Pedrestrian killed in England

Some do, some don't, Pat. For sure, I know one ER physician and one
other physician (unknown specialty, unfortunately) who agree with my
views almost completely. A lot depends on whether they've actually
looked into the data or not.

Oh, but you overlooked the pertinent word: pediatrician.

The ER doctor treats all ages, Pat. And he lives in a MHL state, and
says the law hasn't changed a thing.

What law? that kids wear helmets? And if it hasn't "changed a thing" is that
because the kids are not wearing helmets? Funny, but I was watching the ER
show on TV the other night (the real-life one on cable TV) and as they
followed a pediatrician around, he said bike helmets should be mandatory for
all kids.




You and I agree
adults may decide for themselves, but for small children, I think helmets
are there for a reason.

Um... which is why God installed helmets on little kids many millenia
ago, right?

Helmets are there because helmet companies have done their work well.
The sales job has been dishonest, but superb.

No, helmets are there because parents have seen good results from kids
wearing helmets. After all, God didn't install helmets on football players,
or wrist braces on archers, or shin guards on soccer players, or....shall I
go on? Protective equipment is just that.





But then, I have personal experience with a 6 year
old boy who got a skull fracture when he rode his bike across a manhole
cover and fell off. That's not statistics, it's learning the hard way.

And I've got experience with two kids we raised (one of whom raised a
lot of hell, too) but who never hit their heads biking. Each fell and
scraped up a leg once or twice, but that was the worst experience
they had biking.

So which is more valid, your anecdote or mine? How do we tell? Take
a guess.

You just don't get it.a EVERBODY who wears a bike helmet knows someone who
had a fall and the helmet protected them. The other side, your "don't wear
protective equipment" side, dismisses all real-life stories out of hand by
claiming those real-life stories are "just anecdotes." But, that won't
convince anybody at all because we all know somebody whose helmet protected
them. that's why we still have "helmet flame wars"---because you haven't
convinced anybody not to wear helmets. Your efforts just flat do not work.

It reminds me of my grandfather, who said, "I've never used a seat belt in
my life and I've never had an accident; ergo, seat belts don't work." He was
just lucky, don't you understand that?

Don't make this another of your long and boring statistic
argument for not wearing helmets.

I'm well aware that many people, when they find that the numbers are
against them, claim the numbers are irrelevant. Your claim that they
are "boring" goes a bit further.

No, it's that people who live in the real world as opposed to the
"statistical" word have first-hand knowledge and do not rely on statistics
for their common sense.


" Data? Science? Knowledge? Yawn Hey, give me good old anecdote
and superstition! It's the only _interesting_ way of making a
decision!"

There you go again, equating real-life stories with "anecdotes and
superstition." This is why you don't convince a single person, Frank.
Sarcasm and talking down to people doesn't work.


In this case, you agree with me!
Pedestrians do not need helmets.

And the boring old data says bicyclists are at even less risk.
Despite your misuse of Newton.

- Frank Krygowski

Is it not true, then, that F=MA? Is that misuse of Newton or simply some
bit of common sense that you cannot denigrate with statistics several years
old and of dubious quality?

BTW: do you agree or not that pedestrians do not need helmets? You've
sidestepped that once again.

Pat in TX

Pat in Texas wrote:
...
Is it not true, then, that F=MA?...

Not universally true, e.g. at velocities approaching the speed of light.

F = M dv/dt (Newton's expression) is universally true.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

Pat, is there no way you can get your posts to indicate responses?
Everyone else's show up correctly.

[fk:]
Helmets are there because helmet companies have done their work well.
The sales job has been dishonest, but superb.

No, helmets are there because parents have seen good results from kids
wearing helmets.

Let's see: The helmets appeared by magic, at random, and the parents
carefully observed and analyzed the results? Hardly.

Bike helmets were introduced in the 1970s, along with a brand new
phenomenon: tales of terrible danger of brain injury from bicycling.
Of _course_ a certain number of people got scared and bought them,
even though they'd never known anyone who was brain injuried while
biking.

But the tales continued. Bell Sports gave big funding to Safe Kids
Inc., as shown in Safe Kids Inc. financial statements. Safe Kids
coincidentally started putting out tons of horror stories, and started
trumpeting the claim that helmets prevented 85% of such tragedies, and
started lobbying for helmet laws.

And more mommies bought big plastic hats for their darlings. And of
_course_, every time a kid produced a dent in a piece of styrofoam, a
concerned mommy said "OMIGOD, my darling would have died!!!" ...
despite the fact that the darlings weren't dying left and right before
the foam.

