Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

Peter Keller Wrote:
In New Zealand the law is savagely and ferociously enforced.
Between 1994 (law begin) and now:
Reduction in numbers of bicyclists 34%
Reduction in numbers of children bicycling 80%
Reduction in numbers of women bicycling 90%
Reduction in head injuries, deaths 19%

Peter



While not disputing what Peter is getting at, the last figure
--Reduction in head injuries, deaths 19%-- has been shown to be
flawed [1], it is procured by means of the ubiquitous "fudge factor
method". It comes from a report published in Accident Analysis &
Prevention by Scuffham P, Alsop J, Cryer C, Langley JD.
(AAP, 2000;32, p565-573) which dispensed with the inclusion of a
downward trend variable from the data analysis because when it was
included (as it should have been) it swamped the "helmet effect" to
such an extent that there was no significant helmet effect! (Omit the
downward trend variable and hey presto we get a helmet effect appearing
in its place - statistical abra cadabra!)

So it is more accurate to say that Scuffhams previous research finding
of no significant helmet effect (AAP 1997) is the safer and more
reliable finding. Incidentally what Scuffham found in the earlier
research (Accid.Anal and Prev.,1997, Vol.29 pp1-9.) was that while
there wasn't a detectable significant association between increased
helmet wearing and head injuries there was a significand downward trend
in head injuries due to other unidentified factors (this downward trend
is not atypical, it seems to be a worldwide phenomenon) and this
downward trend was apparent in the period 1980 - 1986 when helmet
wearing was basically zilch (less than 1% nationwide) futhermore this
this downward trend continued at the same rate from 1987 1990-92
despite the helmet wearing rate rocketing up past 50%.

[1]Note Dorothy Robinson has a piece published in AAP (2001)
demonstrating the flaw in Scuffham et al's research.

Roger


--
RogerDodger

Chris B. writes:

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:25:14 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Chris B. wrote:



Frank, why did you remove the cross post? It is very much on topic
for ont.bicycle.

Because my system won't let me post there. When I try, the entire post
hangs. I agree it's very much on topic there. Feel free to copy.

I hadn't even considered that, sorry.


Krygoswki's claim doesn't make much sense - normally you get an
error if you can't post and the newsreader just reports it. If
he really can't post, then he should first try a different newsreader
to rule out a bug in the version of Mozilla he uses (5.0) and
then report the problem to his employer (he seems to be posting
from work.)

Maggie Wrote:
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. I rode on the back of a
motorcycle without a helmet. The laws were not enforced back then, but
I am glad my son wears one when he goes out on his motorcycle. It was
a choice. Stupid or not, it was our choice not to wear helmets. My son
must have one on or he will be pulled over. I am glad its not a choice
for him.

No Maggie, you are not hurting even yourself if you don't wear a helmet
and that's because helmets don't and can't do anything like what all the
hyperbolic hoopla says they can do. It's utter drivel. Even the
manufacturers pay attention to this fact in the disclaimer that
accompanies the helmet - if they didn't they'd lay themselves wide open
to claims. I'll tell you who is stupid - its the peabrains who have
this peculiar need to make these off the planet exaggerations about
what helmets are capable of (sfa) and go overboard trying to persuade
us that we're the stupid ones (yeah perverse that - they've got that
back to front). Talking about perverse and back to front have you heard
about a Zilly yob by the name of Zau?

Roger


--
RogerDodger

Chris Phillipo Wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:26:31 GMT, Chris Phillipo
wrote:

When I see soemone without a helmet I an urked by it but when I see
soemone riding towards me on the wrong side of the road I can only
think
that Darwinism sure takes a long time to kick in.



Whenever I see someone writing that they get irked at the sight of
someone riding not wearing a poly bonnet, well, by gee, does that get
me irked -irretrievably irked. Irked beyond compare.
I get irked that someone else gets irked? Watchout for that loop!

