Helmet Nazis at It Again!
 

A news item the last two days has been how the City is planning another
200 miles of bike lanes. For some reason, the liberals can't resist
throwing in the tidbit about some study finding that ~97% of bike
fatalities in the City involve riders not wearing a helmet. WTF???

Anyway, there's a spokesman from the Rebel Alliance on a segment of
Brian Lehrer's show "On the Line." It should be podcasted by tomorrow
if you miss it today.


http://www.wnyc.org/

Helmet Nazis at It Again!
 

NYC XYZ wrote:
A news item the last two days has been how the City is planning another
200 miles of bike lanes. For some reason, the liberals can't resist
throwing in the tidbit about some study finding that ~97% of bike
fatalities in the City involve riders not wearing a helmet. WTF???

Anyway, there's a spokesman from the Rebel Alliance on a segment of
Brian Lehrer's show "On the Line." It should be podcasted by tomorrow
if you miss it today.


http://www.wnyc.org/


Wow, Godwin's Law in the very first post of a thread.

Helmet Nazis at It Again!
 

"NYC XYZ" writes:

A news item the last two days has been how the City is planning another
200 miles of bike lanes. For some reason, the liberals can't resist
throwing in the tidbit about some study finding that ~97% of bike
fatalities in the City involve riders not wearing a helmet. WTF???

First, it is not "liberals" per se---politicians and city staff in
general like to throw out statistics, whether valid or not, that help
make a project they are pushing sound like it is necessary.

Second, why would a 97% figure sound surpising? Around where I live,
helmet use is far higher in the more wealthy communities compared to
the poorer ones, but the the wealthy communities also have the
resources for bike education programs in public schools that attempt
to teach children to obey traffic laws. The kids still run stop
signs, but at least they are more likely to be on the right side of
the road. If something similar is true in NYC, the 97% figure is
quite plausible. It simply means that the safest cyclists also tend
to use helmets (and probably lights at night as well). In addition
(around here) unlicensed drivers are more prevalent in the poorer
areas. That also may be true in NYC as well.

If you couple some extra protection from a helmet with using lights at
night, more or less obeying traffic laws, and riding where there are
fewer unlicensed drivers, then a huge fatality rate reduction (and
substantial accident rate reduction) is quite plausible.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Helmet Nazis at It Again!
 

SMS wrote:
NYC XYZ wrote:
A news item the last two days has been how the City is planning another
200 miles of bike lanes. For some reason, the liberals can't resist
throwing in the tidbit about some study finding that ~97% of bike
fatalities in the City involve riders not wearing a helmet. WTF???

Anyway, there's a spokesman from the Rebel Alliance on a segment of
Brian Lehrer's show "On the Line." It should be podcasted by tomorrow
if you miss it today.


http://www.wnyc.org/


Wow, Godwin's Law in the very first post of a thread.

It doesn't matter **** when you get run over by a semi or train. My
grand daughter saw one of her friends run over and chopped into pieces
by a semi with a hand, and only a hand, coming to rest near her foot.
The multi section dead girl did not have a scratch on her helmet, as if
it would have prevented an 80,000 pound vehicle from sectioning her body
in parts, obviously a bit more fatal than a bump on the head. If she
hadn't had a helmet, that statistic would have made it into the paper,
but I think the helmet impaired her hearing.
For all the idiot helmet fanatics.
Bill Baka

Helmet Nazis at It Again!
 

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:57:57 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:


If you couple some extra protection from a helmet with using lights at
night, more or less obeying traffic laws, and riding where there are
fewer unlicensed drivers, then a huge fatality rate reduction (and
substantial accident rate reduction) is quite plausible.

No need to couple the helmet at all - population studies show that
they have no positive effect.

Helmet Nazis at It Again!
 

On 14 Sep 2006 07:20:39 -0700, "NYC XYZ"
wrote:


A news item the last two days has been how the City is planning another
200 miles of bike lanes. For some reason, the liberals can't resist
throwing in the tidbit about some study finding that ~97% of bike
fatalities in the City involve riders not wearing a helmet. WTF???

Is this since they made a helmet law? Or in general? If it's the
latter, then I would expect something like this. People have been
riding bicycles a long time.