You just don't get it.a EVERBODY who wears a bike helmet knows someone who
had a fall and the helmet protected them. Â*

Lots of people know someone who _thinks_ the helmet protected them.
But if all those "protections" were real, there would be significant
drops in head injuries per rider, wouldn't there be?

But head injuries per rider have never showed the supposed protection
of helmets. I know you don't like technical things like numbers, so
I'll point you to a more casual article, from the New York Times:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1028

It reminds me of my grandfather, who said, "I've never used a seat belt in
my life and I've never had an accident; ergo, seat belts don't work." He was
just lucky, don't you understand that?

Pat, unless you've taken and taught topics in statistical analysis,
unless you've read multiple books on traffic safety (not just bicycle
safety) and the effect of safety measures, unless you've got file
drawers of studies on this and other related topics, I'm quite sure I
understand more about this than you ever will.

There you go again, equating real-life stories with "anecdotes and
superstition."

Here's an anecdote for you:

My wife and I were walking with some friends along a two-lane street
in Pittsburgh some years ago. We'd just finished dinner at a nice
restaurant. Up ahead about 50 yards, a bus was parked at the right.
A car was passing the bus, headed away from us.

Suddenly, a college-aged kid zoomed across the street from right in
front of the bus. He didn't stop to check if traffic was clear, he
just popped out in the roadway, moving at maybe 10 to 15 mph.

We heard a terrible "Bang!" and saw the kid's body fly up in the air,
head down, higher than the roof of the car. We saw this from behind,
but later heard that he landed on his head on the road in front of the
car. We later saw that his body had destroyed the grill of the car and
dented in the hood. His head had smashed one of the windshield wipers
and smashed in the windshield.

I immediately ran back to the restaurant to call 911 and report a
traffic fatality. But there was no fatality. It turns out the kid had
gotten up off the street and walked to the side of the road. An off-
duty EMT grabbed him and held his neck motionless until the ambulance
arrived, and the ambulance put him on a back board and rushed him to
the ER.

But he had no injuries other than a slight scratch above his right
ear. (Head injury!!!) Since I testified as a witness, I phoned the
next day to ask, and found that he had been perfectly fine except for
a slight headache, and was attending his college classes as usual.

Did his helmet save him?

I'm positive that many would say that - IF he'd had one on! It would
have been absolute proof of another life saved! Except that he didn't
wear a helmet.

What's really odd, is that nobody told him he should have had one on.
Not the EMT, not the cops, not the ambulance staff, and I assume not
the ER doctors. Why? Because he wasn't on a bicycle.

No, the kid was part of a group that suffers far more traffic deaths
and serious head injuries than bicyclists. The kid was a pedestrian.
He had jogged across that road.

Pedestrian or bicyclist, if he had been wearing a helmet, you and
everyone else would use this incident as proof. But actually, it's
proof that "his helmet saved him!" anecdotes are meaningless.

That's why you've got to look at boring old data to see if helmets
really work. And that boring old data says they don't make any
significant difference.

- Frank Krygowski

Pat, is there no way you can get your posts to indicate responses?
Everyone else's show up correctly.

I don't know what you are talking about. I am using Outlook Express. No one
has every complained before.



[fk:]
Helmets are there because helmet companies have done their work well.
The sales job has been dishonest, but superb.

No, helmets are there because parents have seen good results from kids
wearing helmets.

Let's see: The helmets appeared by magic, at random, and the parents
carefully observed and analyzed the results? Hardly.

I didn't say they appeared at random or by magic. I said parents used their
common sense and decided it was worth it to protect their kids' heads.


You just don't get it.a EVERBODY who wears a bike helmet knows someone who
had a fall and the helmet protected them.

Lots of people know someone who _thinks_ the helmet protected them.
But if all those "protections" were real, there would be significant
drops in head injuries per rider, wouldn't there be?

Nobody thinks in terms of statistics. I doubt even you do. When you leave
home, do you consult the statistics of driving on Maryland 3 on a Tuesday
morning between 0800 and 0900 in a 4-cylinder sedan going north? No, of
course not. You are only thinking of statistics for bicycle helmets as
hind-sight. Whereas other people judge the necessity of a bike helmet for
the kids based on their experience. Their own experience, not some
statistical table where they don't even know how the statistics were
measured.


But head injuries per rider have never showed the supposed protection
of helmets. I know you don't like technical things like numbers, so
I'll point you to a more casual article, from the New York Times:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1028

Here you go again, being condescending. That really, really helps convince
me of your point of view, doesn't it? I doubt if you could point to even one
person changing from wearing a helmet due to your condescending manner.



It reminds me of my grandfather, who said, "I've never used a seat belt in
my life and I've never had an accident; ergo, seat belts don't work." He
was
just lucky, don't you understand that?

Pat, unless you've taken and taught topics in statistical analysis,
unless you've read multiple books on traffic safety (not just bicycle
safety) and the effect of safety measures, unless you've got file
drawers of studies on this and other related topics, I'm quite sure I
understand more about this than you ever will.

You perhaps understand the macro effect but you have shown you are clueless
about the personal effect.



There you go again, equating real-life stories with "anecdotes and
superstition."

Here's an anecdote for you:


Did his helmet save him?

I'm positive that many would say that - IF he'd had one on! It would
have been absolute proof of another life saved! Except that he didn't
wear a helmet.

There you go again, being condescending. You have no idea of what I would
say--or even what others would say. You are projecting because it suits your
side of a supposed argument.



What's really odd, is that nobody told him he should have had one on.
Not the EMT, not the cops, not the ambulance staff, and I assume not
the ER doctors. Why? Because he wasn't on a bicycle.

No, the kid was part of a group that suffers far more traffic deaths
and serious head injuries than bicyclists. The kid was a pedestrian.
He had jogged across that road.

How about because he wasn't going at the speed bicycles are capable of
going?





Pedestrian or bicyclist, if he had been wearing a helmet, you and
everyone else would use this incident as proof. But actually, it's
proof that "his helmet saved him!" anecdotes are meaningless.

There you go again, being condescending. Tell me, Frank, how has this worked
out for you when arguing with someone? Do your friends appreciate being
condescended to and told that you "just understand more about this than you
ever will"?
You use the word "anecdote" as being meaningless when it doesn't suit your
side of the argument. Other people, such as parents, use their real-world
experience and make judgments from that, not statistics.




That's why you've got to look at boring old data to see if helmets
really work. And that boring old data says they don't make any
significant difference.

- Frank Krygowski

Funny, if little Brooks had had his helmet on, he wouldn't have gotten his
skull fractured. His parents look at it differently. They didn't go to a
website and analyze the statistics on 6-year old boys riding over manhole
covers and then look at him and say, "Oh, Brooks! Your skull fracture is
just an anecdote! It's not statistically important." Well, it was a
statistic of 100% and that is all that matters to them. Being pedantic is
not helping your "cause" and that's all it seems to be. Give me statistics
on how many people Frank has convinced to not wear a bicycle helmet....

And, you never did say if you thought pedestrians should be made to wear
helmets. Again.

Pat in TX

Pat in Texas wrote:
Pat, is there no way you can get your posts to indicate responses?
Everyone else's show up correctly.

I don't know what you are talking about. I am using Outlook Express. No one
has every complained before.

I have, both with this poster and Mr. Ed.

The problem is that Pat is using Micro$oft Outlook Express 6.00 to
respond to a post Frank made from Google Groups. For some reason
"Outhouse" fouls up the quoting hierarchy in this case.

I am not holding my breath waiting for Micro$oft to fix this problem.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

Frank Krygowski wrote:
...
Here's an anecdote for you:

My wife and I were walking with some friends along a two-lane street
in Pittsburgh some years ago. We'd just finished dinner at a nice
restaurant. Up ahead about 50 yards, a bus was parked at the right.
A car was passing the bus, headed away from us.

Suddenly, a college-aged kid zoomed across the street from right in
front of the bus. He didn't stop to check if traffic was clear, he
just popped out in the roadway, moving at maybe 10 to 15 mph.

We heard a terrible "Bang!" and saw the kid's body fly up in the air,
head down, higher than the roof of the car. We saw this from behind,
but later heard that he landed on his head on the road in front of the
car. We later saw that his body had destroyed the grill of the car and
dented in the hood. His head had smashed one of the windshield wipers
and smashed in the windshield.

I immediately ran back to the restaurant to call 911 and report a
traffic fatality. But there was no fatality. It turns out the kid had
gotten up off the street and walked to the side of the road. An off-
duty EMT grabbed him and held his neck motionless until the ambulance
arrived, and the ambulance put him on a back board and rushed him to
the ER.

But he had no injuries other than a slight scratch above his right
ear....

