Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On Nov 29, 4:20*pm, RobertH wrote:
On Nov 29, 11:28 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

And so...? *Should we stop saying bicycling is a good thing, and just
warn people to give it up, because it's so dangerous?

Frank always tries to change the subject when it gets to this point.

I'm not sure why he seems incapable of having a candid discussion
about these issues, but seems programmed with a pedagogical/propaganda
spiel directed at timid newcomers, very few of whom are tuning in here
I'm sure.. Frank you might take a deep breath and realize that the
people you are arguing with are already avid and experienced cyclists
who need no encouragement whatsoever.

The answer to the question is of course not. Even though the risk of
serious injury is significant, the benefits still outweigh the risks
-- as long as the bicyclist is aware of those risks and is realistic
about them.

So Robert, why do you not say so? I think 90% of your posts to this
forum have been about the terrible dangers of cycling. In fact,
you're rarely seen here unless someone dares to say it's reasonably
safe, at which point you jump in attempting to rebut.

It seems your mission in life is to scare people into ninja-like
reflexes and awareness as the ONLY way to survive riding a bike. Why
not tell the truth, a truth that includes the grandmother down the
street from me riding with her grandchildren in a baby seat? Why not
emphasize that cycling is normally very beneficial, and something that
any normal person can do?

- Frank Krygowski

On Nov 29, 4:52*pm, James wrote:
On Nov 30, 7:23*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Problems? *The worst problem we had occurred three times. *Each time,
motorists (once a bus driver, twice a car driver) stopped
inappropriately to give us special right of way, either to let us
cross the intersection, or to turn left. *The kind of "extra" courtesy
that just complicated things and slowed us down.

But the motorists "out to kill us"? *Never saw a one. *No blaring
horns, no curse words, no cutting off. *Everyone got along fine, as
usual.

Ah, Utopia.

Last night was fairly good for me. *Only one guy waiting to turn right
gave me the finger and a few words of "encouragement". *Only had to
avoid a couple of left hooks, and one guy in an SUV passed me at warp
factor 9 leaving at most 30cm between us (it felt like 15cm. *I felt
threatened, as though he was trying to kill me).

Chatted to my mate who cycles to work 3 days a week through Melbourne
in peak times. *He had more colourful stories.

People rarely use their horn here. *More likely to use foul language,
or overtake wildly, skid to a halt, then get out and try to grab you
or door you as you pass.

When someone is waiting to turn left behind you and they have a left
turn arrow, I normally move right and let them turn. *If you're lucky
they will give you a wave.

Well, James, maybe you do live in a bicycling hell. If so, you really
should listen to your own advice and give it up, for your own good.

I don't know much about cycling in Melbourne, or elsewhere in
Australia. I've only had four friends who have ridden there, not
counting a few Australian cyclists I correspond with. None of them
seem to have any of your problems, but that doesn't mean that _you_
are not in constant mortal danger.

Maybe you should try rollerblading instead?

- Frank Krygowski

On Nov 29, 9:59*pm, Dan O wrote:
On Nov 29, 11:55 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

And you were wrong about what I think. *I have never said, nor
thought, nor implied, nor hinted that an injury that takes five weeks
to heal is an inconsequential one.

mommy bandaid

Did the scratches your mommy put band-aids on take five weeks to heal?

- Frank Krygowski

On 11/30/2010 10:28 AM, SMS wrote:
On 11/30/2010 7:04 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

One of the joys of socialism is that there is not usually enough money
to go around for things like education and health care. If the province
institutes a MHL there is a possibility that further funding
for cycling will be denied. This appears to have been the case in
Ontario. The other potential problem with a MHL would be enforcement.
This would require more police, especially on cycling paths etc.

No it wouldn't. Most people obey reasonable laws even when the chance of
getting caught and fined is very small. Enforcement costs would be
minimal. The argument of "we must spend enormous amounts of money on
enforcement to enforce every law on the books" is faulty.

Dumb laws are ignored, reasonable laws are obeyed by most people.

Or maybe things are different in Canada.

No I'm just saying what the arguments were against pursuing the MHL.

On 11/30/2010 10:13 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
In ,
Tºm Shermªn� " wrote:

On 11/29/2010 10:46 AM, A. Muzi wrote:
[...] 30,000 people? I don't know, but walking into an ER and
walking out with a band-aid on one's knee and a $1200 bill four
hours later could be called 'serious' by some.


The bandage is probably itemized on the bill for $200.

LOL.

I recently had to have a plumber out to the house. The bill was $395 or
thereabouts for 45 minutes. Parts were about $5. So the labor charge
was north of $400 an hour. Clearly we need plumbing reform in America.

I agree.


Oh, wait. Profitable plumbers are a good thing.

Not when they're that profitable.

Why isn't profitable
health care a good thing?

Lots of obvious reasons, the most prominent being conflict of interest
(profit over health).


;-) It's a funny thing. If I make a profit
from selling something to you, I'm running a successful business. If
you make a profit selling something to me, you're ripping me off.

Says who?


From the patient perspective in health care, there are a lot of hidden
costs paid by the provider. One of them is time. For every hour of
billable services, there is another hour of unbillable time in
documentation, records handling and storage, costs of preparing and
submitting bills, etc. (this is the case for psychologists, I don't know
about ER docs). If I work 40 clock hours a week, I can do 25-30
billable hours with 10-15 clock hours going to documentation; the
business office and medical records office also have time into each
charge.

Medical information handling is still in the dark ages (I know from
whence I speak).


And, as a psychologist, I have a cheap practice to operate since the
only tools I really need are my knowledge and a way to do the
documentation. I don't have to have millions of dollars worth of
facilities, unlike a full-serivce medical clinic; a hospital has
hundreds of millions of dollars in equipment and physical plant costs.
Even a dentist has hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment costs.
This is part of why health care costs as much as it does; rapacious drug
pricing is most of the rest of the reason.

We pay twice as much and get half as good. That's the bottom line.
Health care in this country is appalling. You are defending the
indefensible. You also have a conflict of interest. See the connection?

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:31:04 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
wrote:

wrote:
:On Nov 28, 4:18*pm, David Scheidt wrote:
: AMuzi wrote:
: avid Scheidt wrote:
: : wrote:
:
: : :On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 03:28:47 -0800 (PST), DirtRoadie: wrote:
:
: :
: : :On Nov 25, 10:04 pm, wrote:
: : : On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 12:38:34 -0500, Duane Hébert
: : :: : wrote:
:
: : : On 11/25/2010 12:26 PM, wrote:
: : :
: : : Are you suggesting that there were still a million structural fires in
: : : 2002 in the USA, just as there were in 1977, but that half a million
: : : of them were not reported because people woke up, put the fires out,
: : : and didn't bother to call the fire department so that they could file
: : : insurance claims?
: : :
: : : No. *But I am suggesting that you have no data pertaining
: : : to how many times smoke detectors worked or didn't work or
: : : were even installed in any of these locations.
: : :
: : : Dear Duane,
: : :
: : : Twenty-five years of data from 1977 to 2002 show no sign of smoke
: : : detectors reducing the rate of residential fire deaths versus
: : : structural fires.
: : :
: : : The million structural fires and six thousand residential deaths
: : : simply declined at the same rate, year by year, to half a million and
: : :three thousand.
: : :
: : :You could hardly make better graphs showing a total lack of effect
: : :
: : :Structure fires declined? Is it your contention that there is no
: : :correlation between smoke detector use and decrease in structure fires
: : :(with a corresponding decease in deaths)? It seems to me you could
: : :hardly have a better demonstration that, at the very least,
: : :establishes exactly that correlation.
: : :DR
: :
: : ear DR,
: :
: : :Are you suggesting that smoke detectors prevent fires?
: :
: : Are you really as dumb as you act? *
: :
: :
:
: :Carl's simply pointing out that smoke detectors have little
: :utility but a great fan base.
:
: No. *he's not. *He's conflating "structure fire" with "any
: sort of fire". *He might think he is, in which the answer is 'yes,
: he's as dumb as he acts'. *Or he might be ignoring the facts, because
: they don't support his position, in which case he's acting dumb, at
: best. *
:
: The facts are that in structures with no smoke alarms of any sort, there
: were 9.6 deaths per thousand fires in the period 2003-6. *In buildings
: with any sort of smoke alarm (battery and uilt in) the rate was 7 per
: 1000. *IN builidings with battery operated alarms, the rate was 8.3; in
: buildings with built in alarms the rate was 4.5. *That's pretty good
: evidence that smoke alarms actually save lives. *(Built in alarms are not
: battery powered, except as a backup, and can be ganged together, so that
: any one detecting smoke sounds all of them. *That's required by code in
: new construction in many places.)
:
: --
: sig 109

ear David,

:A) I provided a link to 25 years of data showing that the death rate
:for reported fires failed to change--about 5,000 residential deaths
er million reported sturctural fires--when smoke detectors were being
:installed in greater and greater numbers. Structural, outdoor, and car
:fires all simply declined dramatically over the quarter-century
eriod, at roughly the same rate, despite the increases in structures,
opulation, and cars.

And then you used them for a rant not supported by your evidence. How
you can use a paper that contains one mention of the phryase "smoke
detector" to demonstrate anything about smoke detectors is beyond me.
I repeat my question: Are you as big a moron as you act?

See the NFPA's 2009 report "Smoke Alarms IN US Home Fires",
http://www.nfpa.org%2Fassets%2Ffiles...keAlar ms.pdf

I'll quote the summary for you:

Almost all households in the U.S. have at least one smoke alarm, yet
in 2003-2006, smoke alarms were present in only two-thirds (69%) of
all reported home fires and operated in just under half (47%) of the
reported home fires. ("Homes" includes one- and two-family homes,
apartments, and manufactured housing.) Forty percent of all home fire
deaths resulted from fires in homes with no smoke alarms, while 23%
resulted from homes in which smoke alarms were present but did not
operate. The death rate per 100 reported fires was twice as high in
homes without a working smoke alarm as it was in home fires with this
protection. Hardwired smoke alarms are more reliable than those
powered solely by batteries.
These estimates are based on data from the U.S. Fire Administration's
(USFA's) National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) and the
National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA's) annual fire department
experience survey.


Do you still maintain there's no evidence that smoke alarms save
lives?

Dear David,

Thanks for the link.

Since we disagree about the fundamental points of the statistics, I'll
leave you to ignore my points.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

wrote:
:On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:31:04 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
wrote:

