficult to reduce an already very low death and injury rate.
>> Helmets have NOT been associated with ANY consistent reduction in
>> death or injury rate. Personally, I find helmets ****ingly
>> uncomfortable, and resent being made to wear them by ANYONE.
>
> Well, I'm not forcing anyone to wear one and am not lobbying for
> helmet laws,

Thank the Lord for that!
If you would like to help us get rid of our horrible antibicycling law,
please do!

>so go complain about someone who is. Someone who is
> is likely to be your insurance company. You might have to give your
> elected representative more in campaign donations that these companies
> do. Good luck.

You have said something true, except that here in NZ such corrupt campaign
donations are illegal. However, we did get this horrible law because of
intense lobbying by a helmet company, playing on our emotions,
dangerifying bicycling and "But think of our children -- *PUKE!* more
like think of their profits!

>Some of
>the anti-helmet have serious personal problems, as is evident by
> their whining about people telling them to use helmets. I guess they
> lack the intestinal fortitude to tell such a person to get lost, so they
> whine here instead.

Some people from all flavours of opinion have serious personal problems.
I am not saying I don't. I just don't like to let them interfere with
whatever message I am trying to convey. And by responding in kind to
people who try to put me down I am merely reducing myself to below the
accusers!

Peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 11th 04, 10:41 AM

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 06:51:59 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

>> Well, Bill, we'll just have to wait and see if my own paper, recently
>> submitted to an internationally renowned journal, gets published.

>Anyone can submit a paper, Guy, so I'm hardly impressed (particularly
>with unnamed journals.)

You want me to engage in journal dropping? Very well: it is the
British Medical Journal. I have had letters published in the BMJ
before now as well. Satisfied?

>I'll snip the rest of your messages today.

Translation: "Laa laa, I'm not listening".

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 11th 04, 10:51 AM

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:04:11 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

>Trying to change the topic and pretending I was talking to you instead
>of Guy?

Welcome to Usenet, Bill, private conversations not an option. Yet
another thing you apparently don't understand.

>Some of the anti-helmet have serious personal problems, as is evident
>by their whining about people telling them to use helmets. I guess
>they lack the intestinal fortitude to tell such a person to get lost,
>so they whine here instead.

Not that you would ever dream of resorting to personal attacks, of
course, since you cry foul if anyone even goes as far as to point out
where you have contradicted yourself, but where are these
"anti-helmet" people? In two years of participation in an
international group studying helmets, I have only met one person who
is ant-helmet, and he seems to have no personal problems.

While we're on the subject, which countries show a positive
correlation between cyclist safety and helmet use? Our transport
ministry couldn't find any, so a hint would be good.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Steven M. Scharf

November 11th 04, 03:30 PM

Bill Z. wrote:
>When someone as as big an axe to grind as Burdett does, and when you are
>trying to grind the same axe, it certainly is relevant. Everything
either
>of you two say on this subject has to be crosschecked because both of you
>will spin, spin, spin.

When I see as many easily recognizable mis-statements on a site like
Burdett’s I give up on trying to cross-check, and just assume that
everything written there is wrong. There actually may be some factual
information hidden in there, but who has the time to go through it all?

Steven M. Scharf

November 11th 04, 03:33 PM

Peter Keller wrote:
>I am fortunate to be married to a non-New Zealander, which gives me an
>instant emigration possibility which I will probably take up rather soon.

Wow, you're going to leave the country rather than wear a helmet! Hmm, I
wonder if we could pass some sort of a law in the U.S. and get all the
Republicans to leave?

Steven M. Scharf

November 11th 04, 03:44 PM

Wolfgang Strobl wrote:

> Ahem. What business do people like you have with _my_ children? Thanks,
> but no thanks. I think parents have the duty to protect their children
> against the malicious claptrap of illinformed busybodies selling
> harmfull snake-oil products of all sorts. Like bicycle helmets, for
> example.

The state has all sorts of laws that force parents to engage in certain
behavior for their children. If you want your small child to ride in a
car on public roads then they have to be in a child car seat. If you
want them to go to public school then they have to be immunized. If you
want them to ride a bicycle on public roads then they have to wear a helmet.

In each case you can opt out. You can not take your child in a car, you
can do home schooling, and you can forbid them from riding a bicycle.
Whether you agree with the premise behind each law is another story.

Steven M. Scharf

November 11th 04, 03:47 PM

"Just zis Guy, you know?"
>> wrote in message
>...
>On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:50:04 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
>> wrote:

IFYPFY2! YW.

>Here's another site which has none of the facts:
>^^^^
><http://www.cyclehelmets.org>
>
>And another
>
><http://www.cycle-helmets.com>
>
>Avery's helmet FAQ is bad too:
>^^^
><http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/hfaq.html>

Very biased sites, full of misinformation. If anything, by promulgating
such tripe they increase the likelihood of MHLs being widely enacted. No
one could possibly be dumb enough to be taken in by the half-truths on
those sites (well maybe a couple of people could be). These sites do a
terrible disservice to those of us that are opposed to MHLs for _valid_
reasons, by providing ammunition to the pro-helmet law people.

Frank Krygowski

November 11th 04, 04:06 PM

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

>
>
> When I see as many easily recognizable mis-statements on a site like
> Burdett’s I give up on trying to cross-check, and just assume that
> everything written there is wrong.

That sounds oversimplified to me. Even the most one-sided sites (like,
e.g., Randy Swarts) have _some_ correct information. You just need to
learn to examine data critically.

There actually may be some factual
> information hidden in there, but who has the time to go through it all?
>

Do you at least have time to name perhaps four or five of the "so many
easily recognizable mis-statements"?

If you don't name them, we don't know if you're vaguely hinting at
actual facts, or merely displaying your personal prejudices.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 11th 04, 04:19 PM

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:47:05 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
> wrote:

> >Here's another site which has none of the facts:
> >^^^^

Except that it does. You will note that it links to abstracts, and
occasionally full text, of most of the important pro-helmet studies.

Better luck next time.

> ><http://www.cyclehelmets.org>
> ><http://www.cycle-helmets.com>
> ><http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/hfaq.html>

>Very biased sites, full of misinformation.

LOL! Said the man who linked to BHSI! Are you really that stupid?

>If anything, by promulgating
>such tripe they increase the likelihood of MHLs being widely enacted.

Really? Fascinating. The people behind the first one recently
succeeded in squashing one, so the evidence is against you there.

>These sites do a
>terrible disservice to those of us that are opposed to MHLs for _valid_
>reasons, by providing ammunition to the pro-helmet law people.

Really? Do tell: what ammunition?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 11th 04, 04:20 PM

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:33:47 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
> wrote:

>Wow, you're going to leave the country rather than wear a helmet! Hmm, I
>wonder if we could pass some sort of a law in the U.S. and get all the
>Republicans to leave?

No need, you can lock them up indefinitely without trial under the
PATRIOT act. Oh, wait...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Frank Krygowski

November 11th 04, 04:23 PM

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

> "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> >> wrote :

> ><http://www.cyclehelmets.org>
> >
> >And another
> >
> ><http://www.cycle-helmets.com>
> >
> >Avery's helmet FAQ is bad too:
> >^^^
> ><http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/hfaq.html>
>
> Very biased sites, full of misinformation. If anything, by promulgating
> such tripe they increase the likelihood of MHLs being widely enacted. No
> one could possibly be dumb enough to be taken in by the half-truths on
> those sites (well maybe a couple of people could be).

Steven seems unwilling to point to any specifics, doesn't he?

Come on, Steven. Tell us what specific points you consider
"misinformation." Maybe we can clear things up for you.

If you don't do that, you can't expect others to take you seriously!

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Steven M. Scharf

November 11th 04, 05:17 PM

Bill Z. wrote:

> Well, I'm not forcing anyone to wear one and am not lobbying for
> helmet laws, so go complain about someone who is. Someone who is
> is likely to be your insurance company. You might have to give
> your elected representative more in campaign donations that these
> companies do. Good luck.

Very true. It's the insurance lobby that has the attitude of "Let's pass
more laws to make everything safe for everybody." In Canada, one of the
justifications for the MHL is the cost of treating head injuries from
bicycle accidents, even though the number of such injuries is very small.

> Some of the anti-helmet have serious personal problems, as is evident
> by their whining about people telling them to use helmets.

The funny thing is, that no one in this thread is telling them to use
helmets. I haven't seen a single post in favor of MHLs. Their problem
seems to be a need to justify their own behavior. This thread must win
some kind of record for people who don't understand the basics of
argument--so much flawed logic.

They should read "The Language of Argument" Larry Burton & Daniel
McDonald, ISBN 0321245113. $53. It'll teach them how to argue their
point of view effectively.

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 11th 04, 05:54 PM

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:17:37 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
> wrote:

>It's the insurance lobby that has the attitude of "Let's pass
>more laws to make everything safe for everybody." In Canada, one of the
>justifications for the MHL is the cost of treating head injuries from
>bicycle accidents, even though the number of such injuries is very small.

Really? Citations? Evidence?

In the UK it is almost exclusively the handwringer lobby who are
campaigning for change inna "think of the children" stylee.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Peter Keller

November 11th 04, 09:40 PM

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:33:47 +0000, Steven M. Scharf wrote:

> Peter Keller wrote:
> >I am fortunate to be married to a non-New Zealander, which gives me an
> >instant emigration possibility which I will probably take up rather soon.
>
> Wow, you're going to leave the country rather than wear a helmet! Hmm, I
> wonder if we could pass some sort of a law in the U.S. and get all the
> Republicans to leave?

Well, that is not the only reason, it is true. There are also family and
general lifestyle reasons.
But the horrible awful terrible fascist nazi dictatorial nanny-state
busybody interfering anti-freedom police-state MHL sure has an influence
in my decision --

Peter
--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 11th 04, 09:48 PM

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:40:08 +1300, Peter Keller >
wrote in message >:

>But the horrible awful terrible fascist nazi dictatorial nanny-state
>busybody interfering anti-freedom police-state MHL sure has an influence
>in my decision --

stop pussyfooting around and tell us what you /really/ think... ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Peter Keller

November 12th 04, 02:39 AM

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:48:43 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:40:08 +1300, Peter Keller >
> wrote in message >:
>
>>But the horrible awful terrible fascist nazi dictatorial nanny-state
>>busybody interfering anti-freedom police-state MHL sure has an influence
>>in my decision --
>
> stop pussyfooting around and tell us what you /really/ think... ;-)
>
> Guy

Ummm

Well I do really think that birds are descended from and evolved from
therapod dinosaurs! :=)

Peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

Bill Z.

November 12th 04, 03:54 AM

Peter Keller > writes:

> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:04:11 +0000, Bill Z. wrote:
>
> >> It is difficult to reduce an already very low death and injury rate.
> >> Helmets have NOT been associated with ANY consistent reduction in
> >> death or injury rate. Personally, I find helmets ****ingly
> >> uncomfortable, and resent being made to wear them by ANYONE.
> >
> > Well, I'm not forcing anyone to wear one and am not lobbying for
> > helmet laws,
>
> Thank the Lord for that! If you would like to help us get rid of
> our horrible antibicycling law, please do!

You are on your own. I did write a letter or two to my state
assemblyman when a helmet law was propossed in California applying to
everyone. What we finally got (the next year) was one targeting
children but not adults. Among other things, I pointed out that we
had adults riding a mile or so per day to train station and then
taking the train into San Francisco, and that, helmet or not, this was
safer than driving the full distance because train travel is so safe.
I added that there was a vandalism problem at the station, not enough
bike lockers to go around, and that people might think twice about
leaving a helmet at the station, but carrying a helmet around all day
without a bike would be inconvenient.

> >Some of
> >the anti-helmet have serious personal problems, as is evident by
> > their whining about people telling them to use helmets. I guess they
> > lack the intestinal fortitude to tell such a person to get lost, so they
> > whine here instead.
>
> Some people from all flavours of opinion have serious personal problems.
> I am not saying I don't.

I was actually refering to someone else who whined about random people
telling them to use helmets, when they could have simply told those
people to buzz off and mind their own business.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

November 12th 04, 03:57 AM

"Steven M. Scharf" > writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>

> > Some of the anti-helmet have serious personal problems, as is evident
> > by their whining about people telling them to use helmets.
>
> The funny thing is, that no one in this thread is telling them to use
> helmets. I haven't seen a single post in favor of MHLs.

