Raged motorist strikes two cyclists

On Aug 27, 7:37 pm, SMS wrote:

They may have been claiming that helmet laws
result in reduced levels of cycling, even though no data is available
that proves this.

That was spoken from a position of ignorance. An accurate version of
that statement is: there is no data proving this that Steven M.
Scharf knows about. However, there is plenty of such data, even
though he's unaware of it.



This the approach that was successful in my club when the do-gooders
tried to make helmets compulsory on all rides, rather than letting the
ride leaders decide (eventually we could no longer obtain insurance
without a helmet requirement and we were forced into requiring helmets
on all rides).

There's a good chance that's another statement from ignorance. My
club's insurance does not require helmets. Granted, his club is in a
different state, and perhaps every insurance company licensed in his
state does require helmets, but it's rather unlikely. The League of
American Bicyclists' event insurance is available in every state,
AFAIK, and it does not require helmets.

- Frank Krygowski

On Aug 27, 8:51 pm, SMS wrote:
Lobby Dosser wrote:
And there is no proof that either of them ever had anything to do with
stopping a helmet law, is there?

No, but they think they did! While to most of us they come across as
rather foolish on Usenet, each could have a totally different persona
when live in front of policymakers, and they could actually be effective
lobbyists when the anonymity of Usenet is stripped away.

:-) Anonymity of Usenet? That's pretty funny, coming from a guy who
goes only by SMS!

Of course, many of us know him as Steven M. Scharf, but he does try to
remain anonymous!

- Frank Krygowski

wrote:

On Aug 27, 6:35 pm, Lobby Dosser
wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 27, 2:38 am, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

If more than one person is involved, Everything IS a Political
Issue. Everywhere. Deal with it.

Interesting. Earlier, you said scientific arguments and
presentation of facts won't work regarding mandatory helmet laws.
Why? Because they are a political issue.

Now you're saying if more than one person is involved, _everything_
is a political issue.

It follows that you believe science and data have no value, except
perhaps to hermits living alone on mountain tops! That's one of
the most anti-intellectual points of view I've ever heard.

How do you make your personal decisions? By examining the entrails
of sacrificed animals?

That seems more your line of work.

Nope. My line of work is engineering and technical education. I'm
all about learning, calculations, data, intelligence, etc. That's how
I make most of my important decisions.

How about you? If you have so little regard for facts, science and
logic, how _do_ you make decisions? Care to answer, instead of wise-
cracking?

Facts.

Lobby Dosser wrote:
wrote:

On Aug 27, 6:35 pm, Lobby Dosser
wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 27, 2:38 am, Lobby Dosser
wrote:
If more than one person is involved, Everything IS a Political
Issue. Everywhere. Deal with it.
Interesting. Earlier, you said scientific arguments and
presentation of facts won't work regarding mandatory helmet laws.
Why? Because they are a political issue.
Now you're saying if more than one person is involved, _everything_
is a political issue.
It follows that you believe science and data have no value, except
perhaps to hermits living alone on mountain tops! That's one of
the most anti-intellectual points of view I've ever heard.
How do you make your personal decisions? By examining the entrails
of sacrificed animals?
That seems more your line of work.
Nope. My line of work is engineering and technical education. I'm
all about learning, calculations, data, intelligence, etc. That's how
I make most of my important decisions.

How about you? If you have so little regard for facts, science and
logic, how _do_ you make decisions? Care to answer, instead of wise-
cracking?

Facts.

Like the fact of how many dead presidents you are offered to argue a
position?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Aug 27, 1:18 pm, Jim Yanik wrote:


just pass a law allowing insurance companies an exemption that people who
fail to take reasonable precautions(seatbelt or helmet for cycles) cannot
make a claim against their insurance.Then they can make their choice as
they see fit,and live by the consequences of their choice.

But what is your definition of a "reasonable precaution"?

It seems to me it should include at least three factors. First, the
danger without the "precaution" must be significant. Otherwise you're
in the position of requiring armor to play hopscotch. Not that the
handwringers wouldn't like that, I suppose...

Second, the "precaution" must be effective. It must actually reduce
the hazard enough to be worthwhile. A pocket full of ping-pong balls
won't keep you from drowning, so it would be silly to mandate it for
boaters.

Third, the "precaution" must do more good than harm. It can't
increase the hazard from other effects more than it decreases the
hazard from its intended effect.

There are probably other qualifications we can think of, but: Bicycle
helmets fail on all three of those I mentioned.

First, and most important, bicycling is NOT a significant risk of
serious head injury. That whole idea is a fiction, developed
specifically to market bike helmets. Neither the total number, nor
the per-hour rate of significant head injury due to bicycling is large
enough to justify helmets. Cycling is roughly as safe as driving or
walking.

Second, bike helmets have simply NOT proven effective. Their
widespread use has not decreased serious head injuries. And this is
not surprising, since they are designed and certified only for
extremely mild impacts, not the sorts of impacts that cause the vast
majority of serious injuries and deaths - rare as those are.

