Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

I don't know where to begin with this statement, since in contradicts
itself in so many ways.

name one contradiction.

"lots of people will buy helmets and lots of people will stop riding. "

The key word in my sentence above is 'and'. Clearly your reading
comprehension is weak. Or, more likely, you're just interested in scoring
points, not discussing the issues around mandatory helmet laws.

Are these very stupid people going to buy helmets for the express
purpose of not riding?

Won't a lot of people go out and buy a helmet because they are law abiding
citizens then realize, after using it, that they'd rather just drive instead
of wearing it? This is pretty simple to me. Not sure why you find it so
difficult.

You don't live in a province with a large city. You should defer to my
experience. Riding in Halifax is a lot different than riding in Toronto.


Oh yes, Halifax is a backwater town of 10,000 and all cyclists in Nova
Scotia are required to ride within it's limits. Where do you get this
stuff? Riding in Toronto I always wore a helmet, and I don't remember
being hit by a car as a result.

You're not even reading what I write. I ask you to have enough respect to at
least try to understand what I'm saying before attacking my opinions. I'm
happy to argue on my opinions, but you're putting words in my mouth.

Fer crissakes, where did I say Halifax was a backwater?? It's a very small
(and quite wonderful) city. You could fit 500 Halifaxes in the GTA alone.
I'm talking about the massive difference in scale. The impact of a helmet
law will be far higher in a large city than a small one.

And where did I ever say or imply that wearing a helmet will make things
worse? Wtf?? Obvously it's a good idea to wear a helmet. I'll never go
mountain biking without one. I often wear one when riding in the city.
Please re-read my posts and then refute me, if you still disagree.

By the way, I'm a left winger or weren't you paying attention. I'll
note that sarcasm is lost on you.

I really don't care what wing you say you're on. The Kerry flip flop comment
was indicative of a mindset that I find particularly obnoxious - the
under-informed political junkie. That's all I'm going to say on that matter.
It's not my job to educate you.

Clearly, your sarcasm is lost on me.

That's what I think,
Paul

Chris Phillipo wrote:
In article , says...

Actually, MHL will cause both to happen - lots of people will buy
helmets
and lots of people will stop riding. Most experienced cyclists do not
wear
helmets (at least in Toronto). The vast majority of casual cyclists
do
not
wear helmets. They will either buy one and continue cycling, break
the
laws
and ride without a helmet or stop cycling.


I don't know where to begin with this statement, since in contradicts
itself in so many ways.

name one contradiction.

"lots of people will buy helmets and lots of people will stop riding. "
Are these very stupid people going to buy helmets for the express
purpose of not riding?

Who suggested they were the same people? There are lots of people in China
and lots of people in Mexico. Is that a contradiction?

You are either incredibly stupid, think we are incredibly stupid, or you
have a very poor command of the English language. The latter we will not
hold against you.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

"Chris Phillipo" wrote in message
.. .
In article , says...
"lots of people will buy helmets and lots of people will stop riding.
"

The key word in my sentence above is 'and'. Clearly your reading
comprehension is weak. Or, more likely, you're just interested in
scoring
points, not discussing the issues around mandatory helmet laws.



I was just about to rip into Austin for invoking the tool of the
hopeless troll "your reading comprehension must be remis", then I read
your post. You two are truly not worth anyone's time. I see you repeat
yourself several times below. plonk.
--

I apologize to you for stating that your reading comprehension is weak.
However, there is no contradiction in my statement that "lots of people will
buy helmets and lots of people will stop riding". I'm willing to help you
understand this.

Paul

PS you snipped this before calling me a troll:

"You're not even reading what I write. I ask you to have enough respect to
at
least try to understand what I'm saying before attacking my opinions. I'm
happy to argue on my opinions, but you're putting words in my mouth."

Chris Phillipo wrote:
Or if we are to beleive the zealots,
everyone will stop riding and no one will be buying a helmet.

Then AustinMN wrote:
I challenge you to find a post in this thread where _anyone_ said that
_everyone_ would stop riding.