That hasn't stopped them from pretending otherwise, but they've also
complained about random people who they'd meet while riding, or about
rules in a cycling club (they didn't like my suggestion to form their
own club, which they have every right to do.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

November 12th 04, 04:11 AM

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:

> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 06:51:59 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
> Zaumen wrote:
>
> >> Well, Bill, we'll just have to wait and see if my own paper, recently
> >> submitted to an internationally renowned journal, gets published.
>
> >Anyone can submit a paper, Guy, so I'm hardly impressed (particularly
> >with unnamed journals.)
>
> You want me to engage in journal dropping? Very well: it is the
> British Medical Journal. I have had letters published in the BMJ
> before now as well. Satisfied?

No. Previously you said you didn't have time to go into something
because you had to build 25 servers. See
<http://www.google.com/groups?selm=2qahjjFqrosbU1%40uni-berlin.de&output=gplain>.
Whatever you claim, people who have to build 25 servers as part of
their jobs are not medical researchers, so my guess is that you had
some sort of "letter to the editor," not a technical publication.

So, Guy, I certainly am not impressed.

> >I'll snip the rest of your messages today.
>
> Translation: "Laa laa, I'm not listening".

If you act like a child, I'll treat you like a child.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Frank Krygowski

November 12th 04, 05:57 AM

Ken [NY] wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:02:30 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > claims:
>
>
>>Ken [NY] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:51:30 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> claims:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I seem to recall some Texas governor presiding over record numbers of
>>>>executions, while loudly calling himself a Christian. (But you're right
>>>>about televising it; that would be bad for election campaigns.)
>>>
>>>> Oh come on, Frank. I know you are not the sharpest knife in
>>>>the drawer, but surely you know that a sitting Governor does not
>>>>preside over executions. That is the job of the judicial, not the
>>>>executive branch.
>>>
>>>
>>> Frank, you were complaining that I and other conservatives
>>>don't confess our mistakes. In that light, I am still waiting for you
>>>to apologize for your above massive error.
>>
>>Perhaps I'm not perfect, Ken. But I'm not sure what you consider
>>mistaken in what I wrote.
>>
>>AFAIK, a Texas governor (like those in most other states) has the power
>>to commute or even pardon death sentences. Is that wrong? If you say
>>it is, please give some evidence.
>>
>>If that is the case, then every person executed is killed with the
>>governor's final approval. In other words, he has presiding authority.
>>
>>And as I recall, the governor in question has frequently proclaimed his
>>Christian beliefs.
>>
>>Now I'll admit, I haven't studied up on Texas law. If it turns out the
>>governor has no authority to do what I said, I'll apologize. All you've
>>got to do is demonstrate that.
>>
>>If you can't, I don't plan on answering any more of your attempts to
>>divert bike discussions into prejudiced right wing propaganda.
>
>
> TEXAS CLEMENCY PROCEDURES
>
> Powers of the Governor
>
> ** If the Board votes against clemency, the Governor has no
> independent power to commute the sentence. The Governor can only
> commute a death sentence upon the recommendation of the Board of
> Pardons and Paroles.
>
> ** Under Texas law, the Governor has the power to grant a
> condemned prisoner one 30-day stay of execution. No
> recommendation from the Board is necessary for the Governor to
> take this action. Any further executive reprieves require
> approval by the majority of the Board, who then make the
> recommendation to the Governor.
>
> ** The Governor may formally request that the Board consider
> convening a full clemency hearing to review the petition of a
> condemned prisoner.
>
> Other Sources of a Stay of Execution
>
> ** Aside from the one-time stay that the Governor may grant,
> both the Board and a court of law can issue a stay of execution
> at any time and for any duration.
> http://www.ccadp.org/TX-clemency.htm
>
> So, who "presides" over executions in Texas, Frank? I am
> awaiting your decision. Tick tick tick.

OK, if he really didn't have final authority, then I was wrong. Sorry.

I assume, then, that he did all he could for all those executed? That
is, he formally requested they consider full clemency? And he granted
stays of execution whenever possible?

After all, that seems like the Christian thing to do, under the
circumstances.

Now, before we close this off-topic conversation: Are _you_ ever going
to apologize for _your_ mistakes, 1) dragging your off-topic politics
into a bike thread, then 2) claiming that you didn't?

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 12th 04, 09:32 AM

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 04:11:27 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

>> You want me to engage in journal dropping? Very well: it is the
>> British Medical Journal. I have had letters published in the BMJ
>> before now as well. Satisfied?

>No. Previously you said you didn't have time to go into something
>because you had to build 25 servers. See
><http://www.google.com/groups?selm=2qahjjFqrosbU1%40uni-berlin.de&output=gplain>.
>Whatever you claim, people who have to build 25 servers as part of
>their jobs are not medical researchers, so my guess is that you had
>some sort of "letter to the editor," not a technical publication.

Everyone needs a hobby, Bill, and mine is road safety research. We
have an entire university in the UK made up entirely of part time and
distance learning students, most of them have day jobs. They still
get degrees and doctorates. Nobody seriously suggests that the only
valid research is carried out by full-time academic researchers.

I am a member of an international group monitoring and evaluating
helmet research, which is why I have read all those papers you cite
but have not yourself read.

>> >I'll snip the rest of your messages today.
>> Translation: "Laa laa, I'm not listening".
>If you act like a child, I'll treat you like a child.

"Acting like a child" in this case being equivalent to the Zaumen
definition of lying, i.e. disagreeing with Zaumen. I am proud to
disagree with you, Bill, since you have proven so many times that you
know not of what you write.

Feel free to use the killfile any time you like.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

B i l l S o r n s o n

November 12th 04, 04:24 PM

Ken [NY] wrote:

> But other violations are occurring as I write this. You might
> want to now police the thread about President Bush, which is raging on
> without control.

Umm, you'll have to be MUCH more specific! (Must be, like, 7 or 8 of 'em,
right?)

--
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
- Joseph Joubert
{BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA}

Bill Z.

November 13th 04, 02:23 AM

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:

> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 04:11:27 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
> Zaumen wrote:
>
> >> You want me to engage in journal dropping? Very well: it is the
> >> British Medical Journal. I have had letters published in the BMJ
> >> before now as well. Satisfied?
>
> >No. Previously you said you didn't have time to go into something
> >because you had to build 25 servers. See
> ><http://www.google.com/groups?selm=2qahjjFqrosbU1%40uni-berlin.de&output=gplain>.
> >Whatever you claim, people who have to build 25 servers as part of
> >their jobs are not medical researchers, so my guess is that you had
> >some sort of "letter to the editor," not a technical publication.
>
> Everyone needs a hobby, Bill, and mine is road safety research.

Just as I thought - a rank amateur.

>
> >> >I'll snip the rest of your messages today.
> >> Translation: "Laa laa, I'm not listening".
> >If you act like a child, I'll treat you like a child.
>
> "Acting like a child" in this case being equivalent to the Zaumen
> definition of lying, i.e. disagreeing with Zaumen. I am proud to
> disagree with you, Bill, since you have proven so many times that
> you know not of what you write.

Typical ploy - complain that someone will accuse you of lying as
you post a lie so you can say, "see?"

The facts are that you *are* acting like a child with your repeated
infantile name calling. It makes you look like an idiot.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Frank Krygowski

November 13th 04, 04:36 AM

Bill Z. wrote:

> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:
>
>>Everyone needs a hobby, Bill, and mine is road safety research.
>
>
> Just as I thought - a rank amateur.

So was Alexander Borodin, as I recall. (One of Russia's greatest
composers, but a professional chemist.)

So were the Wright Brothers. (Bike mechanics who trounced the
well-financed Langley by inventing the airplane.)

So was Albert Einsten. (Professional patent clerk; developed the theory
of relativity in his spare time.)

From what I've seen, Guy is more than competent to discuss and write
about these matters. A degree in engineering goes a long way in a
technical discussion.

Of course, if _you're_ a professional in road safety, that can be used
to your advantage. Some people will give extra credence to
professionals, whether they deserve it or not.

But I don't remember you ever stating such qualifications! What,
exactly, was your profession?

Certainly _you're_ not a rank amatuer in road safety... are you??

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

November 13th 04, 04:48 AM

Ken [NY] wrote:

>
> In view of your above honesty, yes I (1) now hereby apologize
> for injecting off-topic issues and for (2) breaking your chops by
> refusing to admit that I did.
> But other violations are occurring as I write this. You might
> want to now police the thread about President Bush, which is raging on
> without control.

Sorry, I don't attempt to police threads in general. Only the most
egregious and obnoxious off-topic, prejudical rantings draw my
complaints. Especially when the offenders lie blatantly about what
they've done!

But thanks for the apology, even if it required extreme measures to get
it! ;-)

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Bill Z.

November 13th 04, 05:17 AM

Frank Krygowski > writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > "Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:
> >
> >> Everyone needs a hobby, Bill, and mine is road safety research.
> > Just as I thought - a rank amateur.
>
> So was Alexander Borodin, as I recall. (One of Russia's greatest
> composers, but a professional chemist.)

In his teens, Borodin could speak German, French, Italian and English,
as well as play the piano, flute and cello. See
<http://www.lessontutor.com/bf_borodin.html>, which also points out
that "How Borodin managed to find time for music remains a mystery,
but in 1864 he met Balakirev, and through him Cui, Mussorgsky, and
Rimsky-Korsakov." We can conclude that we was well trained as a
musician and composer, even though he personally claimed to be just
a dilettante.

> So were the Wright Brothers. (Bike mechanics who trounced the
> well-financed Langley by inventing the airplane.)

Actually, they ran a company that both manufactured and repaired
bicycles. While their formal education ended after high school,
they studied engineering on their own. See
<http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/wrightbros.htm>.

>
> So was Albert Einsten. (Professional patent clerk; developed the
> theory of relativity in his spare time.)

Albert Einstein earned his PhD. From the University of ZÃ¼rich in 1905,
the same year in which he wrote papers on special relativity, the
photoelectric effect, and statistical mechanics. To try to pass a
graduate student off as a random "patent clerk," and thus conclude
that some random person like Guy has anything useful to contribute,
is just plain silly.

> From what I've seen, Guy is more than competent to discuss and write
> about these matters. A degree in engineering goes a long way in a
> technical discussion.

I've yet to see any proof of competence from Guy, a mindless troll
who posts continued insults worthy of a 2 year old boy. To compare
him with Borodin, Wilbur and Orville Wright, and Albert Einstein as
you are trying to is the height of absurdity.

> Of course, if _you're_ a professional in road safety, that can be used
> to your advantage. Some people will give extra credence to
> professionals, whether they deserve it or not.
>
> But I don't remember you ever stating such qualifications! What,
> exactly, was your profession?

Why should I state them when I'd just be throwing pearls before
swine? Oh, and my impression of Guy is that he is a pretty low
level person at work. The really talented people don't get tasks
like putting 25 servers together (he didn't say what sort of servers,
but I'd presume he means x86 systems, in which case he is basically
plugging cards into slots and loading an OS.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 13th 04, 01:13 PM

Steven M. Scharf > wrote:

> > No, you're right - those who draw invalid conclusions from
> > observational studies use them to try to ram through legislation,
> > whereas I am not trying to compel anyone to do anything beyond think
> > for themselves.

> Ah, but on Usenet, you see that people don't think, they argue, mostly
> ineffectively, in an attempt to convince others that whatever behavior they
> engage in is right. And unfortunately, as many posts in this thread
> demonstrate, they lack the logic skills to convince anyone. Just look at the
> posts by Roger and Frank!

Vaid point, invalid example. Roger and Frank have, looking back on past
threads, persuaded a lot of poeple to move to an evidence-based approach
instead of the helmet zealots' religious fervour for PFDBs.

> The key to defeating MHLs is not to babble like Frank and Roger, it is to
> formulate a position based on factual information.

You're not listening are you? I *know* how to defeat a helmet law,
because I have already done it once. Here is a resource:

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/Martlew_Bill

> You will never convince
> politicians to listen to you, as opposed to listening to ER and trauma
> physicians, in regards to the statistics on the severity of injuries of
> helmeted versus non-helmeted patients; you have no data only speculation.

Wrong again. I, and others, have done exactly that. I have letters
from politicans thankging people for bringing the conflicting evidence
to their attention, and expressing amazement that it was not more widely
understood.

> If you use the personal freedom argument they'll counter with the seat belt
> argument.

Which is excellent, because you can point them to the Isles Report and
Wilde and Adams' work and really bring them up short.

> One valid argument is to look at the percentage of catastrophic
> head injuries incurred by bicyclists as a percentage of all catastrophic
> head injuries, but the MHL people will counter that even if this is true,
> any reduction is worth it. The New Zealand statistics regarding reduction of
> bicycling after MHL represent a good argument (if they are true).