wrote:
::On Nov 28, 4:18Â*pm, David Scheidt wrote:
:: AMuzi wrote:
:: avid Scheidt wrote:
:: : wrote:
::
:: : :On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 03:28:47 -0800 (PST), DirtRoadie: wrote:
::
:: :
:: : :On Nov 25, 10:04 pm, wrote:
:: : : On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 12:38:34 -0500, Duane Hébert
:: : :: : wrote:
::
:: : : On 11/25/2010 12:26 PM, wrote:
:: : :
:: : : Are you suggesting that there were still a million structural fires in
:: : : 2002 in the USA, just as there were in 1977, but that half a million
:: : : of them were not reported because people woke up, put the fires out,
:: : : and didn't bother to call the fire department so that they could file
:: : : insurance claims?
:: : :
:: : : No. Â*But I am suggesting that you have no data pertaining
:: : : to how many times smoke detectors worked or didn't work or
:: : : were even installed in any of these locations.
:: : :
:: : : Dear Duane,
:: : :
:: : : Twenty-five years of data from 1977 to 2002 show no sign of smoke
:: : : detectors reducing the rate of residential fire deaths versus
:: : : structural fires.
:: : :
:: : : The million structural fires and six thousand residential deaths
:: : : simply declined at the same rate, year by year, to half a million and
:: : :three thousand.
:: : :
:: : :You could hardly make better graphs showing a total lack of effect
:: : :
:: : :Structure fires declined? Is it your contention that there is no
:: : :correlation between smoke detector use and decrease in structure fires
:: : :(with a corresponding decease in deaths)? It seems to me you could
:: : :hardly have a better demonstration that, at the very least,
:: : :establishes exactly that correlation.
:: : :DR
:: :
:: : ear DR,
:: :
:: : :Are you suggesting that smoke detectors prevent fires?
:: :
:: : Are you really as dumb as you act? Â*
:: :
:: :
::
:: :Carl's simply pointing out that smoke detectors have little
:: :utility but a great fan base.
::
:: No. Â*he's not. Â*He's conflating "structure fire" with "any
:: sort of fire". Â*He might think he is, in which the answer is 'yes,
:: he's as dumb as he acts'. Â*Or he might be ignoring the facts, because
:: they don't support his position, in which case he's acting dumb, at
:: best. Â*
::
:: The facts are that in structures with no smoke alarms of any sort, there
:: were 9.6 deaths per thousand fires in the period 2003-6. Â*In buildings
:: with any sort of smoke alarm (battery and uilt in) the rate was 7 per
:: 1000. Â*IN builidings with battery operated alarms, the rate was 8.3; in
:: buildings with built in alarms the rate was 4.5. Â*That's pretty good
:: evidence that smoke alarms actually save lives. Â*(Built in alarms are not
:: battery powered, except as a backup, and can be ganged together, so that
:: any one detecting smoke sounds all of them. Â*That's required by code in
:: new construction in many places.)
::
:: --
:: sig 109
:
:ear David,
:
::A) I provided a link to 25 years of data showing that the death rate
::for reported fires failed to change--about 5,000 residential deaths
:er million reported sturctural fires--when smoke detectors were being
::installed in greater and greater numbers. Structural, outdoor, and car
::fires all simply declined dramatically over the quarter-century
:eriod, at roughly the same rate, despite the increases in structures,
:opulation, and cars.
:
:And then you used them for a rant not supported by your evidence. How
:you can use a paper that contains one mention of the phryase "smoke
:detector" to demonstrate anything about smoke detectors is beyond me.
:I repeat my question: Are you as big a moron as you act?
:
:See the NFPA's 2009 report "Smoke Alarms IN US Home Fires",
:http://www.nfpa.org%2Fassets%2Ffiles...keAlar ms.pdf
:
:I'll quote the summary for you:
:
:Almost all households in the U.S. have at least one smoke alarm, yet
:in 2003-2006, smoke alarms were present in only two-thirds (69%) of
:all reported home fires and operated in just under half (47%) of the
:reported home fires. ("Homes" includes one- and two-family homes,
:apartments, and manufactured housing.) Forty percent of all home fire
:deaths resulted from fires in homes with no smoke alarms, while 23%
:resulted from homes in which smoke alarms were present but did not
:operate. The death rate per 100 reported fires was twice as high in
:homes without a working smoke alarm as it was in home fires with this
:protection. Hardwired smoke alarms are more reliable than those
:powered solely by batteries.
:These estimates are based on data from the U.S. Fire Administration's
:(USFA's) National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) and the
:National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA's) annual fire department
:experience survey.
:
:
:Do you still maintain there's no evidence that smoke alarms save
:lives?

ear David,

:Thanks for the link.

:Since we disagree about the fundamental points of the statistics, I'll
:leave you to ignore my points.

What's that? You made a specific claim, which you can't support,
because it's false, that smoke detectors have no safety benefits.
I'm not ignoring your point. I'm disproving it. Did you have some
other point.


--
sig 111

On 11/30/2010 11:10 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 29, 4:05 pm, Duane wrote:
On 11/29/2010 3:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:



a) Duane, we shouldn't have to repeat this so often, but: If there is
room for a bike lane, there is room to share the lane without the
stripe.

Will you stop referring to me personally?

??? I don't understand. It was you who wrote that. Why should I not
mention your name in my response?

Because when you refer to me personally and then argue against
something that I didn't say, it annoys me. The only time that
I ever referred to a bike lane increasing space was when I mentioned
a road where they created the lanes by paving a gravel shoulder
and reserving it for bikes.

Perhaps you didn't _explicitly_ say a bike lane increases space. But
you've many times described roads with traffic, said controlling the
lane would back up traffic, etc. and implied that a bike lane stripe
would fix all that.

Like it or not, that ignores simple geometry. If the pavement is wide
enough for a "car lane" plus a bike lane, the pavement is wide enough
for a shared lane.

You continuously insist that it's possible to share the lane
just because it's wide enough to ride next to a car and assume
that the car will take the left and allow you to do so.
Even given the videos that people have posted showing a cyclist
riding along the center line because the cars are hugging the curbs.