Tennis with C.S.Lewis = how about this from Henry David Thoreau "If
someone should come to my house with the conscious design of doing me
some good, I should run for my life"

DodgerRoger


--
RogerDodger

Bill Z ALERT! Bill Z ALERT! Bill Z ALERT! Bill Z

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

Any time soon, for those not au fait with this naught little boy (yob)
Zilly Billy Z will undoubtedly start up here with his stock in trade
gratuitous character assinations.


--
RogerDodger

RogerDodger Wrote:
Bill Z ALERT! Bill Z ALERT! Bill Z ALERT! Bill Z

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

Any time soon, for those not au fait with this naught little boy (yob)
Zilly Billy Z will undoubtedly start up here with his stock in trade
gratuitous character assinations.

PS "assinations" was an unintended spelling mistake, but it adds an
interisting twist so I'll let it stand?


--
RogerDodger

My kids are grown, but they _certainly_ did a lot of riding without bike
helmets. In fact, I assume _all_ of us did. A parent is allowed to
let his kid climb a tree without a helmet. He's allowed to let his
kid play pickup baseball without a helmet. He's allowed to let his
kid ride his pony without a helmet. In each of these, and many other
situations, the choice is reasonably left up to the parent. What in
the world is so dangerous about cycling that justifies overpowering
parental judgement?


This makes sense to me. There were certainly no helmet laws when I was
a child and there were none for my children. I sometimes wonder how I
survived childhood and also how my children survived. I rode in the
back of my fathers pickup truck with my brother all through my
childhood. If you put your kid in the back of a pick up in the NY/NJ
area today, you would be arrested for child abuse or neglect. We
didn't have car seats, seat belts, helmets, and our cribs had slats we
could stick our heads through,and wooden high chairs we could climb
out of very easily. HOW DID WE SURVIVE??? When I had my first child
there were no still no car seat laws. Some of my greatest memories of
childhood were building cars out of wood crates and roller skate
wheels and flying down the steepest hills we could find with no
brakes. How the heck did we survive? My brother and I still laugh
about those days. We fell out of our treehouse when it collapsed and
survived and in the process learned to build a better tree house. To
ride our bikes, we just hopped on and rode. We never went to a LBS for
anything. If the bike broke we found a way to put it back together.
When the chain fell off we stopped and fixed it until it fell off
again. When the brakes broke we used our feet. It is funny to think
about that is this age of hi tech and safety laws. I must admit I had
a few black eyes and battle scars from hanging around with an older
brother but.... Maybe there are just too many laws protecting our
safety now. I would not trade those old stories of childhood for
anything. Even with the black eyes. When do laws become a hindrence
rather than a help?
Peace and stuff
http://hometown.aol.com/lbuset/

Frank Krygowski wrote in message ...
Chris B. wrote:



Frank, why did you remove the cross post? It is very much on topic
for ont.bicycle.

Because my system won't let me post there. When I try, the entire post
hangs. I agree it's very much on topic there. Feel free to copy.

You can post via Google. It can be accessed via the three newsgroups, eg
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...=ont.bi cycle

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

Chris Phillipo writes:

In article , bikerider@-no-
spam-thanks-rogers.com says...

I wonder why. Are you aware that mandatory helmet laws implemented in
Alberta, Nova Scotia, New Zealand and parts of Australia have not only
not shown benefits but have actually had negative effects (decreased
numbers of cyclists in all cases and sometimes an increase in the rate
of head injury after the law is enacted)?


Ho hum, that would be a neat trick considering the helmet laws are not
even enforced outside of Halifax in Nova Scotia. Which makes me think
the rest of these "statitics" are in quesiton.

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


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.

According to Canadian Cyclist
http://www.canadiancyclist.com/daily...2.39PM17.shtml
it has been sent to committee for study.

It would seem to me that some benefit might be obtained by targeting the
members of this committee. Does anybody know the correct procedure
for such communication.

Another case of politicians making decisions with bad information and
once this happens laws may be modified but never repealed as that would
cause loss of face for the originators of such poorly considered statutes.

Since CPSC bicycle helmets are designed for low speed, low energy
impacts and more head injuries occur from slipping in the bathtub or
shower than bicycling perhaps as an alternative mandating the use in
that environment would make far more sense. ;^)

Marcus Coles