They are true, as are the figures from Australia. Even within Canada
there is evidence to show tha laws reduce cycling if they are enforced
at all.

But the point about cyclistst as a % of all head trauma is only half the
picture. Cyclists have no higher percentage of head injuries than
pedestrians. Think about that for a minute. If you are involved in a
crash as a cyclist, you are no more likely to suffer head injury than if
youare involved in a crash when walking - an activity which nobody
suggests is unusually hazardous.

There is, quite simply, no evidential basis for the idea that cycling is
either unusually dangerous or unusually productive of head injuries.
Just as there is no evidential basis for the idea that large scale
helmet has any effect on that level of risk.

So the real message to get to politicians is that helmet laws are an
ineffective solution to a non-existent problem!

--
Guy

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 13th 04, 01:13 PM

Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen >
wrote:

> You are repeating yourself, no doubt in the hope that nobody will
> notice that you are drawing bogus conclusions.

Close - he was rebutting them, not drawing them. But we all knew what
you meant.

--
Guy

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 13th 04, 01:13 PM

Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:

> > Everyone needs a hobby, Bill, and mine is road safety research.
> Just as I thought - a rank amateur.

First, how many people on this NG are full-time experts on cycle
helmets? I only know one person who is a full-time expert on cycle
helmets, he runs a company which tests them. I know one man who is a
full-time cycle safety (an expert witness and author of a standard text
on cycling). That's out of maybe 150 cycling and heelmt campaigners I
know. So we are all amateurs.

Second, if you're so smart, how come everything you popst on the subject
of helmets turns out to be bull****? No, don't ansdwer that, it was
rhetorical.

> > "Acting like a child" in this case being equivalent to the Zaumen
> > definition of lying, i.e. disagreeing with Zaumen. I am proud to
> > disagree with you, Bill, since you have proven so many times that
> > you know not of what you write.

> Typical ploy - complain that someone will accuse you of lying as
> you post a lie so you can say, "see?"

Precisely, Bill, that's exactly what you were doing. But as you have
evidently worked out by now, you've been rumbled.

> The facts are that you *are* acting like a child with your repeated
> infantile name calling. It makes you look like an idiot.

Pause while we all recover ourselves after seeing Zamuie accuse someone
else of "looking like an idiot!" ******.

--
Guy

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 13th 04, 01:13 PM

Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen >
wrote:

> In his teens, Borodin could speak German, French, Italian and English,
> as well as play the piano, flute and cello. [blah blah]

But did he wear a helmet when cycling?

> > So were the Wright Brothers. (Bike mechanics who trounced the
> > well-financed Langley by inventing the airplane.)

> Actually, they ran a company that both manufactured and repaired
> bicycles.

No helmets, though. How they survived beyond childhood is a mystery,
riding those lethal machines...

> > From what I've seen, Guy is more than competent to discuss and write
> > about these matters. A degree in engineering goes a long way in a
> > technical discussion.

> I've yet to see any proof of competence from Guy, a mindless troll
> who posts continued insults worthy of a 2 year old boy.

If only your opinion was worth anything I'd be offended :-)

> Why should I state them when I'd just be throwing pearls before
> swine? Oh, and my impression of Guy is that he is a pretty low
> level person at work. The really talented people don't get tasks
> like putting 25 servers together (he didn't say what sort of servers,
> but I'd presume he means x86 systems, in which case he is basically
> plugging cards into slots and loading an OS.)

Bill, you simply have no idea. None whatsoever. But as Frank says, if
you are going to poke fun at other people's jobs, you had better be
honest about what you do (OK, I know you don't "do" honest, but you can
look it up in the dictionary and have a go).

I am open about what I do for a living, whereas you won't even reveal
the make of helmet you wear. ******.

--
Guy

Frank Krygowski

November 13th 04, 04:44 PM

Bill Z. wrote:
> Frank Krygowski > writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>>Just as I thought - a rank amateur.
>>
>>So was Alexander Borodin, as I recall. (One of Russia's greatest
>>composers, but a professional chemist.)
>
.... We can conclude that we was well trained as a
> musician and composer, even though he personally claimed to be just
> a dilettante.

I see the source of your confusion! You don't understand what "amateur"
means! An amateur is a person who pursues an activity for reasons other
than monetary gain. For the love of the activity, as it were.

A person can be very knowledgeable, even very well trained in a field,
yet be an amateur. I'd say Guy qualifies.

>>So were the Wright Brothers. (Bike mechanics who trounced the
>>well-financed Langley by inventing the airplane.)
>
>
> Actually, they ran a company that both manufactured and repaired
> bicycles. While their formal education ended after high school,
> they studied engineering on their own.

Exactly. They were not professional engineers. (Nor were they
Professional Engineers, in the official sense!) Yet those amateurs
succeeded where the world's professionals failed.

>>So was Albert Einsten. (Professional patent clerk; developed the
>>theory of relativity in his spare time.)
>
> Albert Einstein earned his PhD. From the University of ZÃ¼rich in 1905...

Oh, he was well qualified! Lots of amateurs are!

And by the way, let's inject an on-topic fact: My office wall has a
photo of Einstein smiling and riding a bicycle.

Of course, he's wearing no helmet!

Regarding the level of professionalism in these helmet discussions: I'm
personally aware of two people who's professional work has intersected
with this issue, and who have contributed extensively to the Usenet
discussions on helmets.

One person spent years as a bicycle safety researcher, working for a
certain state government. The other is a professional research
statistician who's authored several professional, refereed papers on the
statistics related to bike helmets.

Both of these professionals are helmet skeptics. Admittedly, neither
has been posting here recently - largely due to the frustration of
dealing with people like Bill Zaumen!

>>Of course [Bill], if _you're_ a professional in road safety, that can be used
>>to your advantage. Some people will give extra credence to
>>professionals, whether they deserve it or not.
>>
>>But I don't remember you ever stating such qualifications! What,
>>exactly, was your profession?
>
>
> Why should I state them when I'd just be throwing pearls before
> swine?

:-) Or more truthfully, why should you state them when that would just
make you look even more like a fool?

Carry on, Bill! You're fun to watch! ;-)

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Bill Z.

November 13th 04, 05:11 PM

(Just zis Guy, you know?) writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen >
> wrote:
>
> > You are repeating yourself, no doubt in the hope that nobody will
> > notice that you are drawing bogus conclusions.
>
> Close - he was rebutting them, not drawing them. But we all knew what
> you meant.

I take it you snipped what I was replying to because the context
would show that you are wrong, and you are *still* engaging in
your infantile name calling. You really do make yourself look
like a moron when you do that.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

November 13th 04, 05:14 PM

(Just zis Guy, you know?) writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen >
> wrote:
>
> > In his teens, Borodin could speak German, French, Italian and English,
> > as well as play the piano, flute and cello. [blah blah]
>
> But did he wear a helmet when cycling?

<plonk>. I'll snip everything you say today, Guy. You obviously
have nothing to contribute to a discussion.

> Bill, you simply have no idea. None whatsoever. But as Frank says, if
> you are going to poke fun at other people's jobs, you had better be
> honest about what you do (OK, I know you don't "do" honest, but you can
> look it up in the dictionary and have a go).

I didn't make claims about trying to publish somehting in the BMJ.
Researchers typically wait until a paper is accepted before saying
anything about where it was submitted. You were simply trying to
buff your credentials.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

November 13th 04, 05:26 PM

Frank Krygowski > writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Frank Krygowski > writes:
> >
> >>Bill Z. wrote:
> >>
> >>>Just as I thought - a rank amateur.
> >>
> >>So was Alexander Borodin, as I recall. (One of Russia's greatest
> >>composers, but a professional chemist.)
> >
> ... We can conclude that we was well trained as a
> > musician and composer, even though he personally claimed to be just
> > a dilettante.
>
> I see the source of your confusion! You don't understand what
> "amateur" means! An amateur is a person who pursues an activity for
> reasons other than monetary gain. For the love of the activity, as it
> were.
>
> A person can be very knowledgeable, even very well trained in a field,
> yet be an amateur. I'd say Guy qualifies.

Oh please. The word "amateur" has several meanings and it was damn
obvious which one I was using. You know, definition 3 in
Marriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, namely, "one lacking
experience and competence in an art or science." So, as is typical
of you, you are committed the logical fallacy of equivocation.
Of course, in your case, I suspect you do this on purpose, since
your main modus operandi is to spin, spin, spin.

>
> >>So were the Wright Brothers. (Bike mechanics who trounced the
> >>well-financed Langley by inventing the airplane.)
> > Actually, they ran a company that both manufactured and repaired
> > bicycles. While their formal education ended after high school,
> > they studied engineering on their own.
>
> Exactly. They were not professional engineers. (Nor were they
> Professional Engineers, in the official sense!) Yet those amateurs
> succeeded where the world's professionals failed.

More equivocation.
>
> >>So was Albert Einsten. (Professional patent clerk; developed the
> >>theory of relativity in his spare time.)
> > Albert Einstein earned his PhD. From the University of ZÃ¼rich in
> > 1905...
>
> Oh, he was well qualified! Lots of amateurs are!

Graduate students are not amateurs.

> And by the way, let's inject an on-topic fact: My office wall has a
> photo of Einstein smiling and riding a bicycle.
>
> Of course, he's wearing no helmet!

..... with that well known picture taken decades before helmets were
invented.

>
> Regarding the level of professionalism in these helmet discussions:
> I'm personally aware of two people who's professional work has
> intersected with this issue, and who have contributed extensively to
> the Usenet discussions on helmets.
>
> One person spent years as a bicycle safety researcher, working for a
> certain state government. The other is a professional research
> statistician who's authored several professional, refereed papers on
> the statistics related to bike helmets.
>
> Both of these professionals are helmet skeptics. Admittedly, neither
> has been posting here recently - largely due to the frustration of
> dealing with people like Bill Zaumen!

Both of these people you mentioned are un-named and probably for a
good reason. One engaged in the same sort of infantile name calling
that Guy is famous for, ragging on and on for a month straight.
Sorry Kryowski, your spinnning won't work.

> > Why should I state them when I'd just be throwing pearls before
> > swine?
>
> :-) Or more truthfully, why should you state them when that would
> just make you look even more like a fool?

Nope ... any credentials are far more impressive than yours, actually.
I just don't want to embarass you.

> Carry on, Bill! You're fun to watch! ;-)

You're fun to watch too - you are obviously training for a position
with that slimeball Karl Rove, and are pretty amateurish about it
(in sense '3' above.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 13th 04, 09:12 PM

Steven M. Scharf > wrote:

> You have two camps, both hardline, which makes
> for bad laws.

Which is the other hardline camp? I know a lot of pro-helmet zealots,
but no anti-helmet zealots. I know only one person who is anti-hemet at
all.

You appear to be confusing agnostics with atheists here.

--
Guy

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 13th 04, 09:12 PM

Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen >
wrote:

> I take it you snipped what I was replying to because the context
> would show that you are wrong

Close, but actually I snipped it because it was ****e. ******.

--
Guy

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 13th 04, 09:12 PM

Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen >
wrote:

> <plonk>. I'll snip everything you say today, Guy. You obviously
> have nothing to contribute to a discussion.

Translation: "Laa laa, I'm not listening"

> I didn't make claims about trying to publish somehting in the BMJ.
> Researchers typically wait until a paper is accepted before saying
> anything about where it was submitted. You were simply trying to
> buff your credentials.

Nope. You asked so I said. ******.

--
Guy

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 13th 04, 09:12 PM

Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:

> Oh please. The word "amateur" has several meanings and it was damn
> obvious which one I was using. You know, definition 3 in
> Marriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, namely, "one lacking
> experience and competence in an art or science."

Whereas we know your expertise is unassailable because you have told us
so much about your qualifications, experience, what helmet you wear...

******.

--
Guy

Bill Z.

November 13th 04, 09:34 PM

(Just zis Guy, you know?) writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen >
> wrote:
>
> > I take it you snipped what I was replying to because the context
> > would show that you are wrong
>
> Close, but actually I snipped it because it was ****e. ******.

Anyone who would believe you should contact me about a bridge I have
for sale. And you are *still* engaged in infantile name calling,
proving yourself to have the majurity of a 12 year old boy.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

November 13th 04, 09:41 PM

(Just zis Guy, you know?) writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen >
> wrote:
>
> > <plonk>. I'll snip everything you say today, Guy. You obviously
> > have nothing to contribute to a discussion.
>
> Translation: "Laa laa, I'm not listening"

Back to your time-out, little boy. You obviously have nothing to
say so I'll flush your other messages from today as well

> > I didn't make claims about trying to publish somehting in the BMJ.
> > Researchers typically wait until a paper is accepted before saying
> > anything about where it was submitted. You were simply trying to
> > buff your credentials.
>
> Nope. You asked so I said. ******.

You are just quibbling. You claimed a highly respected journal. It
really doesn't matter if it was named in your original message or not.
You've obviously no clue, Guy. Reasearchers just don't go around
pubically announcing "I've submitted a paper a prestigious journal"
when said paper hasn't been accepted, regardless of whether the
journal is specified by name or not.

Face it, Guy, you tried to puff up your quals and got caught.
Why don't you act like a man instead of a child and admit it?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

November 13th 04, 09:43 PM

(Just zis Guy, you know?) writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:
>
> > Oh please. The word "amateur" has several meanings and it was damn
> > obvious which one I was using. You know, definition 3 in
> > Marriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, namely, "one lacking
> > experience and competence in an art or science."
>
> Whereas we know your expertise is unassailable because you have told us
> so much about your qualifications, experience, what helmet you wear...

I didn't make any claims about publications regarding helmets, did I?

>
> ******.

Oooh. Do you think this is your 9th grade gym class?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 13th 04, 10:07 PM

Bill Z. > wrote:

> Anyone who would believe you should contact me about a bridge I have
> for sale.

Of course they should believe you instead, Bill, because as we know your
beliefs are untainted by tiresome facts or knowledge, which means you
can purvey certainties in a world wewhere there are none - and provide
citations to back it up (provided they believe your idea of what they
say rather than the actual text).

******.

--
Guy

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 13th 04, 10:07 PM

Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen >
wrote:

> Back to your time-out, little boy. You obviously have nothing to
> say so I'll flush your other messages from today as well

You said you were ignoring the rest of my posts from today. Lying
******.

--
Guy

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 13th 04, 10:07 PM

> Back to your time-out, little boy. You obviously have nothing to
> say so I'll flush your other messages from today as well

You said you were ignoring the rest of my posts from today. Lying
******.

> You are just quibbling. You claimed a highly respected journal.

Bill, the first time I posted I did not name the journal. You pursued
it. Clearly, though, your publication history is long and glorious: do
post it.

> Reasearchers just don't go around
> pubically announcing "I've submitted a paper a prestigious journal"

Actually they do, when it is relevant.

> Face it, Guy, you tried to puff up your quals and got caught.

Nope. I am completely open and honest about my qualifications,
experience, and pretty much everything else. Whereas you won't even say
what helmet you wear when it's germane to the argument. That's because
you're a ******.

******.

--
Guy

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 13th 04, 10:07 PM

Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:

> > Whereas we know your expertise is unassailable because you have told us
> > so much about your qualifications, experience, what helmet you wear...

> I didn't make any claims about publications regarding helmets, did I?

No indeed, you have repeatedly demonstrated a profound and far-reaching
ignorance of the subject.

******.

--
Guy

Frank Krygowski

November 14th 04, 03:49 PM

Bill Z. wrote:
> Frank Krygowski > writes:
>
> [BZ:]
> Graduate students are not amateurs.

:-) Hilarious!

I'll grant you, I've known some "professional students," but that phrase
is used as a joke.

>
> [fk:]
>>And by the way, let's inject an on-topic fact: My office wall has a
>>photo of Einstein smiling and riding a bicycle.
>>
>>Of course, he's wearing no helmet!
>
>
> .... with that well known picture taken decades before helmets were
> invented.

And yet, there was no epidemic of serious head injuries among cyclists
like Einstein.

Of course, there never _has_ been an epidemic of serious head injuries
among cyclists. If Bell didn't have a commercial product to sell, then
to this day, you wouldn't hear a word about cycling head injuries.
They're such a minor thing that they're completely off the radar.

> Nope ... any credentials are far more impressive than yours, actually.
> I just don't want to embarass you.

Hah! You spend most of your time online insulting others, attempting to
embarrass them! If you had anything impressive to say about yourself,
I'm sure it would have come out long ago!

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Dan

November 14th 04, 04:28 PM

Frank Krygowski > wrote in news:41977e47
@news.ysu.edu:

>
>
> Hah! You spend most of your time online insulting others, attempting to
> embarrass them! If you had anything impressive to say about yourself,
> I'm sure it would have come out long ago!
>
>

Perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black!

Bill Z.

November 14th 04, 04:33 PM

Frank Krygowski > writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Frank Krygowski > writes:
> > [BZ:]
> > Graduate students are not amateurs.
>
> :-) Hilarious!
>
> I'll grant you, I've known some "professional students," but that
> phrase is used as a joke.

You are now reduced to suggesting a Nobel Prize winner was an "amateur
scientist" while he was a graduate student doing the work that earned
him his Nobel Prize. And you are once again equivocating on the
word amateur, this time obviously on purpose since you carefully
snipped the definition of "amateur" that was relevant, where I pointed
out your fallacy.

> And yet, there was no epidemic of serious head injuries among cyclists
> like Einstein.

Given that the picture, if it is the well-known one I've seen, shows
him on a utility bike, probably on a university campus, and probably
ridden for short distances, what precisely is your point? A point,
that is, other than to mention Einstein to distract attention from
your equivocation on the word "amateur" (using it in two different
senses to create yet another bogus "argument.") Or are you actually
saying that people who use bicycles casually and for short distances
at low speed have a low risk of a bicycle accident due to not riding
very much? Well, if that is your "point" then you should go around
discouraging cycling!

> Hah! You spend most of your time online insulting others, attempting
> to embarrass them! If you had anything impressive to say about
> yourself, I'm sure it would have come out long ago!

More spin from Krygowksi. As his friend Guy posts personal attack
after personal attck, Krygowksi now whines (I guess) that calling
Guy's attacks baby talk, which is what they are, is somehow an insult.
Or maybe he thinks it is "insulting" to suggest that his use of
well-known logical fallacies are just that.

But, to be extra polite to Krygowski, perhaps he could answer a
simple question. When he posts an obviously fallacious argument,
is he being dumb (i.e., making a logic error) or sleazy (i.e.,
trying to pull the wool over his readers' eyes)? Then we can
attribute his behavior to whatever he finds least offensive.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 14th 04, 05:40 PM

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:49:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> wrote in message >:

>> Nope ... any credentials are far more impressive than yours, actually.
>> I just don't want to embarass you.

>Hah! You spend most of your time online insulting others, attempting to
>embarrass them! If you had anything impressive to say about yourself,
>I'm sure it would have come out long ago!

But at least we now know why he works so hard to ensure that no trace
of intelligence or knowledge makes it into this posts - it's to stop
us feeling inferior. Kind of him, really.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Frank Krygowski

November 14th 04, 05:55 PM

Dan wrote:

> Frank Krygowski > wrote in news:41977e47
> @news.ysu.edu:
>
>
>>
>>Hah! You spend most of your time online insulting others, attempting to
>>embarrass them! If you had anything impressive to say about yourself,
>>I'm sure it would have come out long ago!
>>
>>
>
>
> Perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black!

I don't think so, Dan.

Sort your list by sender and read all my posts.

I'll admit that I can be provoked, and I suppose that at those times, I
should do a better job of turning the other cheek. But I think most of
my time online is devoted to posting factual information. Numbers,
citations, quotes from papers, plus of course the conclusions one can
draw from such data.

I suppose you could count lines of posts, and see what percentage of my
posts are factual, versus making fun of Bill. I'd be as interested in
the total as anyone. (Well, probably _more_ interested than anyone!)

As to my qualifications: if you're interested, Dan, e-mail me directly
and I'll give you some of my background. I think most people would
judge me competent to discuss these matters, both by experience and by
training.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Steven M. Scharf

November 15th 04, 03:15 AM

Chris B. wrote:

> I wonder why. Are you aware that mandatory helmet laws implemented in
> Alberta, Nova Scotia, New Zealand and parts of Australia have not only
> not shown benefits but have actually had negative effects (decreased
> numbers of cyclists in all cases and sometimes an increase in the rate
> of head injury after the law is enacted)?

You have to be very careful when you try to attribute the increase in
the rate of head injuries to a mandatory helmet law. What is almost
certainly happening (assuming the statements you make above are
accurate) is that you're getting an increase in less experienced riders
that are more likely to be involved in a crash, and a decrease in the
more experienced riders that are less likely to crash.

The MHLs are pushed through by naive politicians that look at one
statistic only. That statistic is the comparatvive severity of head
injuries crashes between helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists. They don't
look at who is less likely to get in an accident in the first place, and
they don't care about decreased number of cyclists (or they don't
believe that the numbers will decrease).

Stopping the MHLs is difficult. You have doctors publicly pushing for
these laws, with the backing of the helmet manufacturers. The doctors
are looking at the situation only from the position of relative head
injury severity, and the politicians are listening to them.

Bill Z.

November 15th 04, 05:37 AM

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:

> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:49:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > wrote in message >:
>
> >Hah! You spend most of your time online insulting others, attempting to
> >embarrass them! If you had anything impressive to say about yourself,
> >I'm sure it would have come out long ago!
>
> But at least we now know why he works so hard to ensure that no trace
> of intelligence or knowledge makes it into this posts - it's to stop
> us feeling inferior. Kind of him, really.

You know absolutely nothing about me. It may surprise the likes of
you and Krygowksi, but I some of us really don't feel a need to
brag, least of all when replying to yahoos who post nothing but
infantile insults.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Peter Keller

November 15th 04, 07:10 AM

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 03:15:03 +0000, Steven M. Scharf wrote:

> Chris B. wrote:
>
>> I wonder why. Are you aware that mandatory helmet laws implemented in
>> Alberta, Nova Scotia, New Zealand and parts of Australia have not only
>> not shown benefits but have actually had negative effects (decreased
>> numbers of cyclists in all cases and sometimes an increase in the rate
>> of head injury after the law is enacted)?
>
> You have to be very careful when you try to attribute the increase in
> the rate of head injuries to a mandatory helmet law. What is almost
> certainly happening (assuming the statements you make above are
> accurate) is that you're getting an increase in less experienced riders
> that are more likely to be involved in a crash, and a decrease in the
> more experienced riders that are less likely to crash.
>
> The MHLs are pushed through by naive politicians that look at one
> statistic only. That statistic is the comparatvive severity of head
> injuries crashes between helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists. They don't
> look at who is less likely to get in an accident in the first place, and
> they don't care about decreased number of cyclists (or they don't
> believe that the numbers will decrease).
>
> Stopping the MHLs is difficult. You have doctors publicly pushing for
> these laws,

Not this doctor. I was previously vaguely, if unenthusiastically, in
favour of MHL's; naively believing in the propaganda that serious head
injuries are reduced by about 30%, and that any reduction was worthwhile.
But I then made the mistake of actually taking the trouble to read up
about it.

with the backing of the helmet manufacturers. The doctors
> are looking at the situation only from the position of relative head
> injury severity, and the politicians are listening to them.

Many other medical people seem to be also against MHLs. One neurosurgeon
at the hospital where I work has grave doubts that 1 inch of hard
polystyrofoam could do anything much useful, while another was very
concerned about the potential for making neck injuries worse. And even if
the 30% reduction oin head injuries were true, this has to be balanced
against
1) Head injuries to bicyclists are very rare, anyway; rarer than to
pedestrians and many other road users, and
2) The big negative comnnotations that are associated with MHLs have to be
balanced against this (dubious) benefit.

Peter Keller MB ChB FANZCA

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 15th 04, 12:06 PM

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 05:37:35 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

>> But at least we now know why he works so hard to ensure that no trace
>> of intelligence or knowledge makes it into this posts - it's to stop
>> us feeling inferior. Kind of him, really.

>You know absolutely nothing about me.

On the contrary, we know a number of things. We know, for example,
that you rarely, if ever, read the links you post or the papers you
cite. We know that you are a True Believer. And we know that your
response to documented facts you don't like is to ignore, evade,
repudiate or attack the messenger, but never to study or to advance
informed criticism.

We know, in short, that whatever your field of expertise may be,
helmets ain't it.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 15th 04, 12:11 PM

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 03:15:03 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
> wrote:

>You have to be very careful when you try to attribute the increase in
>the rate of head injuries to a mandatory helmet law.

For exactly the same reasons as you have to be very careful in
attributing to helmets the difference between injured and non-injured
cyclists. I for one am not suggesting that helmet laws necessarily
cause increased head injury rates, simply that they have never caused
reduced head injury rates. Since that is the reason they are
introduced, they clearly don't work.

