Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

b_baka writes:

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
Bill Z. wrote:

On the contrary, your side has been claiming that helmets are not
effective and "our" side is suggesting that your claims are based on
inadequate evidence.
Oh please. There are no "sides" here. There are two people, Guy and
Frank, that ignore the volumes of evidence, and there is the ROW
(rest of world), that looks at things objectively.
It is true that cycling is not a dangerous activity, and that no
mandatory helmet laws are necessary, but there is no debate that
helmeted cyclists fare better than non-helmeted cyclists, when
crashes do occur.

There really is no argument over the logic that helmets do reduce head
injuries, but I would like the option of making the decision to wear a
helmet for myself.

Unfortunately, these guys have been arguing that helmets do not reduce
head injuries for years. Some of them even claimed that helmets cause
injuries. I don't think you are familiar with the history of this
discussion (undertandable since some of it occurred years ago.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 19:40:03 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Logical fallacy: burden of proof. We are not proposing an
intervention, the burden of proof lies solely with those who are.

Wrong - your "side" is making statements that helmets are ineffective.
It is up to you to back up that claim. Neither Steven nor I have
proposed any "intervention" (so suggesting that on your part is a red
herring.)

My "side" is challenging the helmet zealots to prove their case,
especially in the context of those zealots trying to force their
judgment on others (check the thread title). The fact that they seem
unable to do so, preferring to resort to ad-hominem, reversed burden
of proof, appeals to belief or simply putting their fingers in their
ears and chanting "tra la la I'm not listening" may be seen as
significant.

There are no "helmet zealots" posting in this discussion, although
there are several anti-helmet zealots. Those of us disagreeing with
you have simply been pointing out that you haven't proven your case.

You downplay your position here - I wonder why?

I'm not "downplaying" it. I'm stating what I've been stating for the
past 10 years (your sides attempt to pretend otherwise
notwithstanding.)

plonk for the rest of today
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

b_baka wrote:

There really is no argument over the logic that helmets do reduce head
injuries,

You might want to go back and read this thread in its entirety! You're
wrong when you say "there really is no argument."

but I would like the option of making the decision to wear a
helmet for myself.

This is exactly what I, and most other people in this thread, have been
saying for months.

Unfortunately, for some people, it just isn't comprehensible how anyone
can both acknowledge the reduction in head injuries and fatalities, when
crashes occur, yet be opposed to compulsion. It's as if they simply
can't bear to see someone who is able to understand both sides of the issue.

On 6 Feb 2005 18:59:20 -0800, "
wrote:

This is true. However look at the statistics on fatalities of
motorcyclists in states that dropped their motorcycle MHLs. Not
surprising that the rates went way up, i.e. in Lousiana they went from
26 to 55, in Kentucky from 24 to 38 (this was for the year after the
repeal). Not magnitudes difference, but around 50-100% increase.

That's not quite the whole picture, though, is it? CDC stats show
that non-law states have a lower than average motorcyclist fatality
rate per registered motorcycle (helmet-law states 3.38 deaths per
10,000, non-helmet-law states 3.05 deaths per 10,000), and as Adams
shows in Risk, the effect of the helmet law in the UK was a
significant relative rise in motorcyclist injuries and fatalities, and
the effect of repeal in US states was a drop in the rates for those
states. Much was made of the increase in fatality rates after repeal
or partial repeal, but it was found on investigation that the increase
was almost exclusively in states which had retained the law, with
repeal states showing both better rates and better trends.

IS it a "safety in numbers" thing? Maybe, maybe not. During the
seven-year period from 1987 through 1993, states with no helmet laws
or partial helmet laws (for riders under 21) suffered fewer deaths
(2.89) per 100 accidents than those states with full helmet laws (2.93
deaths).

Once again the probability of injury given crash is only half the
story. And it remains the case that motorcycle helmets are not
especially relevant to a discussion of cycle helmets.

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 CHS, Puget Sound

wrote in message
ups.com...
....
However look at the statistics on fatalities of
motorcyclists in states that dropped their motorcycle MHLs. Not
surprising that the rates went way up, i.e. in Lousiana they went from
26 to 55, in Kentucky from 24 to 38 (this was for the year after the
repeal). Not magnitudes difference, but around 50-100% increase.


It's not just Louisiana and Kentucky (or the other states that have repealed
their universal MHL's for motorcyclists in the last few years: Arkansas,
Texas, and Florida) where motorcycle fatalities have been rising rapidly.
From 1997, when motorcycle fatalities reached an all-time low of 2116 in the
US, they have since risen by nearly 75% across the entire country (to 3661
as of 2003), in both MHL and non-MHL states alike. While it's true that the
increases in motorcycle fatalities in those states that recently repealed
their MHL's have outpaced the average rate of increase in other states, this
is mostly because increases in motorcycle registrations in those same states
have also outpaced the average rate of increase in other states.
Attributing an increase in a state's motorcycle fatality rate exclusively or
even primarily to the repeal of a MHL is exceedingly simplistic--except
insofar as repeal of a MHL encourages more motorcycling of course.

