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!
|
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 |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:14 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com