The best argument in my view is the graph shown on this document:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2007.pdf

Note the complete absence of any correlation between cyclist head
injury rates and helmet use.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Steven M. Scharf

November 15th 04, 04:02 PM

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> I for one am not suggesting that helmet laws necessarily
> cause increased head injury rates, simply that they have never caused
> reduced head injury rates. Since that is the reason they are
> introduced, they clearly don't work.

That is not the reason why they are introduced. They are introduced
becasue they have been proven to reduce the severity of head injuries in
crashes where head injuries occur. The proponents may imply that injury
rates will also come down, but this is not their main argument. The
proponents have shifted the debate to get people to look only at their
individual chance of head injury, if involved in a crash where head
injuries occur. It's very clever, because there is no credible argument
against the fact that helmets do reduce the severity of head injuries.

> The best argument in my view is the graph shown on this document:
> http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2007.pdf

This is not the measurement that MHL proponents look at. And in any case
it's a very weak document, as are most documents on that site. The first
thing they try to do is to discount scalp lacerations as a head injury,
which is pretty lame.

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 15th 04, 04:52 PM

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:02:07 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
> wrote:

>> I for one am not suggesting that helmet laws necessarily
>> cause increased head injury rates, simply that they have never caused
>> reduced head injury rates. Since that is the reason they are
>> introduced, they clearly don't work.

>That is not the reason why they are introduced. They are introduced
>becasue they have been proven to reduce the severity of head injuries in
>crashes where head injuries occur.

No, that is actually a core fallacy of helmet proponents. What has
actually happened is that some samples of helmeted cyclists in
jurisdictions without compulsion have been observed to have fewer head
injuries than some samples of unhelmeted cyclists. That is quite
different.

When you have very high rates of wearing this effect vanishes. So in
Australia the proportion of head injured cyclists who were helmeted at
the time of the crash is the same as the proportion who wear helmets -
around 80%.

The word "proven" is false since the studies in question are
observational studies and represent the researcher's estimate of the
relative weight of the target intervention versus the various
confounding factors. It is, in short, a guess, and the confidence
intervals and the wide range of estimates reflect that.

>The proponents may imply that injury
>rates will also come down, but this is not their main argument. The
>proponents have shifted the debate to get people to look only at their
>individual chance of head injury, if involved in a crash where head
>injuries occur. It's very clever, because there is no credible argument
>against the fact that helmets do reduce the severity of head injuries.

Yes there is, see above.

>> The best argument in my view is the graph shown on this document:
>> http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2007.pdf

>This is not the measurement that MHL proponents look at. And in any case
>it's a very weak document, as are most documents on that site. The first
>thing they try to do is to discount scalp lacerations as a head injury,
>which is pretty lame.

You think it's worth enacting a law to prevent cuts and grazes? It's
a perfectly reasonable comment to make. The Liddites are shouting
"BIKE DANGER!!!" and making up^w^w quoting figures in the tens and
hundreds of thousands for "head injuries", knowing full well that the
vast majority of those injuries are trivial. It's almost as if the
problem is not big enough without they sex it up a little. Or rather,
a lot. The prime offender in the UK is BHIT, whose estimate of
100,000 BIKE DANGER!!! injuries is widely quoted. Of these around a
quarter get some kind of medical treatment (e.g. minor injury clinic),
2,000 make it as far as hospital admission, and only around 500 are
actually serious (most are overnight observation, released without
further treatment). They also quote a figure of 50 fatalities, which
is "an estimate based on under-reporting". All child cycling
fatalities in recent years have been road traffic, and the figure for
under-reporting of fatal road traffic injuries is officially zero
percent. I know of no other body which claims significant
under-reporting of child fatalities in the UK.

But this is beside point, and you have evidently missed that point:
look at the graph, and see if you can spot the correlation between
helmet use and cyclist head injury trends. These are the *same
figures* which the New Zealand Government uses to claim the lid law is
a success, and the *same figures* which Liddites are currently using
in the UK to claim that "helmet laws are associated with significant
reductions in head injuries". The only difference is the
presentation. They present them as numbers of injuries only, which is
clearly going to be strongly influenced by any reduction in cycling.
Just as with Scuffham's cost-benefit analysis, loss of cycling is
counted as a benefit of the law.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Peter

November 15th 04, 05:54 PM

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:02:07 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>I for one am not suggesting that helmet laws necessarily
>>>cause increased head injury rates, simply that they have never caused
>>>reduced head injury rates. Since that is the reason they are
>>>introduced, they clearly don't work.
>
>
>>That is not the reason why they are introduced. They are introduced
>>becasue they have been proven to reduce the severity of head injuries in
>>crashes where head injuries occur.
>
>
> No, that is actually a core fallacy of helmet proponents. What has
> actually happened is that some samples of helmeted cyclists in
> jurisdictions without compulsion have been observed to have fewer head
> injuries than some samples of unhelmeted cyclists. That is quite
> different.

Exactly, and a key difference is that the sample of helmet wearers is
likely to differ from the non-wearers in many ways other than their
choice of head covering. In suburban and rural areas I see lots of
groups of cyclists riding together, dressed in cycling-specific clothes,
and almost all wearing helmets. Closer to downtown I see more individual
cyclists dressed in street or work clothes and only a few are wearing
helmets. So I'm not at all surprised to see that studies of injury
patterns show that there are major differences between those who were
wearing helmets and those who were not. But that's a far cry from
'proving' that the severity of head injuries was reduced by the helmets
since it could also be the case that the type of riding done by helmet
wearers makes the nature of their accidents differ on average from those
experienced by non-wearers. The tendency of the two groups to seek
medical treatment for a given level of injury is also likely to be quite
different.
>
> When you have very high rates of wearing this effect vanishes. So in
> Australia the proportion of head injured cyclists who were helmeted at
> the time of the crash is the same as the proportion who wear helmets -
> around 80%.
>
Which is what would be expected if the difference was due to the nature
of the two groups rather than the helmets themselves.

Frank Krygowski

November 15th 04, 06:43 PM

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>> The best argument in my view is the graph shown on this document:
>> http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2007.pdf
>
>
> [That's] a very weak document, as are most documents on that site.

Steven seems to have a propensity for judging sites based entirely on
whether they agree with him!

> The first
> thing they try to do is to discount scalp lacerations as a head injury,
> which is pretty lame.

The fuzzy definition of "head injury" is purposely used to scare the
public.

MHL proponents know that if they say "50,000 head injuries!!!!" most
politicians and most of their constituents will envision 50,000 cyclists
who will need to be spoon fed. In fact, we regularly get posts here
implying the same thing.

But there is no official definition of "head injury" that matches that
impression. In fact, the Thompson & Rivara study of 1989 which claimed
tremendous (85%) benefits for helmets was able to do so partly because
they called cut ears "head injuries." They called scratched chins "head
injuries" ... and so on. Any slight injury above the neck was made to
sound life threatening.

Personally, I'm willing to believe that bike helmets prevent 85% of
scratched ears. But I think it's grossly misleading to pretend that
this proves helmets prevent severe brain damage - and like it or not,
that is the standard argument!

Helmet promoters need to be called on this deception. Distinguishing
between simple scalp lacerations and serious brain injuries is a
necessary step.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

November 15th 04, 08:31 PM

Peter Keller wrote:

I wonder has anyone ever considered that
helmets might tend to cause the brain to
overheat, and thus impair judgement?
Since I'm in Florida, overheating is
often a problem.

(Not repeating the other fine things that have
been said in this thread, not because they are
not useful but just to save bandwidth.)

I am not a lawyer. I do not even see email sent to this address, due to
past DOS attacks. If you wish to respond, do so through this newsgroup.

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 15th 04, 09:45 PM

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:31:46 -0500 (EST), > wrote
in message
<dGhpc2lzbWU=.1f40f1ce75c397570b42efef327f153d@1100 550706.nulluser.com>:

>I wonder has anyone ever considered that
>helmets might tend to cause the brain to
>overheat, and thus impair judgement?
>Since I'm in Florida, overheating is
>often a problem.

It has been mooted but not studied to my knowledge. It was discussed
a bit following a report into cricketers' helmets causing overheating.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Bill Z.

November 16th 04, 02:57 AM

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:

> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 05:37:35 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
> Zaumen wrote:
>
> >> But at least we now know why he works so hard to ensure that no trace
> >> of intelligence or knowledge makes it into this posts - it's to stop
> >> us feeling inferior. Kind of him, really.
>
> >You know absolutely nothing about me.
>
> On the contrary, we know a number of things. We know, for example,
> that you rarely, if ever, read the links you post or the papers you
> cite.

Which you people claim even when I quote the relevant text from
a paper verbatim. How do you think I find the text without reading
the thing?

> We know that you are a True Believer.

The most I've said about helmets is that they provide some useful
protection. That's being a "true believer?" In what? In the
obvious fact that some padding reduces the impact in a fall? Gee.
Who would have thought? Mostly, however, I've just been pointing
out that your bogus arguments are, well, bogus.

> And we know that your response to documented facts you don't like
> is to ignore, evade, repudiate or attack the messenger, but never to
> study or to advance informed criticism.

And that's another lie on your part. In fact, it is more a case of
projection, since you've described your behavior to a T: all you post
on this subject are personal attacks, with childish name calling in
nearly every message.

Grow up, Guy. You are acting like a 12 year old boy, spouting
infantile baby talk in the vain hope that someone will be
impressed. Just look at how you start each of your posts.

Oh, and if you act like an infant, don't expect your posts to be
read. Nobody is required to read through gobs of abuse in the hope
of finding a reasonable sentence burried somewhere.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Frank Krygowski

November 16th 04, 03:00 AM

Bill Z. wrote:

> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:
>
>
>>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:49:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> wrote in message >:
>>
>>
>>>Hah! You spend most of your time online insulting others, attempting to
>>>embarrass them! If you had anything impressive to say about yourself,
>>>I'm sure it would have come out long ago!
>>
>>But at least we now know why he works so hard to ensure that no trace
>>of intelligence or knowledge makes it into this posts - it's to stop
>>us feeling inferior. Kind of him, really.
>
>
> You know absolutely nothing about me. It may surprise the likes of
> you and Krygowksi, but I some of us really don't feel a need to
> brag, least of all when replying to yahoos who post nothing but
> infantile insults.

Bill, I know from the recent past that you'll simply evade answering any
question if the answer would prove you wrong. And I know that in that
case, you'll go to (literally) incredible lengths to evade answering.

The most recent example was when you made implausible claims about how
streamlined your personal helmet was - then absolutely refused to tell
us the brand of helmet. Why? Obviously, because you knew you were wrong.

I know a rude denial is already on the way. Carry on, Bill! You're fun
to watch! ;-)

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Bill Z.

November 16th 04, 04:07 AM

Frank Krygowski > writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > "Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:
> >
> >>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:49:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > wrote in message >:

> Bill, I know from the recent past that you'll simply evade answering
> any question if the answer would prove you wrong. And I know that in
> that case, you'll go to (literally) incredible lengths to evade
> answering.

Well, that's another of your lies. Do you expect me to read through
Guy's drivel in the hope of finding a rational sentence buried in his
string of personal attacks?

> The most recent example was when you made implausible claims about how
> streamlined your personal helmet was - then absolutely refused to tell
> us the brand of helmet. Why? Obviously, because you knew you were
> wrong.

What a liar you are. I never said my helmet was particularly
"streamlined", only that it would reduce air drag very slightly, as
would almost any similarly shaped helmet. The model is irrelevant.

> I know a rude denial is already on the way. Carry on, Bill! You're
> fun to watch! ;-)

Well, you did lie, and that of course is what is really rude. Typical
Krygowksi tactic - put out an insulting post, and then complain that
any response would no doubt be rude, when being told off is just what
you deserve.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 16th 04, 10:12 AM

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 02:57:08 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

>> >You know absolutely nothing about me.

>> On the contrary, we know a number of things. We know, for example,
>> that you rarely, if ever, read the links you post or the papers you
>> cite.

>Which you people claim even when I quote the relevant text from
>a paper verbatim. How do you think I find the text without reading
>the thing?

Rewriting history again? Don't bother. Sure, you quoted text from
one of the studies, but you also *admitted* to not having read another
because it was July 4 and the library was closed (and presumably had
been for the decade and more since the study was published). And that
is just one example of your having discussed something and then
displayed ignorance about its content.