Riley Geary

Riley Geary wrote:

this
is mostly because increases in motorcycle registrations in those same states
have also outpaced the average rate of increase in other states.

This is not true. The fatalities have _far_ outpaced the increase in
registrations. Motorcyclists Killed per 10,000 Registered have steadily
increased since the repeal of the law.

You can see the data at:
"http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/kentuky-la03/LawChgLa.html"


Look, most of us here are opposed to MHLs for both motorcycles and
bicycles, but this is in spite of the data, because of the personal
freedom aspect. It does this cause no good to lie about reality.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
....
And it remains the case that motorcycle helmets are not
especially relevant to a discussion of cycle helmets.


I'll have to respectfully disagree with Guy (and Bill Baka) on this, since
my research into motorcycling fatalities has led me to conclude that some
form of risk compensation among helmet-using motorcyclists is by far the
most compelling rationale to explain the huge differences seen in the
apparent effectiveness of motorcycle helmets between states with a MHL and
states without a MHL, and particularly in states that have recently repealed
a MHL. If similar risk compensation characteristics apply equally well to
bicyclists, then we not only have a reasonably coherent explanation as to
why bike helmet use has had little or no favorable impact on overall bicycle
fatality rates, but a powerful argument against imposing a MHL on bicyclists
as well.

Riley Geary

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:21:25 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

There are no "helmet zealots" posting in this discussion, although
there are several anti-helmet zealots. Those of us disagreeing with
you have simply been pointing out that you haven't proven your case.

So you say, and yet you repeatedly make claims in defence of helmets
which turn out to have no evidential basis - which looks suspiciously
like zealotry to me.

And I remind you: I have no case to prove, I am not proposing any
intervention.

You downplay your position here - I wonder why?

I'm not "downplaying" it. I'm stating what I've been stating for the
past 10 years (your sides attempt to pretend otherwise
notwithstanding.)

I don't think anybody is trying to say that you are anything other
than consistent; that has no bearing on the quality or otherwise of
your argument, or on the inference which may be drawn from your
repeated attempts to make claims for helmets which turn out to be
either without evidential basis (and in at least one case directly
contradicted by the evidence).

Neither does it have any bearing on the fundamental truth that we, the
sceptics, have no case to prove: it is quite sufficient for us to
point out flaws in the arguments advanced by those who seek to promote
an intervention.

But I'm always open for new facts, and have been known to change my
mind based on new and emerging evidence (that's how I arrived at my
current view, after all). If you have evidence that cycling is
unusually dangerous, unusually productive of head injuries, if you can
cite a pro-helmet study free of self-selection bias and other
confounding, if you can detail a jurisdiction where increases in
helmet use have led directly to improved cycle safety, if you can
detail an enforced helmet law which has not resulted in significant
reductions in cycling, then let me know. I want to hear about it.

In the mean time the well-funded handwringers pushing laws use the
discredited 85% and misrepresent even that. Twenty years ago the idea
that cycling was lethally dangerous would have been laughed at. Now
the model of cycling pursued by many is driving to some off-road
leisure facility with the bikes on the back of the car - and I believe
that a lot of this is the result of hysterical "BIKE DANGER!!!"
posturing by the helmet lobby..

plonk for the rest of 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 CHS, Puget Sound

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:18:30 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Unfortunately, these guys have been arguing that helmets do not reduce
head injuries for years.

Really? Where? If you look at real-world figures they have no
measurable effect on serious and fatal head injuries, but I don't know
anybody who says they don't prevent the trivial cuts and bumps they
are designed for.

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 CHS, Puget Sound

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:35:36 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote:

There really is no argument over the logic that helmets do reduce head
injuries,
You might want to go back and read this thread in its entirety! You're
wrong when you say "there really is no argument."

Up to a point: the argument is whether the probability of injury given
ride is more important than the probability of injury given crash
(which I would suggest it is), and whether the prevention of mainly
trivial injuries is sufficient to make such a song and dance about.

but I would like the option of making the decision to wear a
helmet for myself.
This is exactly what I, and most other people in this thread, have been
saying for months.

Up to a point. What you've actually been doing is pleading that this
is your position, while telling anybody who will listen that they
should use your "helmets work but don't make us wear them" approach
rather than the reality-based approach which has defeated several
helmet laws recently.

Unfortunately, for some people, it just isn't comprehensible how anyone
can both acknowledge the reduction in head injuries and fatalities, when
crashes occur, yet be opposed to compulsion. It's as if they simply
can't bear to see someone who is able to understand both sides of the issue.

Time to get a mirror, Mr Scharf. And time to read up on risk
compensation.

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 CHS, Puget Sound