Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 19:54:01 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

My "side"'s argument is that the evidence is far from clear,and that
the burden of proof remains solidly with those proposing intervention,
not with those urging scepticism.

On the contrary, your side has been claiming that helmets are not
effective and "our" side is suggesting that your claims are based on
inadequate evidence.

As usual you have that precisely the wrong way round. Here's a simple
test: who is proposing an intervention - helmet sceptics or helmet
zealots? That tells you where the burden of proof should lie. That
it seems to be required of the sceptics that we spend our lives
reiterating the facts - that the studies are flawed and that there is
no real-world evidence for efficacy - is testament to the strength of
the True Believers' faith.

rest of Guys' garbage snipped, together with the rest of his messages
today

Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening". As usual.

Oh, by the way, on the subject of evidence - which I notice you still
didn't provide - no doubt you can give the posting references from
which I supposedly copied & pasted the replies to which you object.
After all, if you can't that would make you a liar, and we know that
Zaumen Never Lies. For certain values of lie.

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:08:42 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote in message
et:

Oh please. There are no "sides" here. There are two people, Guy and
Frank, that ignore the volumes of evidence, and there is the ROW (rest
of world), that looks at things objectively.

For certain values of objective. And note that the list of sceptics
is substantially larger than Scharf asserts - and includes the UK's
foremost cycling expert, among others.

Always remember who it is that is proposing an intervention, and where
the burden of proof therefore lies.

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:08:42 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote in message
et:

It is true that cycling is not a dangerous activity, and that no
mandatory helmet laws are necessary, but there is no debate that
helmeted cyclists fare better than non-helmeted cyclists, when crashes
do occur.

Forgot to insert the standard rejoinder to this particular canard:
that assumes that crashes are equally likely in the helmeted and
unhelmeted community. The one thing that almost all the helmet
studies prove beyond question is that the crash rates are different
between the two communities. Unfortunately those with the research
budgets are too busy trying to replicate TR&T 1989 to find out why
this is.

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:27:22 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Let's define their "side" as the inside of the tiny little circle
that includes Guy, Frank, and maybe 5 or 6 others who are not arguing
on this thread at present.

Including the CTC, Britain's largest cycling organisation, with 80,000
members. The entire board is sceptical and they played a leading role
in defeating the helmet bill last year.

Keep digging, Bill.

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Benjamin Lewis writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

My "side"'s argument is that the evidence is far from clear,and that
the burden of proof remains solidly with those proposing intervention,
not with those urging scepticism.

On the contrary, your side has been claiming that helmets are not
effective and "our" side is suggesting that your claims are based on
inadequate evidence. We are the ones being skeptical, and we are not
"promoting" helmets so we have no burden of proof - rather, it is your
responsibility to prove your claims.

rest of Guys' garbage snipped, together with the rest of his messages
today - he's in "reply to everything I say" mode again and I've more
important things to do than to respond to long cut and paste jobs
posted by this troll.

It's interesting how the stuff you snip, which you claim offhand to be
garbage, always seems to be the strongest arguments against your
criticisms... I wonder to whom you think this tactic is convincing?

I didn't find it particular convincing (the first few lines told me it
was a re-hash of his previous rants) and snipped it for the reason I
said - I have a bunch of things to do today and really don't have time
for the umpteenth iteration of a reply to a cut and paste job.

We've gone over what is wrong with Guy's arguments time and time again,
whether you like it or not. If you prefer, however, I'll include
you in Guy's and Frank's tiny circle. They could use company - I'm
sure they are lonely. :-)

I'll ignore the other three messages from Guy (i.e., flush them
unread.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
Bill Z. wrote:

On the contrary, your side has been claiming that helmets are not
effective and "our" side is suggesting that your claims are based
on
inadequate evidence.

Oh please. There are no "sides" here. There are two people, Guy and
Frank, that ignore the volumes of evidence, and there is the ROW
(rest
of world), that looks at things objectively.

To me, that's an amazing statement. It's made by a person who has,
IIRC, posted no properly cited references to any papers studying this
issue. And it's being made about the two posters who have posted the
greatest number of such references.

I'm quite familiar with the "volumes of evidence," as shown by the
citations I've used. I'm familiar with the content of dozens of
pertinent research papers, including their strong points, their weak
points, and the discussions that have taken place in the research
community.

From Mr. Scharf's posts, I'm led to believe he is almost totally
unfamiliar with any of the above - apparently because he feels, as The
World's Greatest Authority, that there's no need to actually learn
anything! ;-)


It is true that cycling is not a dangerous activity, and that no
mandatory helmet laws are necessary, but there is no debate that
helmeted cyclists fare better than non-helmeted cyclists, when
crashes
do occur.