I have a library and database of research papers, and I seek out and
read new ones as they are published. So does Frank. As you have
noticed, much of the full text is not available on the web, so this
involves some time and expense, but as I said, road safety research is
one of my hobbies.

>> We know that you are a True Believer.

>The most I've said about helmets is that they provide some useful
>protection. Except thay That's being a "true believer?" In what? In the
>obvious fact that some padding reduces the impact in a fall? Gee.
>Who would have thought? Mostly, however, I've just been pointing
>out that your bogus arguments are, well, bogus.

Except, strangely, the "facts" you use to rebut the arguments you
claim as "bogus" (i.e. any argument which fails to support the idea
that plastic hats prevent death and serious injury) have so very often
turned out not to be "facts" at all, or to be based on half-understood
abstracts of papers you have not read in full.

I'd be interested to hear which arguments are bogus, though, since
both Frank and I have often provided citations to papers we've
actually read in support of our arguments.

>> And we know that your response to documented facts you don't like
>> is to ignore, evade, repudiate or attack the messenger, but never to
>> study or to advance informed criticism.

>And that's another lie on your part.

Ah, back to the Zaumen definition of lie, being "statement that Zaumen
disagrees with".

>In fact, it is more a case of
>projection, since you've described your behavior to a T: all you post
>on this subject are personal attacks, with childish name calling in
>nearly every message.

Bull**** and you know it. I post a lot of genuine data and links to
data. I have spent a lot of time studying the issue and understand it
pretty well. I have just been corresponding with my MP about the
bogus claims made by a helmet promoter in the UK who have been subject
to a ruling by our advertising standards body following my complaint.

>Just look at how you start each of your posts.

Indeed. I start by noting that your patience with other people's
argumentative posts very often evaporates *just* before you get to the
matters of substance. And the simple fact is, it is your style which
leads to the argumentative posts, because when your errors are pointed
out to you, you bluster and attack instead of accepting or studying.
You worked hard for that soubriquet, Bill, and I am not the first to
apply a nickname to you based on your dogmatically cleaving to notions
whose errors have been pointed out in details with citations. If
you'd like to undertake to stop the evasions, you can lose the
nickname.

>Oh, and if you act like an infant, don't expect your posts to be
>read. Nobody is required to read through gobs of abuse in the hope
>of finding a reasonable sentence burried somewhere.

Got a mirror handy, Bill? No, clearly not.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 16th 04, 10:20 AM

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:07:30 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I' not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

>> The most recent example was when you made implausible claims about how
>> streamlined your personal helmet was - then absolutely refused to tell
>> us the brand of helmet. Why? Obviously, because you knew you were
>> wrong.

>What a liar you are. I never said my helmet was particularly
>"streamlined", only that it would reduce air drag very slightly, as
>would almost any similarly shaped helmet. The model is irrelevant.

So, what model of helmet is that, Bill? The only research we've seen
(linked, as you recall, by yourself) shows the opposite, so we'd need
to know the make and model so we can actually compare the shape with
the helmet which produced the opposite result.

Oh, I remember now - you refuse to tell us, it being a matter of
national security or something. We are supposed to take it on trust.

Pardon me if I am somewhat sceptical and choose to believe instead the
work of the scientists you quote, who disagree with you.

Note to editors: if you want to see this argument in full, see the
thread "Troll, not published helmet research" above. I don't propose
to pursue this any further since Bill absolutely never admits he's
wrong and he gets nasty when he's cornered.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Bill Z.

November 16th 04, 02:48 PM

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:

> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 02:57:08 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
> Zaumen wrote:
>
> >> >You know absolutely nothing about me.
>
> >> On the contrary, we know a number of things. We know, for example,
> >> that you rarely, if ever, read the links you post or the papers you
> >> cite.
>
> >Which you people claim even when I quote the relevant text from
> >a paper verbatim. How do you think I find the text without reading
> >the thing?
>
> Rewriting history again? Don't bother. Sure, you quoted text from
> one of the studies, but you also *admitted* to not having read another
> because it was July 4 and the library was closed (and presumably had
> been for the decade and more since the study was published).

Here's the truth. Someone asked for some references. I did a google
search, read an abstract of the one in question that google returned
but did not download it due to there being a fee for that. It was on
July 4, a national holiday when all the libraries were closed. The
paper was not something being actively discussed. Guy did not make
the original request. I was merely being a nice guy and helped
someone out.

> And that is just one example of your having discussed something
> and then displayed ignorance about its content.

More lies from Guy.

>
> I have a library and database of research papers, and I seek out and
> read new ones as they are published. So does Frank.

Frank (and I suspect you as well, even though you deny it) is a
well-known anti-helmet fanatic and propagandist who has been putting
out anti-helmet propaganda for well over a decade. I'm not impressed.

> As you have noticed, much of the full text is not available on the
> web, so this involves some time and expense, but as I said, road
> safety research is one of my hobbies.

That's nice. But you are still a rank amateur.

> >> And we know that your response to documented facts you don't like
> >> is to ignore, evade, repudiate or attack the messenger, but never to
> >> study or to advance informed criticism.
>
> >And that's another lie on your part.
>
> Ah, back to the Zaumen definition of lie, being "statement that Zaumen
> disagrees with".

You just posted a false, personal attack and then complain when I point
out that you are lying. Typical Guy "argument."
>
> >In fact, it is more a case of projection, since you've described
> >your behavior to a T: all you post on this subject are personal
> >attacks, with childish name calling in nearly every message.
>
> Bull**** and you know it. I post a lot of genuine data and links to
> data.

Like what? All I've seen are personal attacks. Perhaps you post
that stuff somewhere else?

> I have spent a lot of time studying the issue and understand it
> pretty well.

So you claim, but from what I've seen, you have zero credibility
given your continual misrepresentation of what others say.

> >Just look at how you start each of your posts.
>
> Indeed. I start by noting that your patience with other people's
> argumentative posts very often evaporates *just* before you get to the
> matters of substance.

Another of your lies. My patience with *you* is near zero because
you start nearly every post with a long winded personal attack. I
gave you plenty of opportunities to start acting like an adult and
so far you've been a complete and utter failure.

> And the simple fact is, it is your style which
> leads to the argumentative posts, because when your errors are pointed
> out to you, you bluster and attack instead of accepting or studying.

You mean I (gasp) didn't agree with you?

> You worked hard for that soubriquet, Bill, and I am not the first to
> apply a nickname to you based on your dogmatically cleaving to
> notions whose errors have been pointed out in details with
> citations.

Wrong. The other person to behave like you was a statistician who
had a bicycle helmet problem, and she was upset merely because I
was skeptical about the anti-helmet arguments, since I didn't find
the data particularly convincing due to inadequate sample sizes.

> If you'd like to undertake to stop the evasions, you can lose the
> nickname.

>
> >Oh, and if you act like an infant, don't expect your posts to be
> >read. Nobody is required to read through gobs of abuse in the hope
> >of finding a reasonable sentence burried somewhere.
>
> Got a mirror handy, Bill? No, clearly not.

What Guy is saying is that he and his friends get to put out as much
personal abuse as they want and nobody is allowed to respond.

Face it, Guy. You are a troll with the maturity of a 12 year old
boy. Oh. And I just timed out. Your other post that just showed
up will be flushed. You are back in your timeout as you are simply
frothing at the mouth with nothing substantial to say on any topic.
If you think I'm going to read through all your crap in the hopes
of finding a vaguely intelligent coment, forget it.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 16th 04, 04:15 PM

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:48:17 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

>> Rewriting history again? Don't bother. Sure, you quoted text from
>> one of the studies, but you also *admitted* to not having read another
>> because it was July 4 and the library was closed (and presumably had
>> been for the decade and more since the study was published).

>Here's the truth. Someone asked for some references. I did a google
>search, read an abstract of the one in question that google returned
>but did not download it due to there being a fee for that. It was on
>July 4, a national holiday when all the libraries were closed. The
>paper was not something being actively discussed.

The truth, but not the whole truth. You were pretending to be an
authority, and quoting (as ever) a highly selective set of data,
carefully chosen to support your prejudices. You then went on for
ages defending your selective choice of papers, in your inimitable (or
at least nobody has yet bothered imitating it) style.

>More lies from Guy.

Translation: Zaumen disagrees. So no surprise there.

>> I have a library and database of research papers, and I seek out and
>> read new ones as they are published. So does Frank.

>Frank (and I suspect you as well, even though you deny it) is a
>well-known anti-helmet fanatic and propagandist who has been putting
>out anti-helmet propaganda for well over a decade. I'm not impressed.

Really? I must have a word with him, I certainly would like to meet
some of these anti-helmet people you hear so much about. I'll have a
trawl for propaganda, too, I'm sure there must be some if you say so;
thus far I've only seen him post evidence-based statements with
supporting references available, but Zaumen Never Lies as we all know.

>> As you have noticed, much of the full text is not available on the
>> web, so this involves some time and expense, but as I said, road
>> safety research is one of my hobbies.

>That's nice. But you are still a rank amateur.

Yes, Bill, I am an amateur, in the sense that I am not paid for this
stuff. It is a hobby. I have never claimed otherwise. I am also an
amateur cyclist, amateur plumber, builder, electrician, singer and
parent. I get paid for none of those things either. Sir Steve
Redgrave is an amateur rower.

Amazingly, though, as a rank amateur I have been able to identify many
flaws in your arguments and assertions. I think that says more about
you than it does about me.

>You just posted a false, personal attack and then complain when I point
>out that you are lying. Typical Guy "argument."

Bill, the fact that you evade, weasel and dig in rather than admit you
are wrong is a matter of record. And once again you are using the
BillWorld[tm] definition of "lying", being "disagreeing with Zaumen".

>> Bull**** and you know it. I post a lot of genuine data and links to
>> data.

>Like what? All I've seen are personal attacks. Perhaps you post
>that stuff somewhere else?

If you had been less keen to evade substantive argument you'd have
seen more of it.

>> I have spent a lot of time studying the issue and understand it
>> pretty well.

>So you claim, but from what I've seen, you have zero credibility
>given your continual misrepresentation of what others say.

Pause for laughter while we consider the towering irony of Zaumen
impugning the credibility of others.

>> I start by noting that your patience with other people's
>> argumentative posts very often evaporates *just* before you get to the
>> matters of substance.

>Another of your lies.

In the ZaumenWorld sense of "disagreeing with Zaumen", obv.

>My patience with *you* is near zero because
>you start nearly every post with a long winded personal attack.

No, it's very short and to the point, it's an accurate
characterisation of your style of "debate" as observed over many
weeks. You are free to use the killfile any time you like.

>gave you plenty of opportunities to start acting like an adult and
>so far you've been a complete and utter failure.

When I tried calmness you relentlessly dragged the thread back to
personal abuse, because that is the only ground on which you are
comfortable.

>> And the simple fact is, it is your style which
>> leads to the argumentative posts, because when your errors are pointed
>> out to you, you bluster and attack instead of accepting or studying.

>You mean I (gasp) didn't agree with you?

Anyone is free to disagree with me. Use of the word liar to denote
disagreement tends to inflame passions on Usenet, and you and
Vandespamm are both prime offenders there. I seem to manage civil
exchanges - including disagreements - with many people. Strangely, a
lot of the people you end up trading insults with are in the same
position. The common factor seems to be you.

>> You worked hard for that soubriquet, Bill, and I am not the first to
>> apply a nickname to you based on your dogmatically cleaving to
>> notions whose errors have been pointed out in details with
>> citations.

>Wrong. The other person to behave like you was a statistician who
>had a bicycle helmet problem, and she was upset merely because I
>was skeptical about the anti-helmet arguments, since I didn't find
>the data particularly convincing due to inadequate sample sizes.

I think you'll find that she was upset with your flat refusal to
acknowledge her professional competence, and the fact that you would
rather continue to assert that which is proven to be wrong, than admit
to being mistaken. I can see how you might have made that elementary
error, though, since your world-view is very Zaumen-centric.

>> Got a mirror handy, Bill? No, clearly not.

>What Guy is saying is that he and his friends get to put out as much
>personal abuse as they want and nobody is allowed to respond.

Nope. What I'm saying is, you are every bit as much to blame, and
probably more so since you seem to have acrimonious exchanges with far
more people than I ever do. Hence: do you have a mirror? Clearly
not.

>Face it, Guy. You are a troll with the maturity of a 12 year old
>boy. Oh. And I just timed out. Your other post that just showed
>up will be flushed.

Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening". So no change there.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Bill Z.

