Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 19:40:03 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Logical fallacy: burden of proof. We are not proposing an
intervention, the burden of proof lies solely with those who are.

Wrong - your "side" is making statements that helmets are ineffective.
It is up to you to back up that claim. Neither Steven nor I have
proposed any "intervention" (so suggesting that on your part is a red
herring.)

My "side" is challenging the helmet zealots to prove their case,
especially in the context of those zealots trying to force their
judgment on others (check the thread title). The fact that they seem
unable to do so, preferring to resort to ad-hominem, reversed burden
of proof, appeals to belief or simply putting their fingers in their
ears and chanting "tra la la I'm not listening" may be seen as
significant.

There are no "helmet zealots" posting in this discussion, although
there are several anti-helmet zealots. Those of us disagreeing with
you have simply been pointing out that you haven't proven your case.

You downplay your position here - I wonder why?

I'm not "downplaying" it. I'm stating what I've been stating for the
past 10 years (your sides attempt to pretend otherwise
notwithstanding.)

plonk for the rest of today
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

b_baka wrote:

There really is no argument over the logic that helmets do reduce head
injuries,

You might want to go back and read this thread in its entirety! You're
wrong when you say "there really is no argument."

but I would like the option of making the decision to wear a
helmet for myself.

This is exactly what I, and most other people in this thread, have been
saying for months.

Unfortunately, for some people, it just isn't comprehensible how anyone
can both acknowledge the reduction in head injuries and fatalities, when
crashes occur, yet be opposed to compulsion. It's as if they simply
can't bear to see someone who is able to understand both sides of the issue.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:21:25 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

There are no "helmet zealots" posting in this discussion, although
there are several anti-helmet zealots. Those of us disagreeing with
you have simply been pointing out that you haven't proven your case.

So you say, and yet you repeatedly make claims in defence of helmets
which turn out to have no evidential basis - which looks suspiciously
like zealotry to me.

And I remind you: I have no case to prove, I am not proposing any
intervention.

You downplay your position here - I wonder why?

I'm not "downplaying" it. I'm stating what I've been stating for the
past 10 years (your sides attempt to pretend otherwise
notwithstanding.)

I don't think anybody is trying to say that you are anything other
than consistent; that has no bearing on the quality or otherwise of
your argument, or on the inference which may be drawn from your
repeated attempts to make claims for helmets which turn out to be
either without evidential basis (and in at least one case directly
contradicted by the evidence).

Neither does it have any bearing on the fundamental truth that we, the
sceptics, have no case to prove: it is quite sufficient for us to
point out flaws in the arguments advanced by those who seek to promote
an intervention.

But I'm always open for new facts, and have been known to change my
mind based on new and emerging evidence (that's how I arrived at my
current view, after all). If you have evidence that cycling is
unusually dangerous, unusually productive of head injuries, if you can
cite a pro-helmet study free of self-selection bias and other
confounding, if you can detail a jurisdiction where increases in
helmet use have led directly to improved cycle safety, if you can
detail an enforced helmet law which has not resulted in significant
reductions in cycling, then let me know. I want to hear about it.

In the mean time the well-funded handwringers pushing laws use the
discredited 85% and misrepresent even that. Twenty years ago the idea
that cycling was lethally dangerous would have been laughed at. Now
the model of cycling pursued by many is driving to some off-road
leisure facility with the bikes on the back of the car - and I believe
that a lot of this is the result of hysterical "BIKE DANGER!!!"
posturing by the helmet lobby..

plonk for the rest of today

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

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 CHS, Puget Sound

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:18:30 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Unfortunately, these guys have been arguing that helmets do not reduce
head injuries for years.

Really? Where? If you look at real-world figures they have no
measurable effect on serious and fatal head injuries, but I don't know
anybody who says they don't prevent the trivial cuts and bumps they
are designed for.

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 CHS, Puget Sound

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:35:36 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote:

There really is no argument over the logic that helmets do reduce head
injuries,
You might want to go back and read this thread in its entirety! You're
wrong when you say "there really is no argument."

Up to a point: the argument is whether the probability of injury given
ride is more important than the probability of injury given crash
(which I would suggest it is), and whether the prevention of mainly
trivial injuries is sufficient to make such a song and dance about.

but I would like the option of making the decision to wear a
helmet for myself.
This is exactly what I, and most other people in this thread, have been
saying for months.