Then Chris Phillipo wrote:
It seems you are counting yourself amoung the zealots.

I repeat my challenge...either admit that you are grossly exaggerating what
others are saying, or post a quote of some "zealot" that said "everyone"
would stop riding. Since you won't be able to do the latter, and aren't
likely to do the former, may I suggest you hold your tongue.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:06:20 GMT, Chris Phillipo
wrote:

In article , says...
This is quite interesting, time to make up your mind. Either MHLs cause
people to buy more helmets or it causes people to stop riding. You are
really going to have to pick one or the other to be credible. Would you
like a pair of John Kerry brand flip flops?

Chris, who's the zealot? What the hell is wrong with you?

Chris B. for one,

LOL!

I knew that your continued inability to counter sound arguments
frustrated you greatly (this thread being full of some very telling
signs) but I had no idea that I in particular had infuriated you so.

You made my day.

Ok, my week actually.

Thanks!

--
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
robber-barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber-
baron's cruelty may at some point be satiated; but those who
torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they
do so with the approval of their own conscience."

- C.S. Lewis

Paul R wrote:

Actually, MHL will cause both to happen - lots of people will buy helmets
and lots of people will stop riding. Most experienced cyclists do not wear
helmets (at least in Toronto). The vast majority of casual cyclists do not
wear helmets. They will either buy one and continue cycling, break the
laws
and ride without a helmet or stop cycling.

Lot's of people will buy a helmet and then realize they hate wearing
it and
stop cycling. The fewer cyclists on the streets, the more dangerous
are the
streets for cyclists. Period.

Geez, talk about speculation and conjecture gone wild.

I'm not in favor of MHLs, but where on earth did you come up with all this?

What will actually happen is that the law will be ignored or withdrawn
after the clueless politicians that pushed it through are made to
realize how stupid it is to waste police resources on it. They’ll make a
speech deploring the millions of lives that will be lost as a result of
the law being eliminated.

Or perhaps they'll compromise, and pass a law that says that head
injuries incurred in a bicycle crash are not covered by Canada's health
care coverage, unless the cyclist was wearing a helmet. Kind of similar
to the states where you can be exempt from the motorcycle helmet
requirement if you pay for extra insurance.

Steve
http://bicyclelighting.com
"Let’s pass more laws to make everything safe for everybody"
National Lampoon Sunday Newspaper

Steven M. Scharf wrote:


Frank is famous for going on the personal attack when he has no data,

:-) From what I can see, I'm almost the only person posting data here!


just
ignore him. I kill-filed him long ago.

:-) Steven kill-filed me after I pointed out that, as a self-proclaimed
bicycle lighting expert, he really should understand the units of
measurement for light!

Instead of admitting he was confused about fundamental quantities like
"lumens" and "candelas," he stopped talking to me. Ah well!


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

Frank Krygowski writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:

Bill Z. wrote:


See
http://www.ccsf.edu/Events_Pubs/Guardsman/052297/news.html#red%20light
which says, "In response to the recent epidemic of red-light
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
running, the San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT)
^^^^^^^
has developed a one-year pilot program called the Red Light
Cameras Program."

Yes, and they too talk about great _reductions_ in the number of red
light runners due to their cameras. For example: "New DPT statistics
show that the number of red-light running violations caught on camera
has dropped by 29.24% since November 1996. "

I've underlined the key phrase for you: an "epidemic." Look up
what that means. And the reductions were at intersections where
the cameras are located, which is a very tiny fraction of the
controled intersections in the city.



You can also read
http://www.walksf.org/DPTPedFatalityReportFor98/report.html

"During the 1960's San Francisco averaged 48 pedestrian fatalities
annually, with a high of 62 fatalities in 1963 and a low of 38 in
1966. The 1970's showed a marked decrease in pedestrian fatality
rates, with an average of 37.3 pedestrian fatalities per year. 1974
had the low for the decade, with 31 pedestrian fatalities, and 1975
was the high with 49 pedestrian fatalities.2 The 1980's saw another
drop in pedestrian deaths, with an average of 28.2 pedestrians killed
each year. 1986 was the low with 20 fatalities, and 1988 was the high
with 38 fatal collisions.3 In the nine and a half year period 1990 -
mid 1999, 307 pedestrians were killed on San Francisco streets, an
average of 32.3 fatalities per year."