November 17th 04, 01:44 AM

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:

> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:48:17 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
> Zaumen wrote:
>
> >> Rewriting history again? Don't bother. Sure, you quoted text from
> >> one of the studies, but you also *admitted* to not having read another
> >> because it was July 4 and the library was closed (and presumably had
> >> been for the decade and more since the study was published).
>
> >Here's the truth. Someone asked for some references. I did a google
> >search, read an abstract of the one in question that google returned
> >but did not download it due to there being a fee for that. It was on
> >July 4, a national holiday when all the libraries were closed. The
> >paper was not something being actively discussed.
>
> The truth, but not the whole truth. You were pretending to be an
> authority, and quoting (as ever) a highly selective set of data,
> carefully chosen to support your prejudices.

The whole truth, your spin notwithstanding.

> You then went on for ages defending your selective choice of papers,
> in your inimitable (or at least nobody has yet bothered imitating
> it) style.

That's another lie on your part. You guys tried to make an issue of
whether I had read one of them (as opposed to some others that I
could download in full) on a day when the library was closed (and I
had just found the URL that day.)

More lies from Guy.

> Really? I must have a word with him, I certainly would like to meet
> some of these anti-helmet people you hear so much about. I'll have a
> trawl for propaganda, too, I'm sure there must be some if you say so;
> thus far I've only seen him post evidence-based statements with
> supporting references available, but Zaumen Never Lies as we all know.

Try Krygowksi, Tom Kunich, Avery Burdett, Wolfgang Strobl, and a few
others.

>
> >> As you have noticed, much of the full text is not available on the
> >> web, so this involves some time and expense, but as I said, road
> >> safety research is one of my hobbies.
>
> >That's nice. But you are still a rank amateur.
>
> Yes, Bill, I am an amateur, in the sense that I am not paid for this
> stuff. It is a hobby.

Alas, you are also an amateur in another sense of the word.

>
> Amazingly, though, as a rank amateur I have been able to identify many
> flaws in your arguments and assertions. I think that says more about
> you than it does about me.

No, all you've done is rant. You didn't identify any flaw in any
argument. In fact, you made claims that were physically absurd, and
did that repeatedly. You even complained because I wasn't wasting my
time looking at your personal web site!

> >You just posted a false, personal attack and then complain when I point
> >out that you are lying. Typical Guy "argument."
>
> Bill, the fact that you evade, weasel and dig in rather than admit you
> are wrong is a matter of record. And once again you are using the
> BillWorld[tm] definition of "lying", being "disagreeing with Zaumen".

Well, you are lying some more, but that is typical of you.
>
> >Like what? All I've seen are personal attacks. Perhaps you post
> >that stuff somewhere else?
>
> If you had been less keen to evade substantive argument you'd have
> seen more of it.

What "substantive arguments"? I've yet to see you make one.

> Pause for laughter while we consider the towering irony of Zaumen
> impugning the credibility of others.

Guy, do you have any clue as to what a joke you are?
<rest of garbage snipped - you just reached my time-out point, and it is
pretty much a rehash anyway.>

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 17th 04, 09:15 AM

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:44:31 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

[Reply sent only to rec.bicycles.soc, Zaumen's "home" group.]

Bill, you are a LIAR. You said: "You are back in your timeout" - and
here you are replying to the very next post! What a LIAR you are.

>> The truth, but not the whole truth. You were pretending to be an
>> authority, and quoting (as ever) a highly selective set of data,
>> carefully chosen to support your prejudices.

>The whole truth, your spin notwithstanding.

Sadly I think you really believe this. The evidence of your
delusional nature is too strong to support any other conclusion.

>> You then went on for ages defending your selective choice of papers,
>> in your inimitable (or at least nobody has yet bothered imitating
>> it) style.

>That's another lie on your part. You guys tried to make an issue of
>whether I had read one of them (as opposed to some others that I
>could download in full) on a day when the library was closed (and I
>had just found the URL that day.)

Bill, these reports have been out for years. You hadn't read them
then, you haven't read them now, you had no intention of ever reading
them, and one report in particular you attempted to discuss, and it
was rapidly proven that you hadn't read it. That fits right in with
your quoting of links in "support" of your helmet aero assertion,
where the contents of the linked documents flatly contradicted you,
again indicating that you had not read what you linked to.

This is old news.

>> I certainly would like to meet
>> some of these anti-helmet people you hear so much about.

>Try Krygowksi, Tom Kunich, Avery Burdett, Wolfgang Strobl, and a few
>others.

I did, but they don't know any either.

>> Yes, Bill, I am an amateur, in the sense that I am not paid for this
>> stuff. It is a hobby.

>Alas, you are also an amateur in another sense of the word.

So you say, and yet I have had no difficulty in finding fatal flaws in
several of your arguments. Which says more about you than it does me.

>You didn't identify any flaw in any argument.

LOL! Like I didn't identify the base assumption in the helmet aero
paper which flatly contradicted the assertion you claimed it was
supporting, for example. Keep going, Bill, you'll soon reach
Australia at that rate of digging :-)

>In fact, you made claims that were physically absurd, and
>did that repeatedly. You even complained because I wasn't wasting my
>time looking at your personal web site!

First, name these physically absurd claims, with citations.

Second, I don't give a flying **** whether you visit my website or
not, but it would have helped you avoid making some stupid wrong
assertions about me. The required information was on the home page,
after all. But it's OK, it provided some amusement, which is, like
Frank says, what you're good for.

>> Bill, the fact that you evade, weasel and dig in rather than admit you
>> are wrong is a matter of record. And once again you are using the
>> BillWorld[tm] definition of "lying", being "disagreeing with Zaumen".

>Well, you are lying some more, but that is typical of you.

Again we have the ZaumenWorld[tm] definition of lying, being
"disagreeing with Zaumen".

>> If you had been less keen to evade substantive argument you'd have
>> seen more of it.

>What "substantive arguments"? I've yet to see you make one.

Yes, Bill, because you go to such lengths to avoid them. Even to the
extent of replying to messages out of order so you can go off in a
huff before addressing the issues. It doesn't matter, though, since
you were never part of the informed debate anyway (informed debate
requires, after all, that you are both informed and prepared to
listen). So the Zaumen mudslinging sideshow has been just that: an
amusing sideshow. I particularly enjoyed the helmet aero thread, a
perfect example of a wrong assertion backed well beyond the point of
absurdity. I hope you'll give us some more entertainment of that
quality some time soon.

><rest of garbage snipped - you just reached my time-out point, and it is
>pretty much a rehash anyway.>

Translation: "Laa laa, I'm not listening". Except, Bill, we know you
are probably LYING again :-D

Keep it up, you're fun to watch.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Bill Z.

November 17th 04, 04:45 PM

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:

> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:44:31 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
> Zaumen wrote:
>
> [Reply sent only to rec.bicycles.soc, Zaumen's "home" group.]
>
> Bill, you are a LIAR. You said: "You are back in your timeout" - and
> here you are replying to the very next post! What a LIAR you are.

What a complete and utter idiot you are! You are located in the UK.
I'm in California. I *did* put you in a "timeout". That doesn't
mean your posts are ignored forever. If you saw two messages in a row,
chances are that I replied to the first and didn't see the other
until 8 to 10 hours later - after I got back from work.

Your timeout typically consists of flushing all your messages in that
particular usenet session, where I'll use the 'mark all as read'
command. Oh, and I can terminate it whenever I choose. In a case
optimal for you, I might just flush the rest of your current message,
although that is rare - usually it is all in that particular session.

> >> The truth, but not the whole truth. You were pretending to be an
> >> authority, and quoting (as ever) a highly selective set of data,
> >> carefully chosen to support your prejudices.
>
> >The whole truth, your spin notwithstanding.
>
> Sadly I think you really believe this.

Sadly, you are an idiot, and a rude dishonest one as shown above,
as evident by you use of "liar" (all in caps).

I'll snip the rest of your garbage ... have to leave for work soon,
and you are just ranting mindlessly. And you are *still* acting
like a 12 year old boy spewing infantile names (see the start
of your rant.)

> ><rest of garbage snipped - you just reached my time-out point, and it is
> >pretty much a rehash anyway.>
>
> Translation: "Laa laa, I'm not listening". Except, Bill, we know you
> are probably LYING again :-D
>
> Keep it up, you're fun to watch.

Nope, but you are too dumb to understand - several screenfuls of your
rant just got skipped, but as I selected it all to snip in this reply,
I simply kept the last sentence. You know, you set a mark in the
text, go to the end, and then move up a few lines. I know it hurts
your ego, but your long tedious rants really are being ignored. If you
want your stuff to be read, I suggest (a) being politer and (b) being
a lot more concise.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 17th 04, 05:15 PM

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:45:26 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

>> Bill, you are a LIAR. You said: "You are back in your timeout" - and
>> here you are replying to the very next post! What a LIAR you are.

>What a complete and utter idiot you are! You are located in the UK.
>I'm in California. I *did* put you in a "timeout".

Bill displays delusions of being a moderator by calling timeout in
Message-ID: >, Tue, 16 Nov 2004
(14:48:17 GMT)

I reply in Message-ID: >,
16 Nov 2004 16:15:13 +0000, less than two hours later.

You reply in Message-ID: >, Tue, 16
Nov 2004 20:44:31 EST (17 Nov 2004 01:44:31 GMT), i.e. the same day.

Since you have repeatedly used the words "flushing" and "timeout"
specifically in conjunction with the phrase "rest of the day" there is
a clear expectation here that a timeout equates to being free of your
crapulent nonsense for at least the rest of the day. I call it breach
of promise!

>I'll snip the rest of your garbage

Translation: "Laa laa, I'm not listening". As usual.

>If you
>want your stuff to be read, I suggest (a) being politer and (b) being
>a lot more concise.

If you want your stuff to be read I suggest therapy.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Bill Z.

November 18th 04, 02:25 AM

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:

> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:45:26 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
> Zaumen wrote:
>
> >> Bill, you are a LIAR. You said: "You are back in your timeout" - and
> >> here you are replying to the very next post! What a LIAR you are.
>
> >What a complete and utter idiot you are! You are located in the UK.
> >I'm in California. I *did* put you in a "timeout".
>
> Bill displays delusions of being a moderator by calling timeout in
> Message-ID: >, Tue, 16 Nov 2004
> (14:48:17 GMT)

Guy, is making yet another absurd claim up. Back to the timeout with
him. (He seems to think I have some obligation to read all his
silly posts.)

>
> I reply in Message-ID: >,
> 16 Nov 2004 16:15:13 +0000, less than two hours later.
>
> You reply in Message-ID: >, Tue, 16
> Nov 2004 20:44:31 EST (17 Nov 2004 01:44:31 GMT), i.e. the same day.

Same day? Big deal - it was quite a few hours later, which is just
what I said.

> Since you have repeatedly used the words "flushing" and "timeout"
> specifically in conjunction with the phrase "rest of the day" there is
> a clear expectation here that a timeout equates to being free of your
> crapulent nonsense for at least the rest of the day. I call it breach
> of promise!

Oooh. poor baby. Now Guy expects me to remember the precise time
interval 8 to 10 hours later. Most children, of course, would hardly
complain if their parents let them out of their rooms a bit earlier.

>
> >I'll snip the rest of your garbage
>
> Translation: "Laa laa, I'm not listening". As usual.

Translation - if you act like a child, you can expect to be treated
as a child.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z.

November 18th 04, 07:50 AM

"Steven M. Scharf" > writes:

> If indeed the numbers went down, then yes, this is possible. The evidence
> that participation went down is highly questionable.

While annectodal, when the helmet law went into effect in New Jersey,
one of my nephews said he'd stop riding a bike, but he was in his
early teens at an age where people tend to be rebellious. If he was
used to using a helmet and you told him he couldn't he'd have probably
reacted the same way. Younger kids could react quite differently and
once used to using a helmet would not have this sort of reaction as
they aged since there would be no change in status to rebel against.
The result is that you can see a short-term transient reaction to
helmet laws that disappears after a few years.

In the U.S., hazards for cyclists have objectively become worse due to
the SUV craze as the head is more likely to be hit in a primary
impact. The SUV craze roughly fit the same time frame in which
helmet laws were passed.

Unless you can control for such effects adequately, you can't really
draw any conclusions from statistics on accident rates or head
injuries.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 18th 04, 12:35 PM

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 07:01:33 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
> wrote:

>> Given that participation in cycling went down in NS and Australia
>> (Cannot remember off-hand about AL and NZ) then you must be
>> postulating that many experienced cyclists gave up cycling and some of
>> those were replaced by less experienced riders who then proceeded to
>> crash? Hummm

>If indeed the numbers went down, then yes, this is possible. The evidence
>that participation went down is highly questionable.

