Frank Krygowski writes:

Bill Z. wrote:


Of course, you'll see these two completely ignore the URLs I posted...

Not at all! I read them and responded to the parts that were
pertinent. You can't blame _me_ that they were largely irrelevant!

Where did you respond? Maybe you should repeat it as a real response
never arrived.

Again, I asked for data. You gave me nine year old news stories about
four injuries, three of whom were pedestrians. You gave me no data.
As usual.

You made a claim that no benefits have been seen for helmet use. It is
*your* responsibility to show that your claim is correct, including
controling for all relevant factors that might effect the results.
Those *include* changes in driver behavior.

As to the age of the stories, the substantial increase in helmet use
happened about 10 years ago (a bit more, actually), so those years
*are* relevant. The California helmet law as also passed at around
that time.

Also, pedestrian fatalities *are* relevant (the issue was evidence of
increasingly irresponsible driving.) Of course you know that and are
IMHO pretending otherwise.

I can tell you from personal experience that in the 1970s, if a
pedestrian even looked like he or she was going to cross at an
intersection, drivers in the Bay Area would stop. Now (illegally)
they if anything speed up. If you *do* stop for a pedestrian,
which is required by law, the drivers behind you will throw a
fit and start honking their horns.

So don't try to pretend that driver behavior has not gotten
substantially worse. It has gotten worse.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB