Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:49:27 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:29:56 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote:

The problem is that zealots like you take the statement "if you crash,
you are probably better off wearing a helmet" and ignore the bit
before the comma.

He didn't ignore the part before the comma at all. Didn't you see what
he wrote? "There's a good chance nothing will happen to you." This is
why many people choose to not wear helmets. The risk of being involved
in a head injury crash is small enough that the annoyance of a helmet
isn't worth it to them. They understand that they'd be less likely to be
injured in the event of a crash if they were wearing a helmet.

No, that's not actually the point. The point is that, given we have
seen in NZ that a doubling of helmet use to near 100% levels has not
changed the head injury rate, and given that helmets must prevent at
least some injuries, then they must cause at least as many as they
prevent.

The mechanism usually advanced to explain this is risk compensation.

Interestingly, of the four criteria any one of which is reckoned to
predict compensatory behaviour, cycle helmets score high on all four.

There is no doubt in my mind that the routine exaggeration of the
protective effect of helmets by the pro compulsion lobby is a
contributory cause here. And I kow they exaggerate because I have had
a pro helmet advert pulled by our advertising standards body.

Guy

There has been some comment that the reason why passing of MHL's don't
produce much in the way of positive results is because the police don't
enforce them and that many bicyclists flout the law and go lidless anyway.
I can assure you that, here in New Zealand, that is NOT the case.
Unfortunately, here in NZ riding without a helmet is not
really an option, as the police here are utterly savage and ferocious in
enforcing this stupid counterproductive law. I simply gave up after
several episodes of starting any encounter with the police from the big
disadvantage that I had already broken the law. But at least I am still
riding, not like many of my countrypeople. The numbers of child bike
riders have reduced by about 80% since this draconian law was passed and
enforced; and the number of lady bike riders by about 90%. It is rare now
to see bicycling commuters less than 35 years old.
I am fortunate to be married to a non-New Zealander, which gives me an
instant emigration possibility which I will probably take up rather soon.

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:55:10 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

Krygowski complained about stuff that couldn't get published (he
didn't specify which papers he was talking about) and attempts by you
to obfuscate that won't work.

Well, Bill, we'll just have to wait and see if my own paper, recently
submitted to an internationally renowned journal, gets published.

Anyone can submit a paper, Guy, so I'm hardly impressed (particularly
with unnamed journals.) I'll snip the rest of your messages today. I
just got back from seeing a performance at the opera, only to find
that you are back into baby-talk mode, complete with infantile name
calling. Any respectable adult would quite frankly be embarassed to
behave as you do.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 06:51:59 +0000, Bill Z. wrote:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:55:10 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

Krygowski complained about stuff that couldn't get published (he
didn't specify which papers he was talking about) and attempts by you
to obfuscate that won't work.

Well, Bill, we'll just have to wait and see if my own paper, recently
submitted to an internationally renowned journal, gets published.

Anyone can submit a paper, Guy, so I'm hardly impressed (particularly
with unnamed journals.) I'll snip the rest of your messages today. I
just got back from seeing a performance at the opera, only to find
that you are back into baby-talk mode, complete with infantile name
calling. Any respectable adult would quite frankly be embarassed to
behave as you do.

I take it as a compliment to be NOT in your list of respectable adults.
However, this is irrelevant as the message is independent of the
messenger.
Biking is NOT inherently dangerous.
It is difficult to reduce an already very low death and injury rate.
Helmets have NOT been associated with ANY consistent reduction in death or
injury rate.
Personally, I find helmets ****ingly uncomfortable, and resent being made
to wear them by ANYONE.

Peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

Peter Keller writes:

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 06:51:59 +0000, Bill Z. wrote:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:55:10 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

Krygowski complained about stuff that couldn't get published (he
didn't specify which papers he was talking about) and attempts by you
to obfuscate that won't work.

Well, Bill, we'll just have to wait and see if my own paper, recently
submitted to an internationally renowned journal, gets published.

Anyone can submit a paper, Guy, so I'm hardly impressed (particularly
with unnamed journals.) I'll snip the rest of your messages today. I
just got back from seeing a performance at the opera, only to find
that you are back into baby-talk mode, complete with infantile name
calling. Any respectable adult would quite frankly be embarassed to
behave as you do.

I take it as a compliment to be NOT in your list of respectable
adults. However, this is irrelevant as the message is independent
of the messenger. Biking is NOT inherently dangerous.

Trying to change the topic and pretending I was talking to you instead
of Guy? Or are you daft enough to expect me to waste *my* time
wading through insulting posts on the off change that this troll has
something reasonable to say, burried somewhere in his endless garbage?


It is difficult to reduce an already very low death and injury rate.
Helmets have NOT been associated with ANY consistent reduction in
death or injury rate. Personally, I find helmets ****ingly
uncomfortable, and resent being made to wear them by ANYONE.

Well, I'm not forcing anyone to wear one and am not lobbying for
helmet laws, so go complain about someone who is. Someone who is
is likely to be your insurance company. You might have to give
your elected representative more in campaign donations that these
companies do. Good luck.

Some of the anti-helmet have serious personal problems, as is evident
by their whining about people telling them to use helmets. I guess
they lack the intestinal fortitude to tell such a person to get lost,
so they whine here instead.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:04:11 +0000, Bill Z. wrote:


I take it as a compliment to be NOT in your list of respectable
adults. However, this is irrelevant as the message is independent
of the messenger. Biking is NOT inherently dangerous.

Trying to change the topic and pretending I was talking to you instead
of Guy? Or are you daft enough to expect me to waste *my* time
wading through insulting posts on the off change that this troll has
something reasonable to say, burried somewhere in his endless garbage?


It is difficult to reduce an already very low death and injury rate.
Helmets have NOT been associated with ANY consistent reduction in
death or injury rate. Personally, I find helmets ****ingly
uncomfortable, and resent being made to wear them by ANYONE.

Well, I'm not forcing anyone to wear one and am not lobbying for
helmet laws,

Thank the Lord for that!
If you would like to help us get rid of our horrible antibicycling law,
please do!

so go complain about someone who is. Someone who is
is likely to be your insurance company. You might have to give your
elected representative more in campaign donations that these companies
do. Good luck.

You have said something true, except that here in NZ such corrupt campaign
donations are illegal. However, we did get this horrible law because of
intense lobbying by a helmet company, playing on our emotions,
dangerifying bicycling and "But think of our children -- *PUKE!* more
like think of their profits!

Some of
the anti-helmet have serious personal problems, as is evident by
their whining about people telling them to use helmets. I guess they
lack the intestinal fortitude to tell such a person to get lost, so they
whine here instead.

Some people from all flavours of opinion have serious personal problems.
I am not saying I don't. I just don't like to let them interfere with
whatever message I am trying to convey. And by responding in kind to
people who try to put me down I am merely reducing myself to below the
accusers!

Peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 06:51:59 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

Well, Bill, we'll just have to wait and see if my own paper, recently
submitted to an internationally renowned journal, gets published.

Anyone can submit a paper, Guy, so I'm hardly impressed (particularly
with unnamed journals.)

You want me to engage in journal dropping? Very well: it is the
British Medical Journal. I have had letters published in the BMJ
before now as well. Satisfied?

I'll snip the rest of your messages 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 Washington University

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:04:11 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

Trying to change the topic and pretending I was talking to you instead
of Guy?

Welcome to Usenet, Bill, private conversations not an option. Yet
another thing you apparently don't understand.

Some of the anti-helmet have serious personal problems, as is evident
by their whining about people telling them to use helmets. I guess
they lack the intestinal fortitude to tell such a person to get lost,
so they whine here instead.

Not that you would ever dream of resorting to personal attacks, of
course, since you cry foul if anyone even goes as far as to point out
where you have contradicted yourself, but where are these
"anti-helmet" people? In two years of participation in an
international group studying helmets, I have only met one person who
is ant-helmet, and he seems to have no personal problems.

While we're on the subject, which countries show a positive
correlation between cyclist safety and helmet use? Our transport
ministry couldn't find any, so a hint would be good.

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

Bill Z. wrote:
When someone as as big an axe to grind as Burdett does, and when you are
trying to grind the same axe, it certainly is relevant. Everything
either
of you two say on this subject has to be crosschecked because both of you
will spin, spin, spin.

When I see as many easily recognizable mis-statements on a site like
Burdett’s I give up on trying to cross-check, and just assume that
everything written there is wrong. There actually may be some factual
information hidden in there, but who has the time to go through it all?

Peter Keller wrote:
I am fortunate to be married to a non-New Zealander, which gives me an
instant emigration possibility which I will probably take up rather soon.

Wow, you're going to leave the country rather than wear a helmet! Hmm, I
wonder if we could pass some sort of a law in the U.S. and get all the
Republicans to leave?

Wolfgang Strobl wrote:

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.

The state has all sorts of laws that force parents to engage in certain
behavior for their children. If you want your small child to ride in a
car on public roads then they have to be in a child car seat. If you
want them to go to public school then they have to be immunized. If you
want them to ride a bicycle on public roads then they have to wear a helmet.

In each case you can opt out. You can not take your child in a car, you
can do home schooling, and you can forbid them from riding a bicycle.
Whether you agree with the premise behind each law is another story.