Have you actually read, say, "Trends in Cycle Injury in New Zealand
under Voluntary Helmet Use"? Do you realize it belies your final
sentence above?

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 23:11:00 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

I didn't find it particular convincing (the first few lines told me it
was a re-hash of his previous rants) and snipped it for the reason I
said - I have a bunch of things to do today and really don't have time
for the umpteenth iteration of a reply to a cut and paste job.

Since you repeatedly "flush", "snip", "ignore" or otherwise evade so
many of my posts, how am I supposed to keep track of which ones you've
read? Although there does seem to be a rule of thumb: you read any
which contain anything which could be construed as an insult, and
ignore the majority, especially where they contain facts, reasoning,
calls for evidence from you or whatever.

You have not, of course, provided evidence of this "cut & paste" of
which you speak. Unless you can provide the source posting IDs I will
have to conclude that you are lying, and not in the Zaumen sense of
disagreeing either.

We've gone over what is wrong with Guy's arguments time and time again,
whether you like it or not. If you prefer, however, I'll include
you in Guy's and Frank's tiny circle. They could use company - I'm
sure they are lonely. :-)

Not in the least. Most of the regulars in uk.rec.cycling hold a
similar view, so that's a fair-sized group right there. In fact,
everyone I've come across who has actually taken the trouble to read
and understand the studies which the helmet zealots tout seems to come
to the same conclusion: that they are full of holes. Of course we
know that your library is closed for July 4, so you can't be expected
to actually read the papers under discussion...

I'll ignore the other three messages from Guy (i.e., flush them
unread.)

Translation: "Laa laa, I'm not listening". Just in case you hear
something which conflicts with your cherished beliefs, I guess.

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

writes:

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
Bill Z. wrote:

On the contrary, your side has been claiming that helmets are not
effective and "our" side is suggesting that your claims are based
on
inadequate evidence.

Oh please. There are no "sides" here. There are two people, Guy and
Frank, that ignore the volumes of evidence, and there is the ROW
(rest
of world), that looks at things objectively.

To me, that's an amazing statement. It's made by a person who has,
IIRC, posted no properly cited references to any papers studying this
issue. And it's being made about the two posters who have posted the
greatest number of such references.

Sigh - more propaganda and debating tricks.

Posting "the greatest number of such references" and then
(purposely?) misinterpreting them, while ignoring anything that
disagrees with their world view, does not constitute a respectable
argument, and that is what Krygowski et al. do.

From Mr. Scharf's posts, I'm led to believe he is almost totally
unfamiliar with any of the above - apparently because he feels, as The
World's Greatest Authority, that there's no need to actually learn
anything! ;-)

Krygowksi et al. say pretty much the same thing about everyone who
has ever disagreed with them on this issue.

Meanwhile Guy is still being ignored (I saw one more post in the
header list but didn't open it.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:

Sigh - more propaganda and debating tricks.

Posting "the greatest number of such references" and then
(purposely?) misinterpreting them, while ignoring anything that
disagrees with their world view, does not constitute a respectable
argument, and that is what Krygowski et al. do.

I think that most everyone recognizes this by now.

The data I posted was uniquely relevant, because it compared injury and
fatality rates among helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists, as well as
pedestrians, and motorists. It also provided the actual numbers of
helmeted versus non-helmetd cyclists, so the data could be normalized,
and even when normalized there was a significant difference in fatality
rates.

Gardening and sofa-sitting injury rates are not going to impress the
Ontario ministers when they decide whether or not to enact the MHL.
Fortunately, they wont ever see such nonsense.

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message
nk.net...
....
It is true that cycling is not a dangerous activity, and that no
mandatory helmet laws are necessary, but there is no debate that
helmeted cyclists fare better than non-helmeted cyclists, when crashes
do occur.

I doubt that even most helmet skeptics would deny that bike helmets confer
at least some benefit for those cyclists who do find themselves involved in
a crash, but the real question of course is:

a) just how significant a benefit is confered? (obviously not nearly as much
as the 30-35% benefit demonstrated for motorcycle helmets, let alone the
absurdly inflated 85% figure still quoted by most helmet promoters); and
more importantly

b) does increased helmet use, particularly that produced by a mandatory
helmet law, actually result in a net increase or decrease in the overall
safety record of the cyclists involved?

A simplistic focus on just the first part of this question while ignoring
all the implications inherent in the second part is of no benefit at all to
either cyclists or society in general.

Riley Geary