Damn stupid fool. I hope the vehicle owner was compensated for the
damage. Fortunately a motor vehicle was involved, if the fool had run
out in front of a cyclist, the cyclist could have been seriously injured
or killed.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

On 2008-07-12, Tom Sherman wrote:
Pat in Texas wrote:
Pat, is there no way you can get your posts to indicate responses?
Everyone else's show up correctly.

I don't know what you are talking about. I am using Outlook Express. No one
has every complained before.

I have, both with this poster and Mr. Ed.

The problem is that Pat is using Micro$oft Outlook Express 6.00 to
respond to a post Frank made from Google Groups. For some reason
"Outhouse" fouls up the quoting hierarchy in this case.

I am not holding my breath waiting for Micro$oft to fix this problem.

OEquotefix is the usual recommended solution to this. That should at
least get the leading characters in there to satisfy the other newsreader
clients.


--

Kristian Zoerhoff

OEquotefix is the usual recommended solution to this. That should at
least get the leading characters in there to satisfy the other
newsreader
clients.


Kristian Zoerhoff

Is this something built in to Outlook Express or something I have to
download?

Pat in TX

On Jul 12, 12:56*pm, "Pat" wrote:
Pat, is there no way you can get your posts to indicate responses?
Everyone else's show up correctly.

I don't know what you are talking about. I am using Outlook Express. No one
has every complained before.

Wrong. I'm not the first to complain.

[fk:] Lots of people know someone who _thinks_ the helmet protected them.
But if all those "protections" were real, there would be significant
drops in head injuries per rider, wouldn't there be?

[Pat:] Nobody thinks in terms of statistics. I doubt even you do.

That's a little like saying "Nobody understands math."

When you leave
home, do you consult the statistics of driving on Maryland 3 on a Tuesday
morning between 0800 and 0900 in a 4-cylinder sedan going north? No, of
course not. You are only thinking of statistics for bicycle helmets as
hind-sight. Whereas other people judge the necessity of a bike helmet for
the kids based on their experience. Their own experience, not some
statistical table where they don't even know how the statistics were
measured.

What you're describing is factually impossible. A person can't put
the first bike helmet on their kid based on previous experience of a
bike helmet protecting their kid!

People put bike helmets on kids because they've been convinced that
their kid is a) pretty likely to get a significant head injury if they
don't wear a helmet, and b) that the helmet is almost guaranteed
("85%!!!!) to prevent such head injuries. Both ideas are false.

And regarding statistics: A person doesn't need to compute
probabilities for every act that they perform in order to make use of
statistics. If you take almost any medicine, you are doing so because
someone has conducted a disciplined study of the benefits and
detriments of that medicine. They have analyzed the data using
statistics. If your physician is sharp, he'll have read articles on
the results, rather than just listening to the pharmaceutical
salesman. If he also thinks you're sharp enough, he may discuss the
stats with you.

If drugs were promoted using the techniques and lies used to sell bike
helmets, the FDA would slap the companies with huge fines.



But head injuries per rider have never showed the supposed protection
of helmets. *I know you don't like technical things like numbers, so
I'll point you to a more casual article, from the New York Times:http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1028

Here you go again, being condescending. That really, really helps convince
me of your point of view, doesn't it?

Pat, you've already mocked the use of statistics, hence my statement.
Did you read the article?

[fk:] Here's an anecdote for you:..

Did his helmet save him?

I'm positive that many would say that - IF he'd had one on! *It would
have been absolute proof of another life saved! *Except that he didn't
wear a helmet.

*The kid was a pedestrian. He had jogged across that road.

How about because he wasn't going at the speed bicycles are capable of
going?

He was jogging _fast_. His speed certainly looked the same as a
common bicycle speed - although why that matters in a right angle
collision, I can't imagine!



[fk:] Pedestrian or bicyclist, if he had been wearing a helmet, you and
everyone else would use this incident as proof. *But actually, it's
proof that "his helmet saved him!" anecdotes are meaningless.

You use the word "anecdote" as being meaningless when it doesn't suit your
side of the argument. Other people, such as parents, use their real-world
experience and make judgments from that, not statistics.

Please explain in detail how a person uses his real world experience
with helmets to justify buying his first helmet.


[Pat:]
Funny, if little Brooks had had his helmet on, he wouldn't have gotten his
skull fractured.

Really? Then why doesn't that apply to these folks, as well?
http://members.shaw.ca/jtubman/deadhelmet.html

- Frank Krygowski

[fk:] Lots of people know someone who _thinks_ the helmet protected them.
But if all those "protections" were real, there would be significant
drops in head injuries per rider, wouldn't there be?

