Helmet Nazis at It Again!

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:40:00 GMT, "Cathy Kearns"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:54:25 GMT, "Cathy Kearns"
wrote:
I'm in the "it doesn't hurt" category.

Look up "rotational injury", and "risk compensation".

I'm riding the back of a tandem. I am much, much, much more likely to
get
hit by a low hanging branch than go over the handlebars. As for risk
compensation, sitting on the back, with no control over steering,
braking,
or even shifting, I'm fairly sure I have no power over the "risk
compensation" portion of the ride. But that did make me smile.:-)


Yes -

but was your evaluation that for you individually "it doesn't hurt",
or for the population in general?

I'm not interested in putting a helmet on anyone but myself, so why would I
even consider the population in general? They get to make their own
decisions.

And in either case, did the fact that helmet-wearing and helmet laws
put people off cycling (with the resultant increase in health care
costs) enter into your evaluation?

Why would it? Now I did evaluate the risks for my health, and thought the
extra exercise I get running errands by bike would help my health enough to
completely mitigate the slight chance of me getting hurt in such a way a
helmet would make a difference. So given the choice the ride without a
helmet and get exercise or take the car and get no exercise, I ride without
the helmet. I must admit, if the choice was ride without a helmet, get
exercise, but risk getting a ticket, I'd take the car.

On 2006-10-03 07:50:58 -0400, said:

MHL's are a bad idea, adults, children, or both.

You have your opinion.

--
- Slim

wrote in message
...
That's probably why the mandatory helmet law in California excludes
adults

So far.

It'll be pretty easy to pass a law requiring all cyclists to wear
helmets when

a) they've all grown up suffering under a law that required them to do
so; and

b) there are many fewer of them because those who would have been
cyclists gave it up due to the helmet law.

In light of those two points, it's worth remembering that California
passed the first of its helmet laws in 1987, just under 20 years ago.

I'm not so sure. The college campuses I have visited/riden through in the
last year (yes it was college tour season for my senior in high school) are
brimming with students who have grown up in California under helmet laws,
yet ride without helmets. For that matter, the local high school also has
many students who ride without helmets, or helmets hanging from their handle
bars, or even weirder, helmets sitting on their head but not buckled on.
The little kids are wearing helmets, but the older kids start slacking about
junior high or high school. My friend was mentioning her son was one of
only two in his circle of friends that still wears his helmet, he's 15. So
I'm not so sure those who've grown up wearing helmets will keep wearing
helmets.

As I mentioned earlier, my senior in high school stopped cycling, due to
helmets, in junior high. She preferred to walk the mile and a half to
school and home. Now school is much closer, but she drives. So you would
think as an adult she wouldn't be the least interested in picking up cycling
again, but wrong. She says she'd like a bike for college. But will pass on
the helmet. So again, I'm not so sure those that have given up biking due to
helmets won't go back when the helmets aren't necessary, especially when the
age tend to merge with the entrance to University, where bikes are often the
best form of transportation.

writes:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:53:09 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:44:01 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:

Cathy Kearns wrote:
"Bill Z." wrote in message
...


Given that the mileage on utility trips is apparently much less than
the mileage on the fun/training rides, I presume whatever additional
risk Cathy takes by not using a helmet has hardly any effect on
her risk per year.


True, but a person such as "Cathy" is probably using her cycle as
nearly much as she would absent an MHL. It is thise people who might
or might not use a cycle for utility tripos that we need to encourage.

That's probably why the mandatory helmet law in California excludes
adults

So far.

It'll be pretty easy to pass a law requiring all cyclists to wear
helmets when

a) they've all grown up suffering under a law that required them to do
so; and

b) there are many fewer of them because those whop would have been
cyclists gave it up due to the helmet law.

In light of those two points, it's worth remembering that California
passed the first of its helmet laws in 1987, just under 20 years ago.

Reality - the law did not pass the first time it was introduced
because it targeted everyone. The next year, a law was passed, but
restricted to children.

BTW the bicycle helmet law was passed in Jan 1, 1992
(according to http://www.bikersrights.com/states/california/chron.html).

Your 1987 "helmet law" had nothing to do with bicycles.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:
writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

If
you can't produce valid documentation, I simply won't believe you.

Yes, it's true. You won't believe me if I don't produce valid
documentation.

Oh, so you have no documentation.

Wrong.

OTOH, you also won't believe me if I _do_ produce valid documentation.
That's what's been going on here for many, many years.

Another lie from Krygowski.

Wrong again. I frequently provide data and documentation, with proper
citations, web links if available, etc.

(In previous discussions, he'd cite some
paper that was either irrelevant, flawed, or misinterpretted and then
he'd complain when the problems with what he was saying were pointed
out.)

Rather, you invent cockamamie reasons the data MUST be wrong. And, in
almost every case, you do so without providing documentation or data of
your own. I think any interested parties can scan back and see that
what I say is true.

Meantime, pardon me if I don't waste more of my time giving you
citations.

- Frank Krygowski

wrote:

snipped

Meantime, pardon me if I don't waste more of my time giving you
citations.


You mean your agenda driven, bogus citations? Thanks for smal favors!


- Frank Krygowski....

.....spends his time tilting with styrofoam windmills. What a pathetic
joke.

Bill Z. wrote:

But I didn't disparage helmets to make that point (and that probably
made my letter seem a bit more credible to my elected representative).

That's the key to fighting MHLs. What some people don't realize is that
they actually are aiding the pro-MHL lobby by using junk-science and
irrelevant comparisons of other activities in their arguments against
helmets.

I think that (almost) everyone understands that while helmeted cyclists
fare better in head-impact accidents than non-helmeted cyclists, the
number of such accidents is sufficiently low that helmet laws are
unnecessary.

writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

If
you can't produce valid documentation, I simply won't believe you.

Yes, it's true. You won't believe me if I don't produce valid
documentation.

Oh, so you have no documentation.

Wrong.

If you had any documentation, you'd have provided it.


OTOH, you also won't believe me if I _do_ produce valid documentation.
That's what's been going on here for many, many years.

Another lie from Krygowski.

Wrong again. I frequently provide data and documentation, with proper
citations, web links if available, etc.

Actually, you very infrequently provide any data or any documentation,
and rarely any proper citations.


(In previous discussions, he'd cite some
paper that was either irrelevant, flawed, or misinterpretted and then
he'd complain when the problems with what he was saying were pointed
out.)

Rather, you invent cockamamie reasons the data MUST be wrong. And, in
almost every case, you do so without providing documentation or data of
your own. I think any interested parties can scan back and see that
what I say is true.

Not true at all. First, Krygowski's "cockamamie reasons" simply
refers to statements he can't refute, or comments about obvious
shortcomings in the studies he like to quote (like one he cited
regarding helmet effectiveness that didn't even have any data about
which cyclists who had accidents wore helmets and which didn't), and
where they had to make a number of assumptions as a result. Second, I
have provided a number of citations (usually ignored). Third,
Krygowski will simply try counting numbers of posts including ones
in which I told people off for being rude - you know, the sort who
"see red" whenever anyone suggests that using a helmet a reasonable
personal decision for someone to make.

Meantime, pardon me if I don't waste more of my time giving you
citations.

(Because he has none to back up the claim he made.) Note too how
Krygowski quietly snipped the context of where this discussion started
- Message ID .com
where Krygwoski made a number of claims about Bell Helmets and Safe
Kids, none of which he has been able to document.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On 3 Oct 2006 18:37:28 -0700, wrote:

Other than a tongue-in-cheek post by me that was pointed specifically
at you, I challenge you to show any evidence that I am pro-MHL. When
you fail to do so, and you surely will fail, I expect you to STFU.

How's it coming with the evidence that I am pro-MHL, butt nugget? Can't
produce any, eh? That's what I thought.


It was more than one post.

And as for being "tongue-in-cheeek", if you will post an apology
withdrawing your stated wishes for a Helmet Law I will be surprised.

wrote:
On 3 Oct 2006 18:37:28 -0700, wrote:

Other than a tongue-in-cheek post by me that was pointed specifically
at you, I challenge you to show any evidence that I am pro-MHL. When
you fail to do so, and you surely will fail, I expect you to STFU.

How's it coming with the evidence that I am pro-MHL, butt nugget? Can't
produce any, eh? That's what I thought.


It was more than one post.

And as for being "tongue-in-cheeek", if you will post an apology
withdrawing your stated wishes for a Helmet Law I will be surprised.

Wiggle, wiggle, you weasel. You have no evidence that I am pro-MHL, do
you? But you are too much of a weasel to admit it.

As for an apology......just pucker up and kiss my ass.