No, it is open to some question, but is definitely not "highly
questionable" because it comes from two independent sources: cycle
counts and tracking of all cyclist injuries. The numbers of non-head
injuries dropped substantially, relative to the same figures for
pedestrians, and this corroborates the cycle counts.

You are right, though, that jurisdictions which enact helmet laws are
curiously reluctant to conduct counts before and after.

>The evidence regarding the protection afforded by helmets is clear, and I
>say this even though I am opposed to any MHLs.

Clear in the sense of clearly absent, you mean. Look again at the
chart of head injuries in this document:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2007.pdf

See if you can spot the clear benefit.

>As Cook and Sheikh stated,

As Cook and Sheikh stated, although there is a schoolboy statistical
error in their data which means they are actually claiming 186%
efficacy, and in they have inverted the sign of helmet wearing trends
for children which completely blows away their entire argument, they
are still completely convinced they are right. Great source, Steven.

http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/9/3/266

>Guy, Frank, Roger, Peter, and others, do no service to their cause with
>their extremely weak and illogical arguments. The prevention of MHLs needs
>to be based on the relative statistical insignificance of bicycle accidents,
>not on trying in vain to discount the data on injury severity.

LOL! Our arguments are weak, while a study which proves helmets
prevent 75% of broken legs is strong, right? Amazing.

Clearly you are unaware of the fundamental weakness of observational
studies. These problems have achieved some notoriety recently in
respect of the supposed link between MMR and autism, and the now
disproven link between HRT and coronary heart disease.

The simple fact is, as stated by the UK's (pro helmet) transport
minister, there is "no data linking increases in helmet use with
improvements in cycling safety". And that's not for want of looking,
even to the extent of hiring a helmet advocacy group to conduct a
review.

But I'm game: you point out to me the weakness and illogic of our
arguments. Cite specific cases, with proper justification. I am
always open to persuasion - that's how I got to my current view in the
first place.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 18th 04, 01:05 PM

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 07:50:42 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Unless you can control for such effects adequately, you can't really
>draw any conclusions from statistics on accident rates or head
>injuries.

Correct. This is the single worst flaw identified with almost every
pro-helmet study.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 18th 04, 01:38 PM

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 02:25:12 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

>Guy, is making yet another absurd claim up. Back to the timeout with
>him. (He seems to think I have some obligation to read all his
>silly posts.)

On the contrary, I would rather you read none of them. I'd also
prefer it if you stopped posting bull****, but miracles take a little
longer.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Steven M. Scharf

November 18th 04, 04:06 PM

"Bill Z." > wrote in message
...

> In the U.S., hazards for cyclists have objectively become worse due to
> the SUV craze as the head is more likely to be hit in a primary
> impact. The SUV craze roughly fit the same time frame in which
> helmet laws were passed.

All the data on injury reduction due to helmets discounts the benefit in a
bicycle/vehicle crash. A small vehicle is just as likely to cause a cyclist
to be involved in a non-vehicle accident as an SUV.

MHLs for responsible adult cyclists make little sense. There is no reason to
alienate this section of the cycling community.

Steven M. Scharf

November 18th 04, 04:10 PM

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 07:01:33 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
> > wrote:
>
> >> Given that participation in cycling went down in NS and Australia
> >> (Cannot remember off-hand about AL and NZ) then you must be
> >> postulating that many experienced cyclists gave up cycling and some of
> >> those were replaced by less experienced riders who then proceeded to
> >> crash? Hummm
>
> >If indeed the numbers went down, then yes, this is possible. The evidence
> >that participation went down is highly questionable.
>
> No, it is open to some question, but is definitely not "highly
> questionable" because it comes from two independent sources: cycle
> counts and tracking of all cyclist injuries. The numbers of non-head
> injuries dropped substantially, relative to the same figures for
> pedestrians, and this corroborates the cycle counts.
>
> You are right, though, that jurisdictions which enact helmet laws are
> curiously reluctant to conduct counts before and after.
>
> >The evidence regarding the protection afforded by helmets is clear, and I
> >say this even though I am opposed to any MHLs.
>
> Clear in the sense of clearly absent, you mean. Look again at the
> chart of head injuries in this document:
> http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2007.pdf

This site has no credibility. Please see the British Medical Journal
research referenced in my earlier post.

Steven M. Scharf

November 18th 04, 04:18 PM

"Bill Z." > wrote in message
...

> Unless you can control for such effects adequately, you can't really
> draw any conclusions from statistics on accident rates or head
> injuries.

Exactly. But this is precisely what Guy, and others, keep trying
unsuccessfully to do. It's a hard battle against the MHL do-gooders because
they will point to the medical evidence of injury severity, rather than
focus on the questionable statistics on ridership or number of accidents.
Saying, "yeah, but the reduced number of brain injuries isn't worth a
coercive law," doesn't work with a bunch of do-gooder, commie, ministers who
think that they should be allowed to tell everyone else how to live their
lives, and what level of risk is acceptable.

Guy, and the others, that try to question the injury severity statistics,
are written off by the pro-MHL politicians as nut cases, and I don't say
this unkindly. It's almost as if the anti-MHL people are desperately trying
to convince people that their own personal behavior is what's best, and this
is just as bad as the MHL politicians. I do some dangerous things, but I
don't try to convince other people that they should follow my example!

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 18th 04, 04:47 PM

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:10:19 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
> wrote:

>> >The evidence regarding the protection afforded by helmets is clear, and I
>> >say this even though I am opposed to any MHLs.

>> Clear in the sense of clearly absent, you mean. Look again at the
>> chart of head injuries in this document:
>> http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2007.pdf

>This site has no credibility. Please see the British Medical Journal
>research referenced in my earlier post.

Excellent piece of shoot-the-messenger, Steven. You ignore the
crucial fact that the data in question was prepared by Nigel Perry
PhD, not by the webmasters of cyclehelmets.org.

In referring back to the BMJ page, you also ignore the published
criticisms of Cook & Sheikh's work, in particular the statistical
error which means that they are actually claiming 186% efficacy. A
schoolboy error, confusing percentage points with percentage
differences. So much for peer review. You also failed to comment on
the credibility of their response to this and other criticisms, which
amounts to "the evidence doesn't matter, we know we're right."

So, a clear case of selective credibility, it would seem.

I note that unspecified lack of credibility is a common theme with
zealots faced with conflicting evidence. So, I challenge you to
provide, with citations and specifics, the basis for your assertion
that cyclehelmets.org has no credibility.

I expect you to compare and contrast with BHSI, a site which you
clearly thinks has credibility since you cite it as an authority. You
may wish to start by accounting for Randy Swart's stated position that
correcting the known wrong 85% figure is not worthwhile because it is
"so ingrained in the injury prevention community that a change would
not be helpful". This might justly be summarised as: "the evidence
doesn't matter, we know we're right."

And while we're about it, you will no doubt be able to point out to me
the "weakness and illogic" of Frank's and my arguments, citing
specific cases with justification, as per my previous post. I am sure
you snipped that challenge inadvertently, as I am confident you would
not want to be seen as making baseless assertions. That, after all,
would lack credibility.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Frank Krygowski

November 18th 04, 05:10 PM

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

>
>
> Guy, and the others, that try to question the injury severity statistics,
> are written off by the pro-MHL politicians as nut cases, and I don't say
> this unkindly.

In my experience, pro-MHL politicians are an imperceptive lot. The ones
I've dealt with have latched onto the first pro-helmet numbers thrown
their way (almost always "85% benefit!!!") and immediately became true
believers. In fact, this is true of most helmet promoters - they're not
even aware that there are data to the contrary!

In the letter writing and committee testimony I've done, I've found that
I could convince sufficient numbers of politicians who were neutral on
the issue. That is, their minds weren't closed, so they looked at the
numbers I provided and listened to the points I made. Contrary to
Steven's assertions, they agreed with me.

And it's not unusual. In general, the more people learn about this
issue, the less likely they are to be true believers in helmets.

It's almost as if the anti-MHL people are desperately trying
> to convince people that their own personal behavior is what's best, and this
> is just as bad as the MHL politicians.

Rather than posting a straw-man version of my position, you might _ask_
what I'm trying to convince people of!

I do some dangerous things, but I
> don't try to convince other people that they should follow my example!

Hmmm. Sounds like you're implying that riding a bicycle without a
helmet is an inherently dangerous thing. Is that what you believe?

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Just zis Guy, you know?

November 18th 04, 05:17 PM

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:18:25 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
> wrote:

>> Unless you can control for such effects adequately, you can't really
>> draw any conclusions from statistics on accident rates or head
>> injuries.

>Exactly. But this is precisely what Guy, and others, keep trying
>unsuccessfully to do.

Er, not quite. You need to read the key pro-helmet papers.
Specifically, check out "A case-control study of the effectiveness of
bicycle safety helmets" Thompson, Rivara & Thompson. New England
Journal of Medicine 1989, Vol 320 No 21 p1361-7. Read it very
carefully, then see if you can find out what is wrong with it. Not
the obvious things, like assuming the street cyclists' helmet wearing
rate was the same as the bikepath cyclists rather than using their own
street counts from the previous year, but the way that they seek to
control for the various confounding factors.

>It's a hard battle against the MHL do-gooders because
>they will point to the medical evidence of injury severity, rather than
>focus on the questionable statistics on ridership or number of accidents.

It's a particularly hard battle if you are not prepared to tackle the
known flaws in the medical evidence. By implicitly accepting a large
part of their case, even though it is subject to widespread criticism
and is not matched by the real world experience of whole populations
of cyclists. you are essentially giving them an advantage they have
not earned. It is their job to prove their case, not ours to disprove
it. Helmet laws fail the "prove it!" test.

>Guy, and the others, that try to question the injury severity statistics,
>are written off by the pro-MHL politicians as nut cases,

So you say, yet you have heard from Frank that the exact opposite
happened when he went to talk to his legislature, and I have letters
from MPs who were persuaded to vote again a helmet law in the UK by
exactly these arguments. So you may just need to provide some
evidence to back that assertion. Our Advertising Standards Authority
recently ruled on some claims made by the leading helmet promoters in
the UK, which included the TR&T (88%) and Snell (75%) efficacy
figures. They found the claim could not be substantiated and should
not be repeated.

If helmets are so good, why do their proponents feel the need to use
exaggerated figures for efficacy, exaggerated numbers for injuries,
and fear of types of injuries for which they have no proven efficacy?
Is it perhaps that they think the truth - that helmets prevent many
trivial injuries, few serious ones, and no make detectable difference
to fatal and very serious injuries - is somehow going to reduce their
ability to sell them?

There is amazingly little in the helmet research papers about the
actual mechanisms of bicycle crashes, the mechanisms of serious and
fatal brain injury, ways of disaggregating injury types and causation.
Why not? there are hundreds of helmet papers, why are they all taking
the same superficial view and not looking deeper? What are they
afraid of? Or is it just that they are done on the cheap form
readily-available figures, and nobody is spending money on finding out
what's really happening? Snell funded some studies, of course, but
they are scarcely impartial.

>I do some dangerous things, but I
>don't try to convince other people that they should follow my example!

I do some dangerous things, too, but cycling is not one of them. I
think using the stairs is most dangerous, statistically, and swimming
is pretty dodgy as well.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Bill Z.

November 20th 04, 01:54 AM

"Steven M. Scharf" > writes:

> "Bill Z." > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > In the U.S., hazards for cyclists have objectively become worse due to
> > the SUV craze as the head is more likely to be hit in a primary
> > impact. The SUV craze roughly fit the same time frame in which
> > helmet laws were passed.
>
> All the data on injury reduction due to helmets discounts the benefit in a
> bicycle/vehicle crash. A small vehicle is just as likely to cause a cyclist
> to be involved in a non-vehicle accident as an SUV.

Two things to keep in mind. One is that cyclists can't look over
the tops of SUVs or vans, so the increased number of these lead
to reduced sight lines, with generally negative consequences.

For the primary impact, what I was getting at is that in a collision
with a normal sized car, your head will typically be higher than the
hood, whereas with an SUV or van, you have a much higher chance of
hitting your head directly as you hit the vehicle. That would probably
make the accident worse in terms of the risk of a head injury, whether
or not a helmet is used.

> MHLs for responsible adult cyclists make little sense. There is no reason to
> alienate this section of the cycling community.

Just in case of any confusion, the comments were with regard to
accident and injury statistics, not about MHLs, which I think are
a bad idea for adults.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB