Helmet Bill in Colorado to be Signed by Governor Recuperating fromInjuries in a Bicycle Crash

Peter Rathmann wrote:

Phil has already pointed out that although there were small reductions
in absolute numbers, the rate of fatalities and hospitalizations
actually went up when cycling participation was taken into account.
And the evidence was in the form of controlled counts of cyclists
taken before and after the imposition of the helmet laws.

LOL, maybe he "pointed it out" but the only problem is that all the
statistics prove the exact opposite. He's got an agenda, and he'll make
up whatever statements it takes to support it. BTW, there was no
accurate count of before and after cyclists. Interesting that the
requirement for statistically sound surveys only applies when it fits
his agenda!

Check http://www.bhsi.org/mandator.htm for a list of about 60 cities
in the US that have bicycle helmet laws for adults.

I stand corrected. Didn't realize there were so many nanny-cities.

On Mar 11, 4:11*pm, SMS wrote:
Peter Rathmann wrote:
Phil has already pointed out that although there were small reductions
in absolute numbers, the rate of fatalities and hospitalizations
actually went up when cycling participation was taken into account.
And the evidence was in the form of controlled counts of cyclists
taken before and after the imposition of the helmet laws.

LOL, maybe he "pointed it out" but the only problem is that all the
statistics prove the exact opposite. He's got an agenda, and he'll make
up whatever statements it takes to support it. BTW, there was no
accurate count of before and after cyclists. Interesting that the
requirement for statistically sound surveys only applies when it fits
his agenda!

Just about any sampling population study can be questioned as to its
statistical soundness.
But there certainly is evidence for a decline in cycling following
imposition of MHLs. One example of a decline in cycling numbers is
provided in the Mar. '05 issue of Health Promotion Journal of Aus.:
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/hpja_2005_1_robinson.pdf
which cites several places where such declines were noted, incl.
Melbourne where counts were taken at 64 places at the same time of
year and day in the year before the MHL and the two years following
it. Declines were about 30%.

Check http://www.bhsi.org/mandator.htm for a list of about 60 cities
in the US that have bicycle helmet laws for adults.

I stand corrected. Didn't realize there were so many nanny-cities.

Peter Rathmann wrote:

which cites several places where such declines were noted, incl.
Melbourne where counts were taken at 64 places at the same time of
year and day in the year before the MHL and the two years following
it. Declines were about 30%.

Is that in total km of cycling for the whole population or in raw
numbers of cyclists? What was the weather on each of the sampling days?
Was their any advance publicity that they'd be counting on that specific
day?

On Mar 11, 8:10*pm, SMS wrote:
Peter Rathmann wrote:
which cites several places where such declines were noted, incl.
Melbourne where counts were taken at 64 places at the same time of
year and day in the year before the MHL and the two years following
it. *Declines were about 30%.

Is that in total km of cycling for the whole population or in raw
numbers of cyclists? What was the weather on each of the sampling days?
Was their any advance publicity that they'd be counting on that specific
day?

If you're really interested in the details I suggest you research it
yourself rather than ask me for second-hand information. The article
does indicate that weather conditions were similar. Such count
studies are not publicized in advance since that would impact the
results. They did have a problem at one of the counting sites one
year due to a large bike rally that happened to go by - so data from
that site couldn't be used.

On Mar 11, 11:32*am, SMS wrote:

I don't think there's a single adult helmet law in the United States.

Wrong, as usual. There are at least 50 jurisdictions that have all-
ages bicycle helmet laws in the U.S.

In countries with universal health care there's also the matter of the
cost of treating the additional injuries incurred by helmet-less riders.
This makes some sense, but of course there are those that will lobby
against helmet laws with the logic that if the government is going to
require that adults wear bicycling helmets, why aren't they also
requiring that they stop eating fatty foods and eat more fruits and
vegetables.

More to the point: If the government wants to reduce the cost of
treating brain injuries, why start with an activity that causes so few
of them?

From http://mighkwilson.com/2009/12/laws-based-on-lies/

"According to the Florida Department of Health, there were 622
traumatic brain injuries (TBI) among bicyclists in Florida in 2005.
By comparison, during the same period, 14,696 automobile and truck
passengers, 1,643 motorcyclists, and 1,189 pedestrians suffered
traumatic brain injuries. Cyclists were only 3% of all traffic-
related TBIs."

And that's in the state that routinely leads the country in serous
bike injuries. In most states, bike TBI is less than 2% of the
total. Nationally, bike TBI fatalities are less than 1% of total TBI
fatalities.

So the idea that cycling is a significant source of TBI is absolutely
false. If you want to save medical costs, put helmets on the people
that get most of the TBI. Shouldn't that be obvious?

... But I don't think there is any danger of
adult helmet laws in the U.S..

Again, there are over 50 jurisdictions that have them so far.

Mr. Scharf really should start learning things before he posts about
them.

- Frank Krygowski

Peter Rathmann wrote:

If you're really interested in the details I suggest you research it
yourself rather than ask me for second-hand information. The article
does indicate that weather conditions were similar. Such count
studies are not publicized in advance since that would impact the
results. They did have a problem at one of the counting sites one
year due to a large bike rally that happened to go by - so data from
that site couldn't be used.

Yeah, you don't want to count anyone that might cause your conclusion to
be different than the conclusion that you want!

On Mar 12, 2:57*am, SMS wrote:
Peter Rathmann wrote:
If you're really interested in the details I suggest you research it
yourself rather than ask me for second-hand information. *The article
does indicate that weather conditions were similar. *Such count
studies are not publicized in advance since that would impact the
results. *They did have a problem at one of the counting sites one
year due to a large bike rally that happened to go by - so data from
that site couldn't be used.

Yeah, you don't want to count anyone that might cause your conclusion to
be different than the conclusion that you want!

Scharf's understanding of data collection is abysmal.

If you wanted to examine how well central heating controlled a room's
temperature, would you include the temperature data from the day the
building caught fire?

- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:43:35 +0000, Phil W Lee
phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:
In countries with universal health care there's also the matter of the
cost of treating the additional injuries incurred by helmet-less riders.

Of course, that's 0.
The gain ratio has been established as 20:1 in favour of encouraging
people to cycle, and helmets achieve the opposite.
It's even been calculated that every pound spent on cycling promotion
in the UK results in a saving of three pounds to the National Health
Service.

I'd be interested in a citation for this, if you have one. My best
guess, playing (unscientifically) with lies, damned lies, and
statistics, was about 6:1 in favor of bicycles for death rates.

Pat

On Mar 12, 7:14*pm, Patrick Lamb wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:43:35 +0000, Phil W Lee

phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:
In countries with universal health care there's also the matter of the
cost of treating the additional injuries incurred by helmet-less riders..

Of course, that's 0.
The gain ratio has been established as 20:1 in favour of encouraging
people to cycle, and helmets achieve the opposite.
It's even been calculated that every pound spent on cycling promotion
in the UK results in a saving of three pounds to the National Health
Service.

I'd be interested in a citation for this, if you have one. *My best
guess, playing (unscientifically) with lies, damned lies, and
statistics, was about 6:1 in favor of bicycles for death rates.

Hillman, Cycling: Towards Health and Safety, BMA, Oxford University
Press, 1992.

He looked at the number of person-years lost due to deaths from
cycling accidents vs. the number of person-years gained due to the
health benefits of cycling and came up with a ratio of about 20:1 in
favor of cycling. Don't have a cite for the cost savings by the NHS.

Bill Sornson wrote:

Bill "if your skull bounces off a curb edge, do you want it protected yes or
no?" S.

Yes, if I know my head is going for a meeting with a
brick wall, I'd want it protected as much as possible.

This would be true if that meeting came about via
bicycle, motor vehicle, tripping on a sidewalk crack.

I'd also want to be wearing flame retardant clothing
if my truck burst into flame from some sort of accident.
A parachute (a well documented life saver) might be a
good idea when flying, commercial or private.

The real question is whether the activity is dangerous
enough to warrant using such protections on a day to
day level, "just in case".

My understanding is that a lot of activities we regard
as "safe" are in fact quite a bit more deadly than we
are willing to believe (motor vehicle operation for
example).

I just don't consider bicycling dangerous enough to
consider helmet use improving my odds of survival doing
it. A helmet probably does improve one's survival odds
*if* something happens; just not enough to be bothered
with as far as I'm concerned.

Yet just about every organized ride where I don't wear a
helmet (to test if the organizers *really* mean mandatory
use), I have fellow cyclists ride up to me asking me why
I don't "value my head".


SMH