Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

Bill Z. wrote:
Peter writes:


Bill Z. wrote:

(JFJones) writes:

Unlike cynical Bill, some people have ethical values that prevent them
becoming lawbreakers. They quit cycling through self-enforcement or in
the case of kids parental enforcement.

Some of us are ethical enough to report what we see accurately. On
quite a number of occassions around here, I've seen kids riding
without helmets and the police ignoring them, and this is in a state
where we do have a helmet law that applies to anyone 17 (18?) or
under.

Of course this says nothing to refute the statement by Jones which was
about self-enforcement and parental enforcement and specifically not
about police enforcement.


It refutes what he said, which was a baseless personal attack about
my ethics, when I merely reported the behavior I've observed.

You stated (and continue to state) that if a law is not
enforced by the police then it must not have any effect on people.
He was pointing out that that won't be true for people who
choose to obey laws for reasons not directly related to police
enforcement. Repeating your previous observation about lack of
police enforcement is in no way a refutation.

And
his comments about "self-enforcement and parental enforcement" are
pure BS - he hasn't shown that most people have a clue that a helmet
law exists. It was sort of publicized when the California one was
passed, but that was some 10 years ago and there hasn't been a word
since. If you moved to the state more recently, or weren't interested
in cycling when the law was passed, you wouldn't have a clue that
there was such a law.

Not true if you have kids who attend school. The helmet law and the
school's policy regarding it were mentioned several times at Back-to-
School events for parents. Notices about the law are also posted in
most state parks that I've visited as well as school bulletin boards.


My commute route goes past an elementary school, an intermediate
school, and a high school. I still see a considerable number of
kids cycling, albeit not nearly as many as before the helmet law
was passed. Almost all have helmets, but only about 20% of those
helmets are on their heads - most of the others are dangling from
the handlebars.


Which is illegal. Did the police notify their parents?

What police? The police presumably have better things to do.
Most of my observations of children riding to school have been
on a bike trail where I've only seen one police officer in the
last ten years. He was hiding behind a bush with his radar gun
on the only downhill in 30 miles of trail steep enough to let
cyclists slightly exceed the 15 mph speed limit by coasting.

But as I said, the presence of helmets shows that the schools,
possibly with help from the parents, are enforcing the rule at
the end of the ride, i.e. upon arrival at the school. The fact
that the helmets are not being worn is a good indication that the
kids dislike the helmet rule and that its existence is likely to
serve as a disincentive to ride for some fraction of them.

(Maggie):

Does cycling without a helmet really need to be be criminal?

Who are you hurting beside yourself if you choose not to wear a
helmet? What is the crime? I think children should wear helmets, but
adults should make their own choice.

Ahem. What business do people like you have with _my_ children? Thanks,
but no thanks. I think parents have the duty to protect their children
against the malicious claptrap of illinformed busybodies selling
harmfull snake-oil products of all sorts. Like bicycle helmets, for
example.

Btw, what do motorcycle helmets have to do with bicycling?

--
Thank you for observing all safety precautions

maxo :

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:10:06 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Helmet laws do nothing to stop people from riding like idiots.

They do! They do!

I just think this is an absurd way to go about public safety. I'm no more
against helmets than seatbelts and airbags. [...]

You're of course free to have an opiinion on everything, but this is
somewhat misleading. There is a difference. Seatbelts work. So do
airbags, to a much lesser extend and only when combined with a properly
worn belts. Bicycle helmets, on the other hand, have been shown _not_ to
work.


--
Radhelme sind die Bachblüten des Straßenverkehrs

(Bill Z.) wrote in message ...
(JFJones) writes:

(Bill Z.) wrote in message ...
Dragan Cvetkovic writes:

Are you saying that people should obey the law only if it is actually and
actively enforced?

*****Note what Zaumen said here and then read his comment below*****
He's saying what I have said for years on this topic: that laws that
are not obeyed or enforced have zero impact on human behavior. People
are not going to stop cycling because of a helmet law that is neither
obeyed nor enforced.

Bill
*****

Unlike cynical Bill, some people have ethical values that prevent them
becoming lawbreakers. They quit cycling through self-enforcement or in
the case of kids parental enforcement.

Some of us are ethical enough to report what we see accurately. On
quite a number of occassions around here, I've seen kids riding
without helmets and the police ignoring them, and this is in a state
where we do have a helmet law that applies to anyone 17 (18?) or
under.

Zaumen makes a statement about zero impact of helmet laws and then
posts a non-sequitur about the kids he sees on the street. Wasn't this
about the ones that quit? Idiot.


That's the reality, moronic self-styled "moralists" who confuse
reporting the facts with a person's own ethical standards
notwithstanding. I might add that many parents probably don't even
know the law exists (it isn't publicized very well), in which case
Jone's "ethical values" / "self-enforcement" claims would be
particularly daft. "Ethical values" do not compel you to obey a
law that you don't know exists.

My guess is that Jones is a Bush supporter---he's sufficiently
out of touch with the real world. Any bets?

Bill

Peter writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
Peter writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

(JFJones) writes:

You stated (and continue to state) that if a law is not
enforced by the police then it must not have any effect on people.
He was pointing out that that won't be true for people who
choose to obey laws for reasons not directly related to police
enforcement. Repeating your previous observation about lack of
police enforcement is in no way a refutation.

Now you are lying. He made a statement about *my* ethics when I
reported the observed behavior, and he made no statement about others.
And he provided no evidence regarding what typical behavior is.

If you think it is to obey the law, I suggest you compare how fast
people drive above the speed limit when the police are present and
when they are not. Or, if you don't want to time that, sit at an
intersection with a traffic light for 10 minutes and count the red
light runners. People run red lights all the time around here - way
too often for it to be by accident, and even though red light running
can get people killed. Oh, and to be conservative, I only count it as
really running the light if the light had turned green in on the cross
street when they enter the intersection, to eliminate confusion over
short yellow phases.

And his comments about "self-enforcement and parental enforcement"
are pure BS - he hasn't shown that most people have a clue that a
helmet law exists. It was sort of publicized when the California
one was passed, but that was some 10 years ago and there hasn't
been a word since. If you moved to the state more recently, or
weren't interested in cycling when the law was passed, you
wouldn't have a clue that there was such a law.

Not true if you have kids who attend school. The helmet law and the
school's policy regarding it were mentioned several times at Back-to-
School events for parents. Notices about the law are also posted in
most state parks that I've visited as well as school bulletin boards.

Your school's policies have nothing to do with wearing a helmet on a city
street. At most they can require a helmet while on school property,
and any flyers and other such information will be widely ignored. I
get all sorts of information in utility fliers, for example, and that
goes directly into the trash - it resembles advertising and if it looks
like advertising, it gets treated as advertising.

Also, in poorer communities (where the level of helmet use seems to be
far lower than in the more affluent communities), chances are that any
such law is not mentioned at all. They have more important issues to
handle and very limited resources.

Which is illegal. Did the police notify their parents?

What police? The police presumably have better things to do.

Oh, so you admit the law isn't being enforced and people are breaking
it.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Wolfgang Strobl writes:

maxo :

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:10:06 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Helmet laws do nothing to stop people from riding like idiots.

They do! They do!

I just think this is an absurd way to go about public safety. I'm no more
against helmets than seatbelts and airbags. [...]

You're of course free to have an opiinion on everything, but this is
somewhat misleading. There is a difference. Seatbelts work. So do
airbags, to a much lesser extend and only when combined with a properly
worn belts. Bicycle helmets, on the other hand, have been shown _not_ to
work.

Wolfgang is back, repeating the same things he's said for years.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Michael wrote:


I'm willing to bet I'd either be dead or drooling on myself if I didn't
have that helmet on.

And I'm willing to bet you wouldn't. Why? Because the absolutely
_tremendous_ rise in bike helmet use hasn't caused a significant change
in serious head injuries per cyclist. In fact, if anything, there are
more head injuries per cyclist than before.

If all these helmets are really doing what you believe, the benefits
should be detectable.

Much more likely, IMO: all these helmets are producing stories that go
like this: "Wow, dude, my helmet touched the ground!!! It must have
saved my life!!!"

And 20 years ago, that story would have been "Darn, I _almost_ bumped my
head a little."

since then? I ride to the store 1/2 a block away I'm
wearin it.

Hey, don't stop there. You do lots of other things with more risk of
head injury. Walking down stairs? Climbing a ladder? Walking across
the street? Strap that baby on!


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

VBadJuJu wrote:



Doctors used to think bleeding a patient to let out the bad humors was
a good idea. People used to take mercury for pain relief. People
used to eat and drink from lead untesils. People used to think
Wal-Mart bikes were a value decision. People used to think the worl
was a flat disk resting on a turtle's back.

Times change and people (most of them) learn things.

But for every mistaken myth corrected, there seems to be a replacement
myth that's just about as silly.

Some people now believe that drinking water with an absolutely
undetectable trace of a substance vaguely related to a disease will cure
that disease. (Look up "homeopathy.")

Some people believe that hanging crystals from their rear view mirrors
will prevent car crashes.

Some people believe keeping kids indoors, never letting them cross a
street, never letting them play out of the sight of an adult, never
letting them climb trees or wrestle or tumble, will still allow them to
grow to be normal adults.

And some people believe a thin styrofoam hat, specified and tested to
protect only a body-less head against a less-than-15mph impact, will
somehow save a life when a person is hit by a 35mph car. They believe
this despite all the evidence that it's not working.

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

Bill Z. wrote:



Wolfgang is back, repeating the same things he's said for years.


:-) :-) :-)

Can you believe it's Bill Zaumen saying that? :-)


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

(JFJones) writes:

(Bill Z.) wrote in message ...
(JFJones) writes:

Zaumen makes a statement about zero impact of helmet laws and then
posts a non-sequitur about the kids he sees on the street. Wasn't this
about the ones that quit? Idiot.

The only "idiots" are people like Jones, who now is trying to change
the topic. The issue was not if a few people quit, but if people quit
in any significant numbers. Unenforced, poorly advertised, and widely
ignored laws are not going to cause people to give up cycling in any
significant numbers. The idea that a helmet law, under these
circumstances, would have any noticable impact on the number of
cyclists out there is just plain silly. It's about as silly as the
religious right wing's apparent belief that two guys walking down the
street holding hands in San Francisco is somehow going to break up a
marriage in Ohio (to give an example using the hot-button issue du
jour.)

My guess is that Jones is a Bush supporter---he's sufficiently
out of touch with the real world. Any bets?

Well? No reply, I see. :-)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB