published helmet research - not troll

"Tom Kunich" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...

BTW, if you drop by a U.S. emergency room with a kid who has some
nasty scrapes on his scalp, the bill will likely run over $1000.

I wonder where you get your ideas.

Certainly not from a moron like you. Oh, and BTW, I'm ignoring a number
of your posts tonight. You are simply frothing at the mouth.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Frank Krygowski writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

"Library research" is to research as military music is to music.
In typical form, Krygowski is equivocating.

Hmm. My bet is you play no musical instrument, just as you do no
library research - or any other kind, for that matter!

IOW, you're completely unequipped to discuss either matter!

Odd. In college, I even played in Town Hall (a well known concert
hall in New York City.) And we got good reviews from a major New
York newspaper.

So much for Krygowski's judgement. He mouths off but knows nothing.
You can figure everything else he says is equally bogus.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 21:00:07 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

There is *no* point to your post - you were simply speculating about
what I read and what I don't, with no basis whatsoever.

DING! Wrong again. The basis was your own words. You have
admitted to or demonstrated not having read each paper that's been
discussed thus far. And the point was, you are posting from
ignorance. Again.

And your thing about "playground insults" aside, you are in fact
acting like a complete and utter idiot - how else would you describe
someone who posts countless messages about my reading habits when that
person ahs absolutely no way of knowing?

Except that I do have a way of knowing - you are condemned out of your
own mouth, Bill.

I'd say the same thing about
you if you posted comments about the color of my underwear, which
you also don't know.

But I haven't. I've posted about helmets and helmet research, a
subject on which you have repeatedly displayed the profound ignorance.

Oh no! Bill's worked out that I have a political agenda, a fact which
I have tried desperately to conceal by only talking about it on
Usenet, in the newspapers, on the Web and at public meetings!

"Worked out"? I'm simply pointing out that people with a political
agenda usually try to push it, often valuing the truth so much that
they use it sparingly.

You're putting the cart before the horse there. I have been
campaigning against a helmet law because every country that has tried
it has experienced large reductions in cycling and no reductions in
head injury rates. If you know a way of campaigning against
legislation in process /without/ engaging with politicians, I'd be
delighted to hear it.

I did just that - ignored the rest of your post and 10 or so other
posts that followed, simply giving you a day to see if you'd cool
down.

LOL! I am as cool as a cool thing on a particularly cool day. I am
enjoying playing with someone who is so very easy to wind up :-)

They all showed up in a batch, so I figured the content
would be pretty similar - yet another mindless rant on your part.

And we all know that reading is not your strong point anyway. Well
done, by not reading them you will have further opportunities to post
from ignorance and I can have even more fun :-D

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

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 02:44:18 GMT, "Tom Kunich"
wrote in message
.net:

What has your research consisted of thus far? Apart from not reading
TR&T?

MAN are you ever giving Bill a LOT more credit than he deserves. He DIDN'T
read TR&T's complete paper, only the summaries.

Note word "not" :-)

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

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 21:02:17 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

I put guy in the anti-helmet *camp* becuase he was fitting into
their mode of operation

Ah, so if a helmet zealot reads the research and posts from knowledge
that makes them anti-hlemt as well, does it? I see.

Nope, you're simply acting like the rest of them - attack dog mode for
anyone they disagree with.

And that has nothing to do with your posting dogmatic assertions about
research you've never read and bicycles you've never ridden,
obviously.

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

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 05:16:06 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Posting nonesense time and time again is tiresome.

ROFLMAO! You probably even said that with a straight face!

Rely on this, Bill - we know /exactly/ how tiresome the repeated
posting of nonsense can be :-D

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

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 23:12:12 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Your "recurring theme" is simply Hilter's big lie technique - repeat
something often enough and hope others start believing it.

As previously posted, you have skimped on your research /again/. "A
lie repeated often enough becomes the truth" was Lenin, not Hitler.

You have also twice Godwinated this thread, making you the eternal
loser :-D

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

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 05:15:31 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Gee. four lines of responses in response to an obvious typo

Ah, but it was an /important/ typo, because of Godwin's Law. Maybe
you are as ignorant of that as you are of helmet research?

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

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 21:36:32 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

A typo aside (I meant "paper" not "pater"), what I was reporting
was the result of a study that found a helmet law as applied to
children (age 5 to 12) was cost effective.

And which has been roundly rebutted. You also ignored papers showing
that the NZ and Australian laws have failed cost-benefit even without
factoring in the loss of health benefits due to reduced cycling.

This is a very recent paper and it specifically stated that the helmet
law was cost effective for children in the 5 to 12 year old range, but
*not* ones in their teens, and that it was not cost effective for
adults. I pointed out all of that in previous posts.

And several people pointed out to you that pervious and subsequent
analysis of /exactly the same data/ by these and other authors shows
no benefit.

Interestingly, you also ignore the fact that teenaged cyclists are the
ones most likely to take risks. It looks to me as if the cost benefit
is arrived at solely because parents are more likely to take younger
children to hospital for treatment of superficial injuries. Using
ludicrously inflated costs for treatment of superficial injuries still
doesn't make a good case for compulsion.

I also note that you didn't reference Alberta, where child head injury
proportions rose sharply after compulsion.

And what happened in the year after that? Sounds to me like once
again you guys are reporting statistical noise.

Like Scuffham, you mean? Possibly. The fact remains that there is no
country in the world where a helmet law has resulted in a reduction in
cyclist head injury rates.

In fact, a pro-helmet transport minister in the UK has had to
acknowledge that there is no known case where cyclist safety has
improved with increasing helmet use.

So what? Putting on a seatbelt won't reduce the chances of you being
in a car accident either.

Read it again. No improvement in cyclist safety - that means that the
result of the law is that cyclists are no better off than they were
before. Now bear in mind that the helmet laws are sold as a road
safety measure. Given that safety does not improve, how effective
does that make the measure?

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

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 05:52:59 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

What I said is sitting right above where you quoted it. Try reading
it. Ask guy what he meant. I presume the minister was talking about
the accident rate, regardless of whatever Guy was trying to say.

And, as ususal, you are posting from ignorance. The Minister's
statement was nothing to dow ith crash involvement and everythign to
do with the risk of injury.

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