For the Record, the Final Report: THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLEHELMET LAW (IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) by Andre Jute

On Aug 30, 12:40*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Aug 30, 5:44*pm, " wrote:
Also note that "nonintersection" crashes generally include mid-block
roll-out, wrong way cycling, cycling without lights in the dark, and
places where MUPs intersect roadways. *

This is a law enforcement problem,

True, but they still result in crashes that are reflected in the
statistics; take them out and intersection become relatively even more
dangerous. And aren't _all_ car-bike crashes ultimately law
enforcement problems?

-Brian

On 8/30/10 11:14 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
But you should note that I haven't
advocated a mandatory helmet law .....

You should probably have chosen another title, then. "THE CASE FOR A
MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW (IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)" seems like
advocating.

I have some misgivings about what I wrote. I managed to mention
RESPONSIBILITY but once, and failed to give credit at all where the credit
was due. I hope to repair that here.

It is every American's RESPONSIBILITY, not simply privilege, to choose what
they do, wear, or how they act. It was Andre's hard work, perseverance,
insights, and acumen that make it likely we will choose wisely and well what
we wear on our heads when we bicycle.


MikeWhy wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Aug 30, 10:45 am, "MikeWhy" wrote:
Speaking as a normal and sane American, I will state categorically
that no matter what the alleged cost to society, no matter what
past, present, or future tediously compiled scholarly studies may
show or be coerced into saying, no matter how much doing otherwise
abrades on your sensibilities and commonsense, no matter the pain
and suffering it may cause or save the individual, and most of all
no matter what our well meaning friends, neighbors, family, and
general nosy busy bodies oversseas and next door may think we should
do or how we should live, it is and must remain the inherent right
and responsibility of every adult man and woman to choose for
themselves and their minor charge what and whether they wear upon
their feet or heads in or outside their homes. Say no, quietly but
firmly to those who would have us live as they live, as though their
way is the only way and their light is the only light. Say it firmly
and quietly, but in unison with your neighbor, so our voices are
heard clearly as but one in the far reaches of the globe where they
have long ago forgotten their freedoms, and envy you yours. Our
freedoms, hard fought and won through the shedding of blood, are our
burdens treasures of our children's children. Once lost, they will
not be regained easily. Say NO firmly, but never contemptuously or
contentiously. You see, our cousins were once free men also, but
even their self professed students of history have already
forgotten.

Say, "No, thank you. I shall walk on the beach barefoot today and
feel the sand between my toes, and the water lapping on my heels."

"No, thank you. I have my own hat."

"No, thank you. SPF 10 is more than I need."

"No, thank you. I still know my own way home."

"No, thank you."

"No." "No." "No."

I like your passion, Mike. But you should note that I haven't
advocated a mandatory helmet law; I've merely presented an honest
account of the New York cycling fatalities and serious accidents
study to counter the anti-helmet zealots' lies about it. Others can
make of it what they want.

Hmmm. Merely practicing the rhetoric I'll print on hats and caps to
be worn in lieu of mandated headwear. I'll make a note in the log...
2006 Columbia Crest Grand Estates Cab, nicely round with a nutty
finish; a bit long on sap and self wind. It started as a simple
missive pointing out the equivalence of hats and shoes. Regulation is
not needed for near 100% use. Some even sleep wearing them.

All the same, "Just say NO, with no apology."




