Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

Chris B. wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 08:57:05 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:


Why would anyone listen to Scharf


at all? Beats me. He listens to himself enough for the rest of the
world not to have to need to.

Funny.

My web hosting company is complaining about my bandwidth utilization on
the lighting and coffee sites; maybe the world should listen to me a
little less so I won't have to pay extra for more bandwidth!

I've got no horse in this race. I usually wear a helmet, but I am not in
favor of MHLs. I don't tell other people that what I do is what they
should do, I simply put the facts out there and let them decide.

As in any Usenet thread, the people that rely on personal attacks almost
always have the weakest position in the debate. People like you and Guy
and Rodger should reflect on that and think about modifying your behavior.


Steve

http://bicyclelighting.com (or Google "bicycle lighting facts")
http://bicyclecoffeesystems.com (or Google "bicycle coffee")
http://bicyclehelmets.info (new site, wait a few months!)

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:30:56 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote:

I've got no horse in this race. I usually wear a helmet, but I am not in
favor of MHLs. I don't tell other people that what I do is what they
should do, I simply put the facts out there and let them decide.

Exhibit A: the home page of www.bicyclelighting.com, containing the
comment: "Wear a Helmet"; this follows through to a page which
contains a link to Randy "don't confuse them with the facts" Swart's
BHSI helmet advocacy site. A clear case of Scharf telling people what
to do.


And I am still waiting for you to state what figure of efficacy you
prefer, and from which study it comes. There are plenty to choose
form, ranging from -40% to +186% - take your pick! You seem curiously
reluctant to let us know the evidential basis on which you advise
people to "Wear a Helmet".

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 wrote:

Chris B. wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 08:57:05 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:


Why would anyone listen to Scharf
at all? Beats me. He listens to himself enough for the rest of the
world not to have to need to.


Funny.

My web hosting company is complaining about my bandwidth utilization on
the lighting and coffee sites; maybe the world should listen to me a
little less so I won't have to pay extra for more bandwidth!

I think that bandwidth utilization is a result of the atrocious site
design. When you click on one of your URLs, the entire, longwinded,
interminable, rambling, tedious, erroneous text downloads. Followed by
several megs of pictures. Obviously, this is going to clog the pipes.
Even the largest soil pipes can be clogged by too much ... um, waste.

However, I doubt you realize this, since you've never bothered to learn
anything about the principles of site design. Probably because you're
too busy patting yourself on the back for being such an excellent site
designer! ;-)


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

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 02:44:16 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

Moving standard Zaumen playground stuff to the end

I.e., our little troll is *so* hurt when his infantile name calling
is pointed out. Even a teenager would be too embarassed to act like
Guy does. And of course the "standard stuff" is *his* stuff. At least
he admits that he belongs on an elementary school playground.

I gave you a reference to one paper and suggested you look at
papers that *cite* that one as a way of finding what you asked
about. You evidently have no interest in that (as you continually
ignored it.)

Nope, I followed up a number of papers which cite that, from my
database of around 160 papers, and found none which match your
description. Given past experience that suggests to me that it is
your assertion which is wrong, but I was trying to give you the
benefit of the doubt.

Given my past experience with you I'd say you are making things up.
I'd suggest you go to a library and look throw a citation index
instead of muttering about some fraction (of an unspecified size) of
whatever you have stashed away somewhere.

childishness snipped

Oh, and you are back in your timeout. You still haven't grown up.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 02:44:16 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:
snip

Sorry for replying twice. I'm sure, however, that Guy will remain
as abusive as ever, even when presented with a paper that contradicts
him and gives a reasonable summary of other work.

See http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/pdf/cr195.pdf. On page 11, it notes

"The major motivation for the new study was to have sufficient
numbers to determine whether the protective effects were
consistent across age groups, different helmet types and crash
severity, in particular, in crashes with motor vehicles. Their
results confirmed each of these hypotheses. They also
re-affirmed that helmets provide substantial protection for
the upper and mid face, but not the lower face."

with discussions of a variety of studies showing similar results. Note
the term "crash severity."

On page 16, it states:

"Despite these patterns the strength of the associations are
compelling. A basic sensitivity analysis indicated that at
least 11 large non-significant negative studies1 would be
required to otally counteract results for head injury (2 for
facial injury). The fact that the literature earch produced
articles that did not endorse helmets (7 out of 63 distributed
across several ournals) provides some evidence against the
likelihood that negative studies, if submitted, were rejected
for publication. Some of the arguments against helmets centred
on conflicting nterpretations of results from population
studies in which time trends in rates of head injury and
non-head injury among hospitalised cyclists were compared with
trends in rates of helmet use in the corresponding
region. Population (or ecological) studies provide the weakest
form of epidemiological evidence for associations (Rothman,
1986). However, Povey et al (1999) provide convincing support
for the link between helmets and the prevention of head injury
in heir population study of national data from New Zealand in
the period 1990-1996."

That's consistent with what I've been saying all along: that population-
based studies are a poor way of measuring helmet effectiveness, and
that you are better off controlling for the crash severity (or the
level of non-head injuries, which is basicly the same thing.)

I'll leave it at that. Any interested parties can read the full report.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Steven M. Scharf Wrote:
Chris B. wrote:

I still maintain that the subject of bicycle helmets could have
been the basis for a landmark psychological experiment.