The graph makes it clear: the overall trend is down, with only the
usual statistical fluctuation due to small numbers overall.


The extent of red light running went up. So has traffic, but as traffic
gets worse, it slows as well, which helps keep the fatality rate down.
The fatality rate is not the same as the accident rate, even if the
fatal accidents get lots of attention in the press.

I'm all for pedestrian advocacy - but that site is another that does
not have data to indicate the danger to pedestrians is
_worsening_. (Comparing pedestrian deaths between San Fran and the
rest of the country is like comparing rodeo deaths between Oklahoma
and Maine.)

Yeah, right.


You *have* plenty of data. You'll simply ignore it.

You don't understand, Bill. When you claim things have gotten _more_
dangerous for bicyclists and pedestrians, you're supposed to put up
figures that show _increasing_ problems, not problems being fixed!

And BTW, unless you're also pushing for pedestrian helmets (not
without precedent, I admit - http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/jpeds.html)
then you should be posting data about cycling. No?



But returning to your point: your contention is that helmets protect
very well, but it doesn't show up in the numbers because cycling has
gotten more dangerous due to red light running.

Did I say that "helmets protect very well?" If show, produce a URL
and show where I did. It was *your* contention that helemts protect
not at all, and you did not control for changes in driver behavior
(or changes in the number of cyclist on the road, for that matter.)

You've posted newspaper articles where individual pedestrians complain
about danger; and you say this proves [hah!] it's more dangerous for
both cyclists and pedestrians.

All those pedestrians were complaining about a real problem - reckless
and very aggressive driving. It's a known problem.

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/chart.gif

Try again - if that's Burdett's web site I won't believe a word of
it due to him having an anti-helmet axe to grind.

Are the helmets protecting the cyclists? If so, why is the gradual
downward trend in cyclist fatalities not even as good as the gradual
downward trend in pedestrian fatalities?

Well, that's easy to explain - the cyclists are getting hit harder or
are getting in worse collisions. You'd expect that due to the large
number of SUVs on the road. But the fact is that you haven't proven
your claim, and your methodology is sloppy.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Steven M. Scharf" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...


And be very careful here, there are a lot of people that don't care about
two guys holding hands, or even a civil union, but get emotional over the
word marriage being used for anything but what it has traditionally been
used for. Newsom was an idiot for raising this whole issue. Now you've got
the right-wing wackos all hot for a constitutional amendment, and as long as
they're at it, why not one against flag burning and for prayer in schools.

Newsom was definitely not an idiot for raising it (as I should know,
living about 30 miles outside the city.) San Francisco has some major
budget problems as all cities do, and Newsom is going to have to make
some unpopular decisions as a result. By supporting same-sex
marriages, he got lots of points with his constituents as a good guy,
which will help deflect the blame for the cost cutting he'll have to
deal with - it will be viewed as an unfortunately necessity rather
than a somewhat conservative agenda. It may not play well in the
Central Valley, but people there don't vote in his election, and 7
years from now, when he is out due to term limits, attitudes may
very well change (or everyone else will have forgotten.)

If none of this makes sense, get a copy of the film "See How They Run"
which is a documentary about Willie Brown's last race for mayor. As
you watch it, you'll think you are on another planet! Much of it is
hilarious. The voters are even crazier than the candidates! The
race had so many twists and turns that at one point, the Republicans
funded Willie Brown because the guy he ran against in the runnoff
was slightly to the left of Karl Marx (OK, I'm making the Marx part
up, but he is pretty liberal.)


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/chart.gif


Try again - if that's Burdett's web site I won't believe a word of
it due to him having an anti-helmet axe to grind.

It is Burdett's site. Quite amusing to see all the mis-statements on
that site, but the way it's written I can see how an uninformed
individual could be taken in by it.