Andre Jute
"Not only people, but apply it to cyclists too!" --Nexus7


********
Andre Jute wrote:
[In thirteen days of filibustering and nasty personal assaults by
the anti-helmet zealots, they have not brought forward a single
argument for changing any of the facts and cautious conclusions I
first published thirteen days ago. Correspondence in my private
mailbox on the contrary has made a stronger case that my estimate
that a mandatory helmet law might reduce cycling fatalities by
about one third is overly cautious. All the same, in such matters
the statistician who doesn't wish to be accused of ideological
motivation should offer policymakers a description that goes no
further than the narrowest interpretation of the figures permit;
any greater benefit from the policy arrived at on hand of the
figures is then a pleasant surprise and bonus. That the surprise
will be so much more pleasant where unnecesary deaths are avoided
is not a statistical consideration, though as humans of course we
rejoice when it happens. In the light of the failure of the
anti-helmet zealots to bring forward any argument that wasn't
patently stupid (such as screeching that I claimed a mandatory
helmet law would be 100% or 97% or some such ridiculous number
effective in saving lives, such as deliberately misunderstanding
the nature of the serious injuries included in the New York study,
such as either deliberately or ignorantly refusing to under that a
description of the size and length of the New York compilation
trumps all mickey mouse "adjusted" studies), I republish the
original analysis unchanged as my final word until contrary
*evidence* of the same magnitude is produced. -- Andre Jute, 30
August 2010]

For the Record, the Final Report:
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW
(IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
by Andre Jute

It is a risible myth that your average American is a tall-walking
free individual untrammeled by government: he is in fact just as
much constricted as a European soft-socialist consumerist or
Japanese collective citizen, though it is true that the American is
controlled in different areas of his activity than the European or
the Japanese. To some the uncontrolled areas of American life, for
instance the ability to own and use firearms, smacks of barbarism
rather than liberty. In this article I examine whether the lack of
a mandatory bicycle helmet law in the USA is barbaric or an
emanation of that rugged liberty more evident in rhetoric than
reality.

Any case for intervention by the state must be made on moral and
statistical grounds. Examples are driving licences, crush zones on
cars, seatbelts, age restrictions on alcohol sales, and a million
other interventions, all now accepted unremarked in the States as
part of the regulatory landscape, but all virulently opposed in
their day.

HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health
through exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I
shall make no effort to quantify those health benefits because the
argument I'm putting forward is conclusively made by harder
statistics and unexceptional general morality.

In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is
to compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by
motorists' average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe
enough.

Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken

By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration
of journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that
in the US:

Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding

Source:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...ite/Banco/7man...

It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times
less likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys
all the benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore
the greater per mile/per trip/per hour danger.

This gives us the overall perspective but says nothing about
wearing a cycling helmet.

HELMET WEAR AT THE EXTREME END OF CYCLING RISK

What we really want to know is: what chance of the helmet saving
your life? The authorities in New York made a compilation covering
the years 1996 to 2003 of all the deaths (225) and serious injuries
(3,462) in cycling accidents in all New York City. The purpose of
the study was an overview usable for city development planning, not
helmet advocacy, so helmet usage was only noted for part of the
period among the seriously injured, amounting to 333 cases. Here
are some conclusions:

• Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
• Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
• Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal
crashes

Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf

This concatenation of facts suggests very strongly that not wearing
a helmet may be particularly dangerous.

• It looks like wearing a helmet saved roundabout 33 cyclists or so
(of the 333 seriously injured for whom helmet use is known) from
dying.
• If those who died wore helmets at the same rate of 13% as those
in the study who survived, a further 22 or so could have lived.
• If all the fatalities had been wearing a helmet (100%), somewhere
between 10% and 57% of them would have lived. This number is less
firm to allow for impacts so heavy that no helmet would have saved
the cyclist. Still, between 22 and 128 *additional* (to the 33
noted above) New Yorkers alive rather than dead for wearing a
thirty buck helmet is a serious statistical, moral and political
consideration difficult to overlook.

SO HOW MANY CYCLISTS CAN HELMETS SAVE ACROSS THE NATION?
New York is not the United States but we're not seeking certainly,
only investigating whether a moral imperative for action appears.

First off, the 52,000 cyclists hurt cannot be directly related to
the very serious injuries which were the only ones counted in the
New York compilation. But a fatality is a fatality anywhere and the
fraction of head injuries in the fatalities is pretty constant.

So, with a caution, we can say that of 716 cycling fatalities
nationwide, helmet use could have saved at least 70 and very likely
more towards a possible upper limit of around 400. Again the
statistical extension must be tempered by the knowledge that some
impacts are so heavy that no helmet can save the cyclist. Still, if
even half the impacts resulting in fatal head trauma is too heavy
for a helmet to mitigate, possibly around 235 cyclists might live
rather than die on the roads for simply wearing a helmet. Every
year. That's an instant reduction in cyclist road fatalities of one
third. Once more we have arrived at a statistical, moral and
political fact that is hard to igno Helmet wear could save many
lives.

THE CASE AGAINST MANDATORY HELMET LAWS

• Compulsion is anti-Constitutional, an assault on the freedom of
the citizen to choose his own manner of living and dying
• Many other actitivities cause fatal head injuries. So why not
insist they should all be put in helmets?
• 37% of bicycle fatalities involve alcohol, and 23% were legally
drunk, and you'll never get these drunks in helmets anyway
• We should leave the drunks to their fate; they're not real
cyclists anyway
• Helmets are not perfect anyway
• Helmets cause cyclists to stop cycling, which is a cost to
society in health losses
• Many more motorists die on the roads than cyclists. Why not
insist that motorists wear helmets inside their cars?
• Helmets don't save lives -- that's a myth put forward by
commercial helmet makers
• Helmets are too heavily promoted
• Helmet makers overstate the benefits of helmets
• A helmet makes me look like a dork
• Too few cyclists will be saved to make the cost worthwhile

THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY HELMET LAW IN THE STATES
• 235 or more additional cyclists' lives saved
• 716 deaths of cyclists on the road when a third or more of those
deaths can easily be avoided is a national disgrace
• Education has clearly failed
• Anti-helmet zealots in the face of the evidence from New York are
still advising cyclists not to wear helmets
• An example to the next generation of cyclists
• A visible sign of a commitment to cycling safety, which may
attract more people to cycling

30 August 2010
© Copyright Andre Jute 2010. Free for reproduction in non-profit
journals and sites as long as the entire article is reproduced in
full including this copyright and permission notice.

On Aug 30, 7:02*pm, " wrote:

aren't _all_ car-bike crashes ultimately law
enforcement problems?

In the States perhaps, where motorists believe very aggressively
indeed that cyclists are the interlopers (and some cyclists believe
pedestrians are the interlopers, but we can take that up another day)
and are generally presumed by both society at large and the courts to
be in the right unless the cyclist can prove otherwise, which is hard
when he is dead. In more cooperative societies with a bike culture, a
motorist who hits a cyclist is presumed at fault unless he can prove
otherwise. Placing the onus of care on the vehicle operator who is
less vulnerable and in command of more force makes sound sense.

Andre Jute
A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes

"MikeWhy" wrote:

It was Andre's hard work, perseverance,
insights, and acumen that make it likely we will choose wisely and well what
we wear on our heads when we bicycle.

Why, thank you, Mike. What more can any cyclist ask than to serve his
fellow cyclists?

Andre Jute
Cyclist

On Aug 30, 9:11*pm, "MikeWhy" wrote:
I have some misgivings about what I wrote. I managed to mention
RESPONSIBILITY but once, and failed to give credit at all where the credit
was due. I hope to repair that here.

It is every American's RESPONSIBILITY, not simply privilege, to choose what
they do, wear, or how they act. It was Andre's hard work, perseverance,
insights, and acumen that make it likely we will choose wisely and well what
we wear on our heads when we bicycle.

MikeWhy wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Aug 30, 10:45 am, "MikeWhy" wrote:
Speaking as a normal and sane American, I will state categorically
that no matter what the alleged cost to society, no matter what
past, present, or future tediously compiled scholarly studies may
show or be coerced into saying, no matter how much doing otherwise
abrades on your sensibilities and commonsense, no matter the pain
and suffering it may cause or save the individual, and most of all
no matter what our well meaning friends, neighbors, family, and
general nosy busy bodies oversseas and next door may think we should
do or how we should live, it is and must remain the inherent right
and responsibility of every adult man and woman to choose for
themselves and their minor charge what and whether they wear upon
their feet or heads in or outside their homes. Say no, quietly but
firmly to those who would have us live as they live, as though their
way is the only way and their light is the only light. Say it firmly
and quietly, but in unison with your neighbor, so our voices are
heard clearly as but one in the far reaches of the globe where they
have long ago forgotten their freedoms, and envy you yours. Our
freedoms, hard fought and won through the shedding of blood, are our
burdens treasures of our children's children. Once lost, they will
not be regained easily. Say NO firmly, but never contemptuously or
contentiously. You see, our cousins were once free men also, but
even their self professed students of history have already
forgotten.