Definitely.

It also provides for an excellent study for evaluating all the
different
kinds of logical fallacies. I am going to include the type of fallacy
for each argument on the web site I'm in the process of creating.

Unfortunately, this thread does show how the MHLs are able to get
pushed
through. Put yourselves in the shoes of a do-gooder politician for a
moment. He'd read a thread like this one, and he'd have everythng he
needed to push through an MHL, no matter how ill-advised it actually
is.

What's interesting about this thread is that even the individuals that
understand the reduction in severity of injuries that helmets have
been
proven to provide, still oppose the MHLs.

What's needed is a voice of reason that can calmly examine the facts
and
fallacies that are promulgated by each side in the debate.

Well gee Steven you must be a really clever person - a voice of reason
is needed huh? - are you trying to suggest that you fit this bill? Ah
you're so modest! Keep on deluding yourself Steven - puffing into your
own sail.

Roger


--
RogerDodger

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:38:48 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:30:56 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote:

I've got no horse in this race. I usually wear a helmet, but I am not in
favor of MHLs. I don't tell other people that what I do is what they
should do, I simply put the facts out there and let them decide.

Exhibit A: the home page of www.bicyclelighting.com, containing the
comment: "Wear a Helmet"; this follows through to a page which
contains a link to Randy "don't confuse them with the facts" Swart's
BHSI helmet advocacy site. A clear case of Scharf telling people what
to do.

Perhaps on his planet, repeatedly insulting the intelligence of a
person does not count as insult.

I just did a few Google searches (the search terms 'steven', 'scharf'
and 'liar' produce some telling results). Being a pathological liar
appears to be only the beginning of his problems.

He is just another Usenet kook. I'm done with him.

--
"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

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Exhibit A: the home page of www.bicyclelighting.com, containing the
comment: "Wear a Helmet"; this follows through to a page which
contains a link to Randy "don't confuse them with the facts" Swart's
BHSI helmet advocacy site. A clear case of Scharf telling people what
to do.

What I state on the web site is the following: "While I am not a helmet
zealot, wearing a helmet is a very good idea."

Telling someone that doing something is a good idea is hardly compelling
them to do something. Very few people would argue the benefit of a
helmet if you are involved in a crash (the anti-MHL argument is based on
the fact that since statistical probability of being involved in an
accident is so small the helmet use should not be mandated, something
that I happen to agree with).

And I am still waiting for you to state what figure of efficacy you
prefer, and from which study it comes.

These studies have been cited throughout this thread. It's not my job to
explain them to you, especially since you almost certainly already
understand them. I would not presume to choose a specific “figure of
efficacy," from the available studies. Each study was performed using
different criteria, so the figures they come up with in terms of injury
reduction will naturally be different. The important thing to understand
is that EVERY reputable study that looked at the issue of whether or not
wearing a helmet reduced injuries when a crash occurred came to the same
conclusion.

The debate about “studies” centers around the differing conclusions
regarding whether or not injuries go down in the cycling population as
helmet use goes up. This is where the most amazing proclamations are
made by the anti-helmet people. If I see the “Netherlands versus New
Zealand” idiocy one more time I think I’ll puke—it’s a sure sign that
anyone that tries to use that line of reasoning is either incredibly
naive, or is trying to intentionally mislead people. It generally goes
like this: “We know that the countries with the worst cyclist safety
records have high helmet wearing rates.” Always with the “we” as if the
whole world agrees with their mis-interpretation of the data! A classic
case of confusing causation and correlation.

You belittle the bhsi.org web site, but they have some sections that are
very worthwhile, especially the section at http://bhsi.org/negativs.htm."

Bill Z. wrote:

That's consistent with what I've been saying all along: that population-
based studies are a poor way of measuring helmet effectiveness,

They are flawed, but if well-designed then they do have their place. At
a minimum you need to be comparing the population in the same locale at
the same point in time.

But what we see constantly is the venerable Netherlands versus New
Zealand comparison, which has been thoroughly discredited by innumerable
sources, but it has taken on a life of its own. Also popular are studies
that attempt to measure accidents before and after a helmet law has gone
into effect, without taking into account the behavioral changes, and
cycling population changes that such a law effects (if it's actually
obeyed).

and that you are better off controlling for the crash severity (or the level of non-head injuries, which is basicly the same thing.)

This too doesn't tell the full story, it only proves what everyone
already knows regarding injury reduction. It doesn't address the bigger
picture of just how unlikely an accident is in the first place.

The worst thing about MHLs is that they make people think that cycling
is some terribly dangerous activity, and that that danger is largely
eliminated by wearing a helmet. Neither is true.

If you read a post that has a statement similar to: "“We know that the
countries with the worst cyclist safety records have high helmet wearing
rates," put on your shields, as the bull**** is going to be coming fast
and furious!

Steve
http://bicyclehelmets.info.

Bill Z. wrote:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:


On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 02:44:16 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

snip

Sorry for replying twice. I'm sure, however, that Guy will remain
as abusive as ever, even when presented with a paper that contradicts
him and gives a reasonable summary of other work.

Abuse is quite useful in determining who to believe in a contentious
discussion.