Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

Riley Geary wrote:

I doubt that even most helmet skeptics would deny that bike helmets confer
at least some benefit for those cyclists who do find themselves involved in
a crash, but the real question of course is:

Unfortunately, there are a few people that do deny this. Not many, but a
few.

a) just how significant a benefit is confered? (obviously not nearly as much
as the 30-35% benefit demonstrated for motorcycle helmets, let alone the
absurdly inflated 85% figure still quoted by most helmet promoters); and
more importantly

It can't be reduced to a single percentage. For fatalities, the data
shows around a 40% benefit, when crashes occur. 40% is not magnitudes of
difference, but unfortunately it is high enough for some people to use
as a justification for repressive laws.

b) does increased helmet use, particularly that produced by a mandatory
helmet law, actually result in a net increase or decrease in the overall
safety record of the cyclists involved?

I doubt if you'll ever find data that specific. You can't do a
double-blind test, for obvious reasons.

A simplistic focus on just the first part of this question while ignoring
all the implications inherent in the second part is of no benefit at all to
either cyclists or society in general.

Well I don't want to ignore the implications, but they are immaterial.
The fact that helmets reduce injuries and fatalities in the unlikely
event of a crash does not warrant the passage of intrusive laws.

We need to focus on the fact that serious crashes occur infrequently
enough that education, rather than mandates, are sufficient to
encourage helmet use.

I can assure you that if anyone shows up at hearings in Ontario, and
argues that a helmet law isn't needed because more people hurt
themselves gardening (or couch-sitting) than cycling, that this will
only serve to strengthen the resolve of the misguided ministers pushing
the MHL. We need to argue from defensible positions, and not descend to
that sort of lunacy.

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message
ink.net...
Bill Z. wrote:

Sigh - more propaganda and debating tricks.

Posting "the greatest number of such references" and then
(purposely?) misinterpreting them, while ignoring anything that
disagrees with their world view, does not constitute a respectable
argument, and that is what Krygowski et al. do.

I think that most everyone recognizes this by now.

The data I posted was uniquely relevant, because it compared injury and
fatality rates among helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists, as well as
pedestrians, and motorists. It also provided the actual numbers of
helmeted versus non-helmetd cyclists, so the data could be normalized,
and even when normalized there was a significant difference in fatality
rates.

I'm afraid you're still attempting to read far more into the Florida data
than is actually warranted, despite all the reasons I laid out in a previous
post as to why they should be treated with considerable caution. Above all
else, assuming Florida's bicycle helmet use rate really is down around the
10-12% level, we're obviously dealing with a potentially severe case of
selective recruitment--where the behavioural differences between the
helmet-using minority and non-helmet-using majority can swamp any other
effect on safety that could theoretically be attributed to the helmets
themselves.


Gardening and sofa-sitting injury rates are not going to impress the
Ontario ministers when they decide whether or not to enact the MHL.
Fortunately, they wont ever see such nonsense.


Well, how about the fact that in every US case for which we have reasonably
reliable data, the imposition of a mandatory helmet law for motorcyclists
has resulted in a significant *decrease* in the apparent safety
effectiveness of those motorcycle helmets?

Riley Geary

Steven M. Scharf wrote:


The data I posted was uniquely relevant, because it compared injury
and
fatality rates among helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists, as well as
pedestrians, and motorists.

I'm sorry, I must have missed where you posted injury and fatality
rates for pedestrians and motorists.

If you have such data, please do post it! Because I'm sure the
(supposed) benefit of helmets would be at least as large for those
pedestrians and motorists. And those groups do, after all, suffer FAR
more serious and fatal head injuries than cyclists!

With such data, perhaps we can move helmet promotion to those
activities where it's actually more needed!


Gardening and sofa-sitting injury rates are not going to impress the
Ontario ministers when they decide whether or not to enact the MHL.