I remember someone pointing out to me years ago that, since the
seatbelt laws came into affect, fatalities have dropped. At the same
time, crippling injuries increased because all those who would have
died, survived....though barely.


Phil
======
visit the New York City Homebrewers Guild website:
http://www.hbd.org/nychg

Helmet Nazis at It Again!
 

NYC XYZ wrote:
A news item the last two days has been how the City is planning another
200 miles of bike lanes. For some reason, the liberals can't resist
throwing in the tidbit about some study finding that ~97% of bike
fatalities in the City involve riders not wearing a helmet. WTF???

WTF indeed. That figure is very likely bogus in one way or another.

The first way is that it's an outright fabrication. If no specific
citation was given, that's likely the case: someone with no knowledge
and an agenda spouting something off the top of his head.

The second way is that it's generated by abysmal record keeping. This
site, http://www.zzapp.org/rileygea/itsa/helmet2.htm, gives a detailed
explanation of the coding shortcomings of police accident reports and
their effect on Fatal Accident Recording System data. Perhaps this is
the most likely explanation.

It's worth noting that in New South Wales (where a mandatory helmet law
is strictly enforced for all ages), helmet wearing rates in 1992 and
1993 we children, 76% and 74%; adults 85% and 83%. In 1992-94,
80% of fatally injured cyclists were wearing helmets. (See Robinson,
D.L., Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet Laws, 1996, Accident Analysis
Prevention, vol 28, pp 463 - 475.)

Think about that. Roughly 80% of the cyclists wore helmets, and 80% of
fatally injured cyclists wore helmets. It's hard to tout helmets as
life savers.

And, unless only 3% of New York City cyclists wear helmets, it's hard
to believe the "97%" claim above.

- Frank Krygowski

Helmet Nazis at It Again!
 

"NYC XYZ" wrote in message
oups.com...

For some reason, the liberals can't resist
throwing in the tidbit about some study finding that ~97% of bike
fatalities in the City involve riders not wearing a helmet. WTF???

Since new passenger vehicles are going to required to have ESC (Electronic
Stability Control) and bike riders keep claiming that they must be treated
the same as other vehicles, then obviously all new bikes should be also
required to have ESC :-)

Maybe it would greatly reduce accidents and the need for helmets.

Helmet Nazis at It Again!
 

Jesus -- glad I used my spell-checker!

Are you Jewish or German?

LOL



SMS wrote:



Wow, Godwin's Law in the very first post of a thread.

Helmet Nazis at It Again!
 

Sorry, I meant the "WTF???" for linking the two, 200 miles of new lanes
and a fatality statistic which doesn't mean anything outside its
context (methodology, sample, etc.)...thus, the liberals -- and it's
only helmet nazi liberals that go for this **** -- want to insinuate
causation when for all anyone knows it could just be correlation and
nothing more!

And **** the wealthy. They're the idiots who think it necessary to
redecorate every few years, and that riding a bike involves elaborate
gear. It's a ****ing bike, fer chrissake! Let's legislate helmets for
pedestrians too, why don't we -- do you know how many seniors trip over
their own feet every year?

"Bike education" my ass. Next thing you know, these no-life morons
want to make it a college course in itself, maybe create a Nobel Prize
category for it. God-damned helmet nazis: say hello to a
tractor-trailer!!!



Bill Z. wrote:


First, it is not "liberals" per se---politicians and city staff in
general like to throw out statistics, whether valid or not, that help
make a project they are pushing sound like it is necessary.

Second, why would a 97% figure sound surpising? Around where I live,
helmet use is far higher in the more wealthy communities compared to
the poorer ones, but the the wealthy communities also have the
resources for bike education programs in public schools that attempt
to teach children to obey traffic laws. The kids still run stop
signs, but at least they are more likely to be on the right side of
the road. If something similar is true in NYC, the 97% figure is
quite plausible. It simply means that the safest cyclists also tend
to use helmets (and probably lights at night as well). In addition
(around here) unlicensed drivers are more prevalent in the poorer
areas. That also may be true in NYC as well.

If you couple some extra protection from a helmet with using lights at
night, more or less obeying traffic laws, and riding where there are
fewer unlicensed drivers, then a huge fatality rate reduction (and
substantial accident rate reduction) is quite plausible.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB