A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Social Issues
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 10th 04, 06:42 PM
Steven M. Scharf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

But many deny the evidence - robust though it is, and colected by
traffic statistics programmes which have existed for decades - that
helmets have no measurable effect at the population level.


But that is not the data that is being used to push through the MHLs.

The MHL proponents look at the comparative injury data of helmeted
versus non-helmeted cyclists. This data is compelling on its own. Also,
since they measure and report the severity of the injuries, a lot of
injuries that would be classified as minor on a non-helmeted rider show
up in the statistics, while the helmeted rider would not even go into
the ER for treatment.

I agree that they should look at the overall data, not just the
comparative severity of injury data when injuries occur. No law is
needed. They'd be better off finding another way to encourage helmet
use, i.e. charging for emergency care to non-helmted cyclists involved
in crashes where helmets would have an effect.

Ads
  #12  
Old November 10th 04, 06:50 PM
Just zis Guy, you know?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:17:46 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote:

That is not the question. The reason that the mandatory helmet law is
being advocated is because it will reduce the severity of head injuries
when a crash occurs.


And the people advocating it are in denial about the possibility that
the likelihood of crashing in the first place will increase.

And about the fact that helmets are not designed to withstand impacts
with motor vehicles.

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
  #13  
Old November 10th 04, 06:58 PM
Just zis Guy, you know?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:42:01 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote:

But many deny the evidence - robust though it is, and colected by
traffic statistics programmes which have existed for decades - that
helmets have no measurable effect at the population level.


But that is not the data that is being used to push through the MHLs.


No indeed, the data used to push helmet laws is very selectively
chosen to exclude that which proves helmet laws don't work. There's
probably a reason for that :-)

The MHL proponents look at the comparative injury data of helmeted
versus non-helmeted cyclists. This data is compelling on its own.


"compelling on its own" in the sense of "coimpelling when viewed in
isolation from balancing data", I suppose. Although if it was /that/
compelling the proponents wouldn't need to make quite such a big deal
about the 1989 Thompson, Rivara and Thomspson study whose authors have
since published much lower estimates following criticisms of their
methodology. It's almost as if the problem is not big enough if you
use current data.

In the UK the proponents also find it necessary to exaggerate the
numbers involved. For example, we recently had them claim that 50
children a year die and 22,500 are hospitalised for cycling related
head injuries. The real numbers are 10 and 2,000, both figures easily
checked and in the public domain.

And they also feel it necessary to drag in fatalities, despite the
fact that almost all cyclist fatalities are in road trafic crashes
involving motor vehicles, whch vastly exceed the protective
capabilites of helmets.

Oh, and they engage in gratuitous shroud-waving. In the UK they
paraded the case of a boy who "would have been saved" by a helmet
after riding off the pavement into thepath of a car while riding a
biek with defective brakes. Only a true zealot can see this as a
justification for a helmet law, particularly since the child had
already broken the laws on maintenance and pavement cycling, so was
not much of a one for spontaneous compliance.

since they measure and report the severity of the injuries, a lot of
injuries that would be classified as minor on a non-helmeted rider show
up in the statistics, while the helmeted rider would not even go into
the ER for treatment.


If you read Dorothy Robinson's critique of TR&T 1989 you will see
where that falls down.

I agree that they should look at the overall data, not just the
comparative severity of injury data when injuries occur. No law is
needed. They'd be better off finding another way to encourage helmet
use, i.e. charging for emergency care to non-helmted cyclists involved
in crashes where helmets would have an effect.


No, actually they would be better off looking at cycle safety n the
round, and realising that helmet use is just a sideshow. Tinkering at
the margins.

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
  #14  
Old November 10th 04, 07:58 PM
Frank Krygowski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

The fact that
there are other ways [besides helmets] to also reduce injuries, are irrelevant. These other
measures should be taken, but they are not exclusive. The anti-helmet
zealots want to prove that helmets don't prevent injuries, but the facts
speak for themselves. You have to look at how helmeted versus non-helmeted
cyclists fare in crashes, the fact that traffic calming might have prevented
some of the accidents doesn't figure into the equation.


First: In engineering, people are generally trained to expend resources
where they're most efficient or effective. If, for example, convincing
all cyclists to ride on the proper side of the road would prevent 35% of
bike traffic fatalities & serious injuries; and if convincing all
cyclists to wear polka-dotted jackets would prevent 1%, then its logical
to go with the 35% benefit.

What we currently have is, as Guy indicated, plenty of impartial
analysis showing that universal helmet use makes little difference, but
an almost total fixation on helmets as the be-all of bike safety. Even
if you're convinced helmets have significant value, the current
overemphasis on helmets makes no sense. There are better ways.


Second: If a person limits themselves to looking at how helmeted versus
non-helmeted cyclists fare in crashes, they _must_ be sure that the
presence of a helmet is the only difference! This isn't an academic
point; one of the common shortcomings of helmet promoting studies is to
assume that only the helmet is different.

The most quoted figure on helmet effectiveness is "85% benefit" - most
quoted precisely because it's the highest, so it's the best for selling
helmets. Yet that benefit has never been seen in large populations of
helmeted cyclists.

Why the discrepancy? The tiny study that produced that figure compared
two groups: essentially white, middle class kids wearing helmets who
fell riding on bike paths or soft surfaces, versus black low income kids
riding helmetless on streets and experiencing harder crashes. (Yes, the
division wasn't absolute, but those differences were significantly present.)

There are _many_ reasons those low-income kids appeared to fare worse.
Just as an example, it's likely the wealthier parents took their kid to
the ER "just to be sure" (since insurance covers the visit anyway).
It's likely that poor kids go to the ER much more reluctantly - that is,
only if the kid's seriously hurt. ER costs money if you don't have
insurance.

So, as usual, the issue is more complicated than many people believe.
For this reason, the most reliable indication of helmet effectiveness
really is the time-series study, especially when it involves nearly the
entire population of cyclists in a country.

And of course, those studies show the least benefit to widespread helmet
use.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

  #15  
Old November 10th 04, 08:18 PM
Frank Krygowski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

Maybe the
province should simply insert a provision into the health care laws that
they will not treat bicycle related injuries that would have been
prevented by the wearing of helmet; treatment will be at the patient's
expense.


If this makes sense, then the province should also treat heart attacks
only in people who are not overweight and who exercise at least half an
hour daily. Anyone for that? ;-)

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

  #16  
Old November 11th 04, 04:39 AM
Frank Krygowski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

No law is
needed. They'd be better off finding another way to encourage helmet
use, i.e. charging for emergency care to non-helmted cyclists involved
in crashes where helmets would have an effect.


This thinking is interesting!

Scharf's faith in helmets is strong enough that he wants to punish
anyone who disagrees. No, not by enacting a law; by making them pay
extra for medical treatment.

Seems to me helmets would have an effect in motor vehicle crashes, too.
And I'm not alone in that feeling. See
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/carhelm.html

So why not impose the same penalty on unhelmeted motorists? It makes
more sense. Those folks are about 50% of serious head injuries! Think
of the money savings!


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

  #17  
Old November 11th 04, 04:26 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote:

wrote in message
...
"Steven M. Scharf" wrote:


I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly
over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the
anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries in
helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies.


I guess it would depend on the definition of dangerous, wouldn't it?
How many people are killed on stairs, in the bathtub/shower, walking
on the street.


None of this is relevant to the bicycle helmet debate.


Yes it is, the issue is having a law shoved on the population to
protect people from harm, regardless of how the people feel
about it. Ok, then let's ban stairs, people are killed on them
also. Motorists lose control of their vehicles and kill
pedestrians and bicyclists, let's ban cars; or restrict them
to certain streets and not allow pedestrians or bicyclists
on those streets. Increase bicycle safety? Ok, no more
two wheel bicycles, people fall down without having a third or
fourth wheel. Mandatory knee pads, elbow pads, heavy clothing
to prevent road rash. Excessive speed? Gee, there goes all those extra
gears, now they won't ride so fast they speed into an accident.
Sound silly? Think of the how many people would be saved from
harm by those laws. When you make laws to protect
people from harm where do you stop? Helmets should be a
choice for the individual.



Some people accept the added risk inherent in not wearing a helmet, because
the risk of being involved in an accident where head injuries are involve
are small. Very few people deny the evidence that shows that helmeted riders
had less severe head injuries in crashes involving head injuries.


And it would be nice for the mandatory helmet crowd to admit that wearing
a helmet does not guarantee safety, or survival in case of an accident.
Your whole life is a risk. How much of it are you willing to give up to
government regulation?


--

-TTFN

-Steven


  #18  
Old November 11th 04, 05:07 PM
Steven M. Scharf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

We know that the countries with the worst cyclist
safety records have high helmet wearing rates.


Your lack of logic is astounding.

  #19  
Old November 11th 04, 05:09 PM
Steven M. Scharf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

And the people advocating it are in denial about the possibility that
the likelihood of crashing in the first place will increase.


I don't think that anyone is foolish enough to believe that helmet use
will cause the likelihood of crashing to increase. The people advocating
the helmet laws aren't in denial of this possibility, or in acceptance
of it; it's just so patently ridiculous that neither side has brought it up.

  #20  
Old November 11th 04, 05:17 PM
Steven M. Scharf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:

Yes it is, the issue is having a law shoved on the population to
protect people from harm, regardless of how the people feel
about it.


You misunderstand the mindset of the people pushing the MHLs. They are
not going out and looking at myriad other ways that people do stupid
things and hurt themselves. They are not looking at other steps they
could take to make cycling safer. They are looking solely at the data
regarding head injuries in bicycle accidents involving helmeted versus
non-helmeted cyclists. We have all sorts of laws that many people or
corporations don't like, i.e. child car seats, seat belts, safety-glass,
etc. In each case it would be better to prevent an accident from
happening in the first place.

Ok, then let's ban stairs, people are killed on them
also. Motorists lose control of their vehicles and kill
pedestrians and bicyclists, let's ban cars; or restrict them
to certain streets and not allow pedestrians or bicyclists
on those streets. Increase bicycle safety? Ok, no more
two wheel bicycles, people fall down without having a third or
fourth wheel. Mandatory knee pads, elbow pads, heavy clothing
to prevent road rash. Excessive speed? Gee, there goes all those extra
gears, now they won't ride so fast they speed into an accident.
Sound silly? Think of the how many people would be saved from
harm by those laws. When you make laws to protect
people from harm where do you stop? Helmets should be a
choice for the individual.


Cute, but it demonstrates that you don't understand how the MHL
politicians think. I'm against the MHLs because the benefit is so small
that this is one case where they should just let people decide on taking
the extra risk.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
published helmet research - not troll Frank Krygowski Social Issues 1716 October 24th 04 06:39 AM
Another doctor questions helmet research JFJones General 80 August 16th 04 10:44 AM
First Helmet : jury is out. Walter Mitty General 125 June 26th 04 02:00 AM
Fule face helmet - review Mikefule Unicycling 8 January 14th 04 06:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.