Say, "No, thank you. I shall walk on the beach barefoot today and
feel the sand between my toes, and the water lapping on my heels."

"No, thank you. I have my own hat."

"No, thank you. SPF 10 is more than I need."

"No, thank you. I still know my own way home."

"No, thank you."

"No." "No." "No."

I like your passion, Mike. But you should note that I haven't
advocated a mandatory helmet law; I've merely presented an honest
account of the New York cycling fatalities and serious accidents
study to counter the anti-helmet zealots' lies about it. Others can
make of it what they want.

Hmmm. Merely practicing the rhetoric I'll print on hats and caps to
be worn in lieu of mandated headwear. I'll make a note in the log...
2006 Columbia Crest Grand Estates Cab, nicely round with a nutty
finish; a bit long on sap and self wind. It started as a simple
missive pointing out the equivalence of hats and shoes. Regulation is
not needed for near 100% use. Some even sleep wearing them.

All the same, "Just say NO, with no apology."

Andre Jute
*"Not only people, but apply it to cyclists too!" --Nexus7


********
Andre Jute wrote:
[In thirteen days of filibustering and nasty personal assaults by
the anti-helmet zealots, they have not brought forward a single
argument for changing any of the facts and cautious conclusions I
first published thirteen days ago. Correspondence in my private
mailbox on the contrary has made a stronger case that my estimate
that a mandatory helmet law might reduce cycling fatalities by
about one third is overly cautious. All the same, in such matters
the statistician who doesn't wish to be accused of ideological
motivation should offer policymakers a description that goes no
further than the narrowest interpretation of the figures permit;
any greater benefit from the policy arrived at on hand of the
figures is then a pleasant surprise and bonus. That the surprise
will be so much more pleasant where unnecesary deaths are avoided
is not a statistical consideration, though as humans of course we
rejoice when it happens. In the light of the failure of the
anti-helmet zealots to bring forward any argument that wasn't
patently stupid (such as screeching that I claimed a mandatory
helmet law would be 100% or 97% or some such ridiculous number
effective in saving lives, such as deliberately misunderstanding
the nature of the serious injuries included in the New York study,
such as either deliberately or ignorantly refusing to under that a
description of the size and length of the New York compilation
trumps all mickey mouse "adjusted" studies), I republish the
original analysis unchanged as my final word until contrary
*evidence* of the same magnitude is produced. -- Andre Jute, 30
August 2010]

For the Record, the Final Report:
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW
(IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
by Andre Jute

It is a risible myth that your average American is a tall-walking
free individual untrammeled by government: he is in fact just as
much constricted as a European soft-socialist consumerist or
Japanese collective citizen, though it is true that the American is
controlled in different areas of his activity than the European or
the Japanese. To some the uncontrolled areas of American life, for
instance the ability to own and use firearms, smacks of barbarism
rather than liberty. In this article I examine whether the lack of
a mandatory bicycle helmet law in the USA is barbaric or an
emanation of that rugged liberty more evident in rhetoric than
reality.

Any case for intervention by the state must be made on moral and
statistical grounds. Examples are driving licences, crush zones on
cars, seatbelts, age restrictions on alcohol sales, and a million
other interventions, all now accepted unremarked in the States as
part of the regulatory landscape, but all virulently opposed in
their day.

HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health
through exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I
shall make no effort to quantify those health benefits because the
argument I'm putting forward is conclusively made by harder
statistics and unexceptional general morality.

In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is
to compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by
motorists' average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe
enough.

Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken

By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration
of journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that
in the US:

Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding

Source:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...ite/Banco/7man...

It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times
less likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys
all the benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore
the greater per mile/per trip/per hour danger.

