|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
For the Record, the Final Report: by Andre Jute
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
For the Record, the Final Report: THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW (IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) by Andre Jute
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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, 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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
For the Record, the Final Report: THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLEHELMET LAW (IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) by Andre Jute
"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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
For the Record, the Final Report: THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW (IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) by Andre Jute
"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} |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW (IN THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA) by Andre Jute | dbrower | Rides | 1 | August 28th 10 06:41 AM |