Helmet Nazis at It Again!

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???

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.


My sentiments exactly. One need only look at the Dutch model to see how
to achieve real safety. Same thing in my home town of Gothenburg. Treat
riders like real road users, and expect the same respect in return, and
you get a lower accident rate.

Believing that helmets are panacea for bike accidents is neither a
liberal or conservative, but an ideological issue that makes for ****ty
dinnertime conversation.

Writing tickets for "reckless cycling" and making it know that such a
clampdown in enforcement is on the way, is a better method. Put a big
smily face on it so it's not too draconian. Then expect a bunch of CM
hippies and emo kids to **** and moan, even though they're now being
treated as equals, just like they wanted.

writes:

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:57:57 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:


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.

No need to couple the helmet at all - population studies show that
they have no positive effect.

We went over this crap for years, and the "helmets don't work"
claim has been completely discredited. Nobody is claiming that
helmets are a panacea, but they are useful.

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 04:50:24 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:57:57 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:


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.

No need to couple the helmet at all - population studies show that
they have no positive effect.

We went over this crap for years, and the "helmets don't work"
claim has been completely discredited. Nobody is claiming that
helmets are a panacea, but they are useful.

Useful for scratches and scrapes perhaps.

But preventing serious injuries - zero (or negative) effect.

A net health cost.

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/

Wait a minute! You live in NYC, ride a 'bent and are NOT a liberal?!?
Don't burst my bubble like that. I enjoy my stereotyped world.

;-)

Joseph

Should, bicyclists wear helmets? In my opinion, yes. But that's a
choice. Should the city dictact what you do while piloting a moving
vehical? That's open to question.

I don't believe a helmet is a panacea for all bike/car/ped accidents.
You need to ride with some intelligence & responsibility. But I DO want
to protect what little intelligence I have encased in my skull. So I
wear a helmet.

As far as Traffic Laws go, should the city ticket bicycles for running
lights? Sure, but ticket cars & peds for doing the same. Ticket
bicycles for driving erratically? Fine. Tickets cars, trucks and peds
for driving or parking in bike lanes and forcing riders out into
traffic.

Something that never seems to get discussed is the timing of Traffic
light. Traffic lights are timed for cars travelling at a certain speed,
not for pedestrians & bicycles. Most of the time when I'm out riding or
walking it seems impossible to cross HALF a large intersection in the
city without seeing the lights change. That only encourages people &
bikes to race across city streets, even against traffic. Yes, that's
illegal, but the City planners need to look at EVERY kind traffic when
they're designing intersections.

All you can ask for is a level playing field. If the City recognizes
bikes as traffic & treats them with the same respect they give cars,
trucks and pedestrians, we'll all be better off.



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/

Wait a minute! You live in NYC, ride a 'bent and are NOT a liberal?!?
Don't burst my bubble like that. I enjoy my stereotyped world.

;-)

Joseph

Many neo-cons were once liberal, particularly the Jewish ones who
became disaffected by the '60s and '70s.

Don't get me wrong -- "paid vacations" was a "liberal" idea once, "sick
leave" was "liberal" once, "pension plans" was "liberal" at first, the
eight-hour workday and five-day workweek was once "liberal"...but WRT
the helmet lobby, it's mainly liberals I see pushing this helmet thing
around (all the mainstream bike advocacy organizations, for example).
Interestingly, the "radical" ones like Time's Up! don't seem to push it
as hard.



Gary L. Burnore wrote:


Some of them are neocons, some are liberal. Try not to be blinded by
your politics.

--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
================================================== =========================

Gary L. Burnore wrote:


Problem is, there are bicyclists who obey the laws and bicyclists who
pick and choose which laws to pay attention to.

I don't see that as a problem. Bicyclists are in the same class as
pedestrians. It's the peds, the joggers, and us. I see no problem
with jaywalking, jogging or biking against traffic, etc. There should
be no "laws" as regards us. The roads are *ours* to begin with -- it's
motorized traffic that ought to defer to us! Unfortunately, the
culture here is such that might makes right-of-way.

Exactly.

Not so; I only see the liberal-types pushing for helmet laws. Of
course, bike folks tend to be more liberal anyway, it's true, but
still. I laugh every time I see a bloody bicyclist underneath a
helmet. And the funny thing is they get hurt over nothing at all!
We're not talking about swallowing the downhill at 45 mph; we're
talking about losing your teeth at 10 mph! Dumb-dumb liberals. No
wonder Bush won twice. Hell, with liberals like these, I bet you the
repugs retain control this year.

I agree with most of this. Make the ****ers stop at stop signs and
red lights. They want to be treated the same as people in/on motor
vehicles only when it suites them. Change that and there'll be fewer
accidents.

I think that was an unfortunate strategy in the first place -- the
"share the road" approach, as if begging motorists' tolerance. ****
that! The roads were always ours. It's crazy they design cities for
machines and not people. I can't imagine why they'd want to be treated
like other vehicles anyway. Another reason why you can't play nice
with assholes. The whole things is a set-up to begin with.

(By they I only mean the ones who pick and choose what laws they pay
attention to)

But we all do. How many bike club rides have you been on where the
point man followed all rules? It's patently absurd to do so. Was the
Sabbath made for man or was man made for the Sabbath? Let's not become
like anal-retentive Orthodox Jews who have to rush home on Friday
afternoons in wintertime, turning on all lights before sundown. It's
motorists who truly pick and choose what laws they want to obey.

--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
================================================== =========================

wrote:


Wait a minute! You live in NYC, ride a 'bent and are NOT a liberal?!?
Don't burst my bubble like that. I enjoy my stereotyped world.

;-)

Joseph


Are you kidding; the only liberals in this town are the chattering
classes when they're at work. At home and at play they're less liberal
than you might think.

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 04:50:24 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Nobody is claiming that helmets are a panacea, but they are useful.

Lots of people are.

Name a few.

{Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.}

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 15:07:10 GMT, "Bill Sornson" wrote:

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 04:50:24 GMT, (Bill
Z.) wrote:

Nobody is claiming that helmets are a panacea, but they are useful.

Lots of people are.

Name a few.

From congresscritters to lobyists, lots of people are.

Just as I thought. If you find someone who "claim(s) that helmets are a
panacea", then let us know who it is. (By name.)