This gives us the overall perspective but says nothing about
wearing a cycling helmet.

HELMET WEAR AT THE EXTREME END OF CYCLING RISK

What we really want to know is: what chance of the helmet saving
your life? The authorities in New York made a compilation covering
the years 1996 to 2003 of all the deaths (225) and serious injuries
(3,462) in cycling accidents in all New York City. The purpose of
the study was an overview usable for city development planning, not
helmet advocacy, so helmet usage was only noted for part of the
period among the seriously injured, amounting to 333 cases. Here
are some conclusions:

• Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
• Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
• Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal
crashes

Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf

This concatenation of facts suggests very strongly that not wearing
a helmet may be particularly dangerous.

• It looks like wearing a helmet saved roundabout 33 cyclists or so
(of the 333 seriously injured for whom helmet use is known) from
dying.
• If those who died wore helmets at the same rate of 13% as those
in the study who survived, a further 22 or so could have lived.
• If all the fatalities had been wearing a helmet (100%), somewhere
between 10% and 57% of them would have lived. This number is less
firm to allow for impacts so heavy that no helmet would have saved
the cyclist. Still, between 22 and 128 *additional* (to the 33
noted above) New Yorkers alive rather than dead for wearing a
thirty buck helmet is a serious statistical, moral and political
consideration difficult to overlook.

SO HOW MANY CYCLISTS CAN HELMETS SAVE ACROSS THE NATION?
New York is not the United States but we're not seeking certainly,
only investigating whether a moral imperative for action appears.

First off, the 52,000 cyclists hurt cannot be directly related to
the very serious injuries which were the only ones counted in the
New York compilation. But a fatality is a fatality anywhere and the
fraction of head injuries in the fatalities is pretty constant.

So, with a caution, we can say that of 716 cycling fatalities
nationwide, helmet use could have saved at least 70 and very likely
more towards a possible upper limit of around 400. Again the
statistical extension must be tempered by the knowledge that some
impacts are so heavy that no helmet can save the cyclist. Still, if
even half the impacts resulting in fatal head trauma is too heavy
for a helmet to mitigate, possibly around 235 cyclists might live
rather than die on the roads for simply wearing a helmet. Every
year. That's an instant reduction in cyclist road fatalities of one
third. Once more we have arrived at a statistical, moral and
political fact that is hard to igno Helmet wear could save many
lives.

THE CASE AGAINST MANDATORY HELMET LAWS

• Compulsion is anti-Constitutional, an assault on the freedom of
the citizen to choose his own manner of living and dying
• Many other actitivities cause fatal head injuries. So why not
insist they should all be put in helmets?
• 37% of bicycle fatalities involve alcohol, and 23% were legally
drunk, and you'll never get these drunks in helmets anyway
• We should leave the drunks to their fate; they're not real
cyclists anyway
• Helmets are not perfect anyway
• Helmets cause cyclists to stop cycling, which is a cost to
society in health losses
• Many more motorists die on the roads than cyclists. Why not
insist that motorists wear helmets inside their cars?
• Helmets don't save lives -- that's a myth put forward by
commercial helmet makers
• Helmets are too heavily promoted
• Helmet makers overstate the benefits of helmets
• A helmet makes me look like a dork
• Too few cyclists will be saved to make the cost worthwhile

THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY HELMET LAW IN THE STATES
• 235 or more additional cyclists' lives saved
• 716 deaths of cyclists on the road when a third or more of those
deaths can easily be avoided is a national disgrace
• Education has clearly failed
• Anti-helmet zealots in the face of the evidence from New York are
still advising cyclists not to wear helmets
• An example to the next generation of cyclists
• A visible sign of a commitment to cycling safety, which may
attract more people to cycling

30 August 2010
© Copyright Andre Jute 2010. Free for reproduction in non-profit
journals and sites as long as the entire article is reproduced in
full including this copyright and permission notice.

"MikeWhy" wrote in message
...

It is every American's RESPONSIBILITY, not simply privilege, to choose
what they do, wear, or how they act.

Clearly not a Democrat. eg

{Hugh Jass Memorial Snip}