[Pat:] Nobody thinks in terms of statistics. I doubt even you do.

That's a little like saying "Nobody understands math."

You missed my point again: nobody runs their everyday life by first
checking on the statistics of what they plan to do. I wager you do not do
that, either. Or else you're trying hard to deflect my point, which is
more likely.




When you leave
home, do you consult the statistics of driving on Maryland 3 on a Tuesday
morning between 0800 and 0900 in a 4-cylinder sedan going north? No, of
course not. You are only thinking of statistics for bicycle helmets as
hind-sight. Whereas other people judge the necessity of a bike helmet for
the kids based on their experience. Their own experience, not some
statistical table where they don't even know how the statistics were
measured.

What you're describing is factually impossible. A person can't put
the first bike helmet on their kid based on previous experience of a
bike helmet protecting their kid!

You are really good at sidestepping the question, I have to admit. A
person CAN put a bike helmet on his kid based on a previous experience of
some child he personally knows having the helmet protect that child. And,
you did not answer my question, once again.



People put bike helmets on kids because they've been convinced that
their kid is a) pretty likely to get a significant head injury if they
don't wear a helmet, and b) that the helmet is almost guaranteed
("85%!!!!) to prevent such head injuries. Both ideas are false.

No, again let me say that it is based on common sense and logic, not
statistics.


And regarding statistics: A person doesn't need to compute
probabilities for every act that they perform in order to make use of
statistics. If you take almost any medicine, you are doing so because
someone has conducted a disciplined study of the benefits and
detriments of that medicine. They have analyzed the data using
statistics. If your physician is sharp, he'll have read articles on
the results, rather than just listening to the pharmaceutical
salesman. If he also thinks you're sharp enough, he may discuss the
stats with you.

If drugs were promoted using the techniques and lies used to sell bike
helmets, the FDA would slap the companies with huge fines.

Get a grip, Frank! Misuse of drugs can kill a person. If a little kid
wears a helmet, it won't kill him! You are cherry-picking your use of
statistics. Use them if they seem to agree with you, but disregard their
use when it suits you. Not very logical on your part.


But head injuries per rider have never showed the supposed protection
of helmets. I know you don't like technical things like numbers, so
I'll point you to a more casual article, from the New York
Times:http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1028

Here you go again, being condescending. That really, really helps convince
me of your point of view, doesn't it?

Pat, you've already mocked the use of statistics, hence my statement.
Did you read the article?

No, I have not "mocked" the use of statistics. I have said, use common
sense. I make decisions on a personal basis based on logic and common
sense. I did not read the article because it involves large populations,
not the conditions concerning my children in my neighborhood with the
drivers who drive in my neighborhood, traffic patterns in my neighborhood,
etc.

The kid was a pedestrian. He had jogged across that road.

How about because he wasn't going at the speed bicycles are capable of
going?

He was jogging _fast_. His speed certainly looked the same as a
common bicycle speed - although why that matters in a right angle
collision, I can't imagine!

Pedestrians "jog" at 20 mph? In the city? Come on, Frank, get real!


You use the word "anecdote" as being meaningless when it doesn't suit your
side of the argument. Other people, such as parents, use their real-world
experience and make judgments from that, not statistics.

Please explain in detail how a person uses his real world experience
with helmets to justify buying his first helmet.

A parent sees a little boy named Brooks get a skull fracture. That's real
world experience. I don't need to go to statistical analysis to see the
probability of it happening again. Brooks is real and in my neighborhood.


[Pat:]
Funny, if little Brooks had had his helmet on, he wouldn't have gotten his
skull fractured.

Really? Then why doesn't that apply to these folks, as well?
http://members.shaw.ca/jtubman/deadhelmet.html

Perhaps those folks aren't six years old and riding over a manhole cover?
Why do you try to extrapolate other people's experiences with my
neighborhood and my neighbors? Oh, yes, I get it--with you, everything is
statistics and NOTHING is common sense. Why should I care what happens to
someone in Canada?

You still didn't answer the question as to whether you think pedestrians
should have to wear helmets. You see, Frank, you are so obsessed with your
anti-helmet crusade that you can't even stay on the thread's topic. You
rush to any topic where helmets are mentioned so that you can castigate,
ridicule, and condescend. Now, in a real world situation, that doesn't
convince anybody---and you seem to think you are smart and yet you miss
this basic fact. You have gotten a reputation as a kind of nut on a
crusade.

Pat in TX