Apparently in your world it's the choice between a luxurious 15 foot
wide lane where you can pleasantly share or a lane only wide enough to
allow a car so you have to take the lane. In my world, both of these
are sometime true though I can't think of any 15 foot wide lanes near
me. And just as often, there's enough room to
share a lane, only if a car keeps to the left.

We've got lanes from 15 feet wide down to nine feet wide. Some are
obviously wide enough to share, and I do so easily. Some are
obviously not wide enough to share, and I control the lane just as
easily. Some are in a grey area. They may be wide enough to share
with a Geo Metro but not with a large truck. I use my mirror and act
accordingly - which would be to move toward lane center in plenty of
time if I see a large truck approaching, or as other traffic
situations require. It's not rocket science.

Pulling out into the lane in front of a large truck approaching
at speed is something that I find that I have to do sometime and I don't
like it. It's not rocket science. This is your idea of promoting
cycling? Good luck with that.

If we had bike lane stripes, the stripe would be in the same position
no matter what vehicle was approaching. A large truck would probably
be at my elbow. (I know you don't read anything on the topics we
discuss, but studies have showed that motorists pass closer when bike
lanes stripes are present.)

Probably at your elbow? Studies have shown... Give me a break.
Now you're claiming that bike lanes MAKE motorists ride CLOSER?

You know, during the past week, I was riding through the congested
downtown of one of America's major cities. I was in the company of a
young lady who regularly commutes there by bike.

We did use a bike path parallel to the freeway to get part of the way
to our destination, and I have no problem with properly designed bike
facilities in that situation (where the freeway would otherwise
prevent access). But once in the heart of downtown, we just rode
where we wanted to go on the regular, somewhat crowded streets.

Problems? The worst problem we had occurred three times. Each time,
motorists (once a bus driver, twice a car driver) stopped
inappropriately to give us special right of way, either to let us
cross the intersection, or to turn left. The kind of "extra" courtesy
that just complicated things and slowed us down.

We all have examples of pleasant rides. If we didn't most of us
would take the bus.

But such stories are getting damned rare in this discussion group!
You and James, especially, have been portraying riding as a constant,
desperate battle for survival!

More personal insults based on your misconception.
I've never even implied that. Anyone mentioning any degree of danger
and you over state what they say and then rant against your
overstatement.

Then you come up with these stats that use fatalities
only and compare them to open populations of things like pedestrians.
And then insult people by telling them how ignorant they are that they
don't understand your theories just because they don't agree with your
interpretation.

Are you serious?

Try this. Once you told me how dangerous hockey is. I don't remember
your exact words but you were adamant about it.
Well let's see. There are almost no deaths from ice hockey. There are
concussions, spinal cord injuries, broken bones etc. but the rate of
fatalities is low. Given your logic, cycling would be considered more
dangerous.

I couldn't even find any stats on hockey related deaths more
recent that this:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/25lsrez

You aren't looking for any open discussion. You are apparently
looking to prove how less intelligent anyone is who is disagreeing with you.

I don't plan on replying to any more of your posts. It's an exercise
in futility.

On 11/30/2010 11:45 AM, David Scheidt wrote:
wrote:
:On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:31:04 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
wrote:

wrote:
::On Nov 28, 4:18 pm, David wrote:
:: wrote:
:: avid Scheidt wrote:
:: : wrote:
::
:: : :On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 03:28:47 -0800 (PST), DirtRoadie: wrote:
::
:: :
:: : :On Nov 25, 10:04 pm, wrote:
:: : : On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 12:38:34 -0500, Duane Hébert
:: : :: : wrote:
::
:: : : On 11/25/2010 12:26 PM, wrote:
:: : :
:: : : Are you suggesting that there were still a million structural fires in
:: : : 2002 in the USA, just as there were in 1977, but that half a million
:: : : of them were not reported because people woke up, put the fires out,
:: : : and didn't bother to call the fire department so that they could file
:: : : insurance claims?
:: : :
:: : : No. But I am suggesting that you have no data pertaining
:: : : to how many times smoke detectors worked or didn't work or
:: : : were even installed in any of these locations.
:: : :
:: : : Dear Duane,
:: : :
:: : : Twenty-five years of data from 1977 to 2002 show no sign of smoke
:: : : detectors reducing the rate of residential fire deaths versus
:: : : structural fires.
:: : :
:: : : The million structural fires and six thousand residential deaths
:: : : simply declined at the same rate, year by year, to half a million and
:: : :three thousand.
:: : :
:: : :You could hardly make better graphs showing a total lack of effect
:: : :
:: : :Structure fires declined? Is it your contention that there is no
:: : :correlation between smoke detector use and decrease in structure fires
:: : :(with a corresponding decease in deaths)? It seems to me you could
:: : :hardly have a better demonstration that, at the very least,
:: : :establishes exactly that correlation.
:: : :DR
:: :
:: : ear DR,
:: :
:: : :Are you suggesting that smoke detectors prevent fires?
:: :
:: : Are you really as dumb as you act?
:: :
:: :
::
:: :Carl's simply pointing out that smoke detectors have little
:: :utility but a great fan base.
::
:: No. he's not. He's conflating "structure fire" with "any
:: sort of fire". He might think he is, in which the answer is 'yes,
:: he's as dumb as he acts'. Or he might be ignoring the facts, because
:: they don't support his position, in which case he's acting dumb, at
:: best.
::
:: The facts are that in structures with no smoke alarms of any sort, there
:: were 9.6 deaths per thousand fires in the period 2003-6. In buildings
:: with any sort of smoke alarm (battery and uilt in) the rate was 7 per
:: 1000. IN builidings with battery operated alarms, the rate was 8.3; in
:: buildings with built in alarms the rate was 4.5. That's pretty good
:: evidence that smoke alarms actually save lives. (Built in alarms are not
:: battery powered, except as a backup, and can be ganged together, so that
:: any one detecting smoke sounds all of them. That's required by code in
:: new construction in many places.)
::
:: --
:: sig 109
:
:ear David,
:
::A) I provided a link to 25 years of data showing that the death rate
::for reported fires failed to change--about 5,000 residential deaths
:er million reported sturctural fires--when smoke detectors were being
::installed in greater and greater numbers. Structural, outdoor, and car
::fires all simply declined dramatically over the quarter-century
:eriod, at roughly the same rate, despite the increases in structures,
:opulation, and cars.
:
:And then you used them for a rant not supported by your evidence. How
:you can use a paper that contains one mention of the phryase "smoke
:detector" to demonstrate anything about smoke detectors is beyond me.
:I repeat my question: Are you as big a moron as you act?
:
:See the NFPA's 2009 report "Smoke Alarms IN US Home Fires",
:http://www.nfpa.org%2Fassets%2Ffiles...keAlar ms.pdf
:
:I'll quote the summary for you:
:
:Almost all households in the U.S. have at least one smoke alarm, yet
:in 2003-2006, smoke alarms were present in only two-thirds (69%) of
:all reported home fires and operated in just under half (47%) of the
:reported home fires. ("Homes" includes one- and two-family homes,
:apartments, and manufactured housing.) Forty percent of all home fire
:deaths resulted from fires in homes with no smoke alarms, while 23%
:resulted from homes in which smoke alarms were present but did not
:operate. The death rate per 100 reported fires was twice as high in
:homes without a working smoke alarm as it was in home fires with this
:protection. Hardwired smoke alarms are more reliable than those
:powered solely by batteries.
:These estimates are based on data from the U.S. Fire Administration's
:(USFA's) National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) and the
:National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA's) annual fire department
:experience survey.
:
:
:Do you still maintain there's no evidence that smoke alarms save
:lives?

ear David,

:Thanks for the link.

:Since we disagree about the fundamental points of the statistics, I'll
:leave you to ignore my points.

What's that? You made a specific claim, which you can't support,
because it's false, that smoke detectors have no safety benefits.
I'm not ignoring your point. I'm disproving it. Did you have some
other point.

Since you seem to be turning him down on his offer, can
I take it instead?

On Nov 30, 2:27*pm, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 11/30/2010 9:13 AM, SMS wrote:

First of all, people are already well aware of the risks involved in
cycling, requiring helmets doesn't change their perception, any more
than the addition of safety glass, padded dashboards, seat belts,
airbags, etc., made motorists think that driving is more dangerous than
it really is.

