On 12/22/2010 12:00 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:11 am, wrote:
Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/22/2010 1:54 PM, landotter wrote:
http://video.tedxcopenhagen.dk/video...ville-andersen

Look at the comments at the bottom. First one is from Fred.

Was that _The_ Fred? The guy with a yellow windbreaker, Bell
Biker helmet and a flippy flag?

Yes it was, and he's the future of American bicycle commuting
according to infrastructure planners.

This presentation is slick, but it is wrong in so many ways --
particularly when applied to American cities (paraphrasing):
"returning to the way things used to be . . . going back to
bicycles." Dude, California was built around the car. Sure, we rode
bikes as kids, but any adult who commuted by bike was considered some
Bohemian freak. Bicycle commuting was never big on the West Coast --
and in fact, it is bigger now than when I was a kid. His vaccine
analogy also is wrong -- FDA needs two confirming studies, which there
are for helmets. A "fourteen percent greater chance" of getting in to
an accident while wearing a helmet (?). What, did they run the same
riders with and without helmets? He mistates helmet testing protocol,
at least in America. I have no interest in MHLs, but this sort of
laugh-a-minute banter is useless. It's like talk radio.

Like talk radio, TED events are meant to be entertainment, not
scientific presentations, and those in the audience most likely
understand that. There's always some danger that a slick talking
presenter will fool some people, but don't you think that most people
listen to Glenn Beck or Rush for the entertainment value?

I love it when he says "The scientific community has been completely
split for years on the subject 50-50, down the middle." Uh no, the
scientific community has never been split on the effectiveness of
helmets, the closest they've ever come to any split is the idea
presented by someone that a helmet law will lead to less cycling
(something that is demonstrably untrue) resulting in those that give up
cycling becoming obese from lack of activity because they will not
substitute the cycling (that they didn't give up) with other types of
exercise.

Sounds like he's fallen for the junk science and statistics from places
like cyclehelmets.org, complete with Frank's "walking helmet" shtick.
Sad, because if there's one way to guarantee that more helmet laws will
be enacted it's fact-free presenters at public policy debates being made
to look foolish by physicians, EMTs, and statisticians. Much more
effective to take the approach of promoting personal freedom to accept
higher levels of risk, which has already resulted in the repeal of many
motorcycle helmet laws.