Third, the imposition of helmet laws has been proven to seriously
decrease bicycling, despite claims to the contrary. The same is
probably true for the scaremongering helmet promotion. This does more
harm than good, not only because the helmets are ineffective;
bicycling is a strong positive force for health, and driving people
away from it by law or by fear causes losses in public health.

I've listed citations for all these facts in the past. If anyone
wants them, let me know here and I'll list the citations yet again.

- Frank Krygowski

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

Lobby Dosser wrote:
wrote:

On Aug 27, 6:35 pm, Lobby Dosser
wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 27, 2:38 am, Lobby Dosser
wrote:
If more than one person is involved, Everything IS a Political
Issue. Everywhere. Deal with it.
Interesting. Earlier, you said scientific arguments and
presentation of facts won't work regarding mandatory helmet laws.
Why? Because they are a political issue.
Now you're saying if more than one person is involved,
_everything_ is a political issue.
It follows that you believe science and data have no value, except
perhaps to hermits living alone on mountain tops! That's one of
the most anti-intellectual points of view I've ever heard.
How do you make your personal decisions? By examining the
entrails of sacrificed animals?
That seems more your line of work.
Nope. My line of work is engineering and technical education. I'm
all about learning, calculations, data, intelligence, etc. That's
how I make most of my important decisions.

How about you? If you have so little regard for facts, science and
logic, how _do_ you make decisions? Care to answer, instead of
wise- cracking?

Facts.

Like the fact of how many dead presidents you are offered to argue a
position?


Cute. But content free.

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:31:46 GMT, Lobby Dosser
said in
mhIAi.21$J65.18@trndny08:

Yes, I'm British,

Then eventually you WILL have helmets. Nanny wouldn't have it any other
way. And mandatory sun glasses and sun screen on days when the sun
shines. And classes on the save use of a bicycle. And a Licence to buy
one. And insurance. And road tax. And ...

So you say. That wasn't the impression our group got from its
meeting with the Department for Transport last week, though.

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:37:32 -0700, SMS
said in :

It's impossible to know what exactly they said, and if in fact the laws
were not implemented because of what they said or in spite of what they
said.

So you say. As it happens, our law did not pass, and the arguments
I describe were used. You assert that this approach does not work,
but it appears to us that it does. We have no evidence that the
approach you advocate as the only appropriate one has ever been
used, let alone worked. So we'll be sticking with our way.

The anonymity of Usenet tends to cause people to say things that they
wouldn't say in person. I would wager that neither Frank nor Guy was at
these hearings talking about PMS, cancer, driving helmets, walking
helmets, etc., or engaging in the type of rhetoric that is seen on
Usenet in the helmet wars.

Your username is "SMS". There is no link to say who you are. My
signature contains details of who I am, Frank posts under his own
name. So much for the anonymity argument.

Frank has testified in person in front of his legislature. I have
not, but I was in correspondence with the Minister of State, and
other members of my group *were* meeting with ministers and other
members of the legislature (and do so fairly regularly).

So your premise is false and you lose your wager.

It's highly unlikely that they were attacking the validity of ER
statistics with rationalizations about how income level and social
status affect ER visits, either one way or another.

Wrong again, bozo.

What on earth would be the reason *not* to point out that the
pro-helmet side are using a weak kind of evidence which does not
match what happens in the real world? Why would you not do that?

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:32:24 GMT, Lobby Dosser
said in
YhIAi.22$J65.18@trndny08:

And then stop asserting that the approach which worked, doesn't
work.

What proof is there that it did work?

No helmet law.

But since you've now decided to go down the "proof" line, how about
you cite the proof that helmet laws reduce head injury rates, or
that helmet wearing has reduced head injury rates in any real
cyclist population?

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Aug 28, 12:21 am, Lobby Dosser
wrote:
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:





Lobby Dosser wrote:
wrote:

On Aug 27, 6:35 pm, Lobby Dosser
wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 27, 2:38 am, Lobby Dosser
wrote:
If more than one person is involved, Everything IS a Political
Issue. Everywhere. Deal with it.
Interesting. Earlier, you said scientific arguments and
presentation of facts won't work regarding mandatory helmet laws.
Why? Because they are a political issue.
Now you're saying if more than one person is involved,
_everything_ is a political issue.
It follows that you believe science and data have no value, except
perhaps to hermits living alone on mountain tops! That's one of
the most anti-intellectual points of view I've ever heard.
How do you make your personal decisions? By examining the
entrails of sacrificed animals?
That seems more your line of work.
Nope. My line of work is engineering and technical education. I'm
all about learning, calculations, data, intelligence, etc. That's
how I make most of my important decisions.

How about you? If you have so little regard for facts, science and
logic, how _do_ you make decisions? Care to answer, instead of
wise- cracking?

Facts.

Like the fact of how many dead presidents you are offered to argue a
position?

Cute. But content free.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I need Maalox after that cracker.