I agree. *I find it a very short sited argument with very little
"proof". *It usually amounts to some studies in Australia that I've
not bothered to read. *In Ontario or Vancouver there doesn't seem to
have been any reduction in cycling.

You should read those Australian studies; they are not at all what you
were told by the partisans of the AHZ.

First of all, I demonstrated earlier this year that Krygowski lied
about the meaning of the West Australian study. He lied about its
scope, its intention, its connections (it was funded by the insurance
industry), and most of all he lied about the its conclusions. The
researchers never concluded anything even close to what Krygowski
claimed. This is comparable to Krygowski's lie that some Texas
researcher found that most bicycle fatalities were drunks, exposed by
Peter Cole around the same time.

Secondly, the Melbourne study is of the familiar academic type that
sets out to prove that people tend to know the people they know; the
findings were decided and then the study format was chosen to produce
the data to support the hypothesis. (This is not, repeat not, how
research should be done. The hypothesis should stand at least an equal
chance of being disproven.) Unfortunately, in the Melbourne study
there isn't enough unequivocal data to support anything; also a
problem with the Perth study, but at least the Perth study was more
honestly conducted, and the Perth researchers stated their problems
with honest statistical rigour -- a section of the report Franki-boy
either deliberately ignored or isn't qualified to understand. The
Melbourne study is a classic example of a problem that James tried
repeatedly to explain to Krygowski, who wasn't listening because the
false conclusions he draws from those two Australian studies underpins
too much of his obsession, that *there are too few cycle fatalities*
in the areas studied to conclude anything. Actually, there are too
few serious cycling injuries in all of Australia to conclude anything
at all, simply too few cyclists. (We are stuck with anecdotal
evidence, and I must say, as someone who lived in Australia and daily
spoke to a cycle-commuter in Melbourne, to me James's anecdotes ring
true.)

For Krygowski to come tell us, on hand of flawed, tiny studies in
Australia, which he anyway lies about, as I have proved, what policy
should be in the US or the UK or anywhere else, is a travesty of cause
and effect.

I say again, as the person on this usenet discussion group with the
most experience in statistical practice for the highest stakes (when I
worked in advertising I controlled statistical market research budgets
of 160mUSD a year, in a job from which I would have been summarily
fired for one per cent of the errors committed in most of these
studies Krygowski lies about), there is only one study that I consider
thorough enough, and which has a universe (it isn't even a sample, it
is a whole universe the size of New York City) tightly enough
controlled, to come to large-scale, important policy decisions. And
that one is the New York study which clearly *proves* beyond any
shadow of a doubt that helmets save lives. (Once more, it isn't a
sample, it is a *head count* of every bicycle fatality and every
serious cycling injury in the whole of one of the largest cities in
the world for eight years. Those are the facts and nothing but the
facts!) I happen to think it also proves for New York conditions, and
possibly for general American conditions and motorist attitudes
towards cyclists, that a mandatory cycle helmet law would save lives.
(That's not the same as calling for a mandatory helmet law; I'm not an
American; my interest in this is not policy but honest statistics free
of Krygowski's lies.) I know for a fact that the same isn't true for
The Netherlands, because conditions there are different, in particular
the attitude of drivers and the intent and application of the laws
regulating the relationship of motorists and cyclists. Which case is
more true of Quebec I have no way of telling, but I can say I'd rather
trust the always-reasonable Duane Hebert (who lives there!) rather
than the proven liar, and clear obsessive, Frank Krygowski (who
doesn't even live there).

It is worth repeating that the reason Krygowski won't engage with the
New York Study is because he understands that my analysis of it is
unassailable, that it conclusively contradicts his entire case, that
it proves helmets save lives. The lesser anti-helmet zealots already
tried arguing against the New York Study and were badly scorched by a
perfect set of facts, perfectly defensible, absolutely irresistible in
their conclusions. Now poor Franki-boy thinks that if the anti-helmet
zealots ignore the NY study, it will go away. It won't. It is the Gold
Standard.

Andre Jute
Above all but truth, punctilio -- my old statistics teacher