Up to a point. What you've actually been doing is pleading that this
is your position, while telling anybody who will listen that they
should use your "helmets work but don't make us wear them" approach
rather than the reality-based approach which has defeated several
helmet laws recently.

Unfortunately, for some people, it just isn't comprehensible how anyone
can both acknowledge the reduction in head injuries and fatalities, when
crashes occur, yet be opposed to compulsion. It's as if they simply
can't bear to see someone who is able to understand both sides of the issue.

Time to get a mirror, Mr Scharf. And time to read up on risk
compensation.

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 CHS, Puget Sound

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 23:33:43 -0500, "Riley Geary"
wrote:

Once again, you seem to be confusing an apparent safety benefit, resulting
most likely from selective recruitment of helmet users among Florida's
bicyclists, with the real thing--which remains to be determined, but is
almost certainly much less than 40%.

In the UK 25% of all cyclist fatalities are due to being crushed to
death by turning goods vehicles, most of them in London. If you
believe our helmet promotion charity that means that helmets would
prevent in excess of 100% of the balance :-)

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 CHS, Puget Sound

Can I get a cite on the Utah study ? It looks interesting

John Kane
Kingston ON

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 16:55:16 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote in message
. net:

Every study suffers from the possibility of self-selection.

And some are more honest about it than others. Compare Spaite:

"A striking finding was noted when the group of patients without major
head injuries (246) was analyzed separately. Helmet users in this
group still had a much lower mean ISS (3.6 vs. 12.9, p less than
0.001) and were much less likely to have an ISS greater than 15 (4.4%
vs. 32.1%, p less than 0.0001) than were nonusers. In this group, 42
of 47 patients with an ISS greater than 15 (89.4%) were not wearing
helmets. We conclude that helmet nonuse is strongly associated with
severe injuries in this study population. This is true even when the
patients without major head injuries are analyzed as a group; a
finding to our knowledge not previously described."

with the 1989 Seattle study, which compares radically different
populations of cyclists, assumes an atypical and homogeneous group to
be typical in terms of helmet wearing rate (despite co-author Rivara's
own contemporaneous street counts proving otherwise), and attributes
all the difference to the helmets themselves, a classic confusion of
cause and effect.

Guess which one is quoted by every single helmet promotion campaign?

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

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:18:30 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Unfortunately, these guys have been arguing that helmets do not reduce
head injuries for years.

Really? Where? If you look at real-world figures they have no
measurable effect on serious and fatal head injuries, but I don't know
anybody who says they don't prevent the trivial cuts and bumps they
are designed for.

Sigh. "Where" is on this newsgroup. It is obvious that you are
trolling, bringing up the discredited "fatality" nonsense yet again
(fatalities are so few in numbers that attempts to use them to
evaluate helmets usually lead to null results due to statistical
noise.)

I'll skip the rest of your missives today - you are just trying to
bring up yet another strawman (and a previously discredited one
at that.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 02:23:50 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Unfortunately, these guys have been arguing that helmets do not reduce
head injuries for years.

Really? Where? If you look at real-world figures they have no
measurable effect on serious and fatal head injuries, but I don't know
anybody who says they don't prevent the trivial cuts and bumps they
are designed for.

Sigh. "Where" is on this newsgroup.

Then it should be a trivial matter for you to cite the posting
references. I'll leave a space here for you to do just that:





It is obvious that you are
trolling, bringing up the discredited "fatality" nonsense yet again
(fatalities are so few in numbers that attempts to use them to
evaluate helmets usually lead to null results due to statistical
noise.)

So you say. It is a curious fact that those you accuse of trolling
consistently cite evidence to support their position, whereas your
"non-trolling", argued at length, very often turns out to be without
evidential basis. In this particular case, for example, I am still
waiting for your cited evidence in regard to high-mileage cyclists.

I'll skip the rest of your missives today - you are just trying to
bring up yet another strawman (and a previously discredited one
at that.)

Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening". And not posting any
evidence, either.

I can now add to the list of eagerly-awaited citations your proof for
the idea that helmets are designed to prevent anything more than cuts
and bruises. Start with the standards and work up, that should be
easy enough for you, they are on the web. I know your library is
closed for July 4.

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 CHS, Puget Sound