I must ask again, since you've ignored my earlier request: Please guve
an account of your experience in testimony before legislators! My
experience in providing such testimony leads me to conclusions that are
opposite yours. Why not tell us how effective your ideas have been in
the past?

If you fail to do so, I (for one) will conclude that you're talking
through your hat*, that you have no practical experience on which to
base such advice.


*Or through your helmet, I suppose. :-)

"Riley Geary" writes:

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message
nk.net...
...
It is true that cycling is not a dangerous activity, and that no
mandatory helmet laws are necessary, but there is no debate that
helmeted cyclists fare better than non-helmeted cyclists, when crashes
do occur.

I doubt that even most helmet skeptics would deny that bike helmets confer
at least some benefit for those cyclists who do find themselves involved in
a crash, but the real question of course is:

When I once suggested that Krygowski et al. post a citation to at
least *one* study measuring a benefit for helmet use, no matter how
small, that he thought was valid. He declined, and others on his
"side" of the discussion became abusive at the mere suggestion.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 01:47:34 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote in message
. net:

Posting "the greatest number of such references" and then
(purposely?) misinterpreting them, while ignoring anything that
disagrees with their world view, does not constitute a respectable
argument, and that is what Krygowski et al. do.

So, what, posting vague assertions and then ignoring any calls to
provide evidence to back them is better? Help me out here.

I think that most everyone recognizes this by now.

What I think a lot of people recognise is that the sceptics have doe a
lot more work proving their case than the zealots have, recently,
despite the fact that the zealots, as the ones proposing an
intervention, necessarily carry the burden of proof.

Gardening and sofa-sitting injury rates are not going to impress the
Ontario ministers when they decide whether or not to enact the MHL.
Fortunately, they wont ever see such nonsense.

So you say, but others think otherwise - and they are the ones who
have experience of swaying legislators. Specifically, neither Frank
nor I has ever managed to get a zealot to put a convincing case for
cycling being either particularly dangerous or particularly productive
of head injuries, compared with activities which nobody considers
dangerous - such as walking. Indeed, after analysing the figures for
children (those widely held to be most at risk) I found that the
proportion of head injuries due to cycling is almost exactly average,
while it is substantially above average for pedestrian injuries. Not
only that, cycling is insignificant numerically as a cause of injury.
And the major predictor of serious or fatal head injury is the
involvement not of bicycles, but of motor traffic. Since cyclists
form a small minority even of traffic injuries, it makes absolutely no
sense whatsoever to focus on cycle helmets, which may prevent a small
proportion of a small proportion of injuries, rather than working on
the fundamental problem, which is careless driving. Except that
cyclists are seen as an "out" group and it is politically easier to
beat us with the stick of compulsory helmets than it is to control the
dangerous behaviour of drivers.

But I am neither pro nor anti helmet - I am a collector of evidence.
So, if you have solid evidence that cycling is either uniquely
dangerous or uniquely productive of head injuries please post it now.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 04:15:15 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote in message
et:

I doubt that even most helmet skeptics would deny that bike helmets confer
at least some benefit for those cyclists who do find themselves involved in
a crash, but the real question of course is:

Unfortunately, there are a few people that do deny this. Not many, but a
few.

And others who choose to pretend that people are saying this when they
are not, in an example of the "straw man" logical fallacy.

a) just how significant a benefit is confered? (obviously not nearly as much
as the 30-35% benefit demonstrated for motorcycle helmets, let alone the
absurdly inflated 85% figure still quoted by most helmet promoters); and
more importantly

It can't be reduced to a single percentage. For fatalities, the data
shows around a 40% benefit, when crashes occur. 40% is not magnitudes of
difference, but unfortunately it is high enough for some people to use
as a justification for repressive laws.

And where, precisely, do you get that 40% figure? Citation? Because
as far as I can see "the data" shows no such thing - it shows that
helmeted cyclists may or may not be more likely to crash, and it
almost invariably points up such differences in the behaviour of the
helmeted and unhelmeted communities that no other inference can be
drawn. Unless you introduce compulsion, and helmet use goes up to
80%+, in which case you find, as the Aussies have, that the proportion
of helmeted head injured cyclists is the same as the proportion of
helmeted cyclists overall - in other words the difference between the
communities appears to evaporate once the self-selection bias is
removed.

Well I don't want to ignore the implications, but they are immaterial.
The fact that helmets reduce injuries and fatalities in the unlikely
event of a crash does not warrant the passage of intrusive laws.

You have evaded the point: the key question is not whether helmets
affect the probability of injury given crash, but whether they affect
the probability of injury given ride. I have seen no evidence that
they make any significant difference to this overall figure, and
neither did my Government when they looked. So do cite the data.

I can assure you that if anyone shows up at hearings in Ontario, and
argues that a helmet law isn't needed because more people hurt
themselves gardening (or couch-sitting) than cycling, that this will
only serve to strengthen the resolve of the misguided ministers pushing
the MHL. We need to argue from defensible positions, and not descend to
that sort of lunacy.

So you say. And yet the experience of those who have successfully
opposed helmet laws is that tactics which work a

- show the flaws in the pro-helmet studies
- show that helmet laws have never yielded measurable improvements in
cyclist safety
- introduce them to the concept of risk compensation
- show that cycling is neither especially dangerous nor especially
productive of head injuries
- show that far greater benefit would accrue from controlling the
source of danger, which also affects (more numerous) non-cyclist
casualties
- show that the major effect of enforced helmet laws is to deter
cycling, which has a net public health cost

I know that Scharf, as an undeclared compulsionist, would prefer we
stick to "they work perfectly but please don't make us wear them". I
have no evidence that Scharf's approach works. The tactics above
recently worked in the UK and Ireland.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 06:59:40 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

When I once suggested that Krygowski et al. post a citation to at
least *one* study measuring a benefit for helmet use, no matter how
small, that he thought was valid. He declined, and others on his
"side" of the discussion became abusive at the mere suggestion.

Logical fallacy: burden of proof. We are not proposing an
intervention, the burden of proof lies solely with those who are.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

Including the CTC, Britain's largest cycling organisation, with 80,000
members. The entire board is sceptical and they played a leading role
in defeating the helmet bill last year.

As opposed to the League of American Hand-Wringers, which has had in
place a mandatory helmet law for over a decade. Their magazine will not
publish a picture of a caucasian touching a bicycle if he/she isn't wearing
a foam hat, and they strongly encourage affiliate clubs to discriminate
against unhelmeted riders.

Mitch.

Mitch Haley wrote:

As opposed to the League of American Hand-Wringers, which has had in
place a mandatory helmet law for over a decade. Their magazine will not
publish a picture of a caucasian touching a bicycle if he/she isn't wearing
a foam hat, and they strongly encourage affiliate clubs to discriminate
against unhelmeted riders.

Well part of the discrimination is due to their insurance program. They
offer good rates to clubs, but the company than underwrites the
insurance has the condition that clubs insured through them must require
helmets on all rides. If enough clubs went elsewhere for insurance, or
were willing to pay more for the helmet requirement to be dropped, then
LAB might change their policy.

Riley Geary wrote:

I'm afraid you're still attempting to read far more into the Florida data
than is actually warranted, despite all the reasons I laid out in a previous
post as to why they should be treated with considerable caution.

Every study suffers from the possibility of self-selection. I don't read
too much into any study, but the Florida data at least finally is a
direct comparison in injury and fatality rates between helmeted and
non-helmeted cyclists, when accidents occur. It's far more useful than
statistical data from New Zealand, where you're comparing whole
population data without taking into account all the external factors.

In any study you're going to have the problem that, on average, the
people that wear helmets are going to be the higher-educated, more
careful, more experienced, riders. I don't know how you could ever
account for this self-selection factor in a study.