Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

Bill Z. wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:


The [helmet promotion] video was being shown to me by a
representative of Safe Kids,
because I was our club's Safety Chairman, and was teaching cycling
classes. She was trying to convince me that a) helmets really,
really
WERE the most important thing about bike safety, and b) I should
show
this "wonderful" video to my club and to any cycling classes I
taught. She was also hoping to get my support for a mandatory
helmet
law.

Oh, so the truth (partly?) comes out. Krygowski was acting as a
representative of a club, and he was watching them as part of that
function. Very few people represent clubs or other organizations
so Krygowksi's claim that this was some sort of grevious "helmet
promotion" is just plain silly - he has not provided anything to
justify his assertion, which should include proof that a large
number of people see this stuff and are influenced by it.

It's fun watching you try to GUESS what's going on in the world, Bill!

The video was shown to me when I was part of a crew of bike club
volunteers staffing a table at a local mall's "health fair." They had
many organizations present, and they had literally thousands of people
stopping by to view the exhibits and talk to the representatives.

The Safe Kids table was not far from our bike club's table. Safe Kids
had reams of helmet promotion literature on their table - in fact, bike
helmet promotion was their main activity at that time. And they had a
TV and VCR going continuously, playing that helmet video over and over.


By your standards, I'm sure it was a minor helmet promotion effort. It
reached only thousands of people in a three day event. And after all,
anything smaller than the population of the San Francisco Bay area
doesn't count in your mind. We've already heard that from you! ;-)
Thanks for yet another amusing post!

writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:


The [helmet promotion] video was being shown to me by a
representative of Safe Kids, because I was our club's Safety
Chairman, ..

Oh, so the truth (partly?) comes out. Krygowski was acting as a
representative of a club, and he was watching them as part of that
function. Very few people represent clubs or other organizations
so Krygowksi's claim that this was some sort of grevious "helmet
promotion" is just plain silly - he has not provided anything to
justify his assertion, which should include proof that a large
number of people see this stuff and are influenced by it.

It's fun watching you try to GUESS what's going on in the world, Bill!

It's "fun" watching you put out one version of the facts after another,
usually with missing data or various other holes that you leave to
the reader's imagination (knowing that what the reader imagines will
most likely be quite different from what actually happened.)

The video was shown to me when I was part of a crew of bike club
volunteers staffing a table at a local mall's "health fair." They had
many organizations present, and they had literally thousands of people
stopping by to view the exhibits and talk to the representatives.

Uh huh. Sure Frank. You were "staffing a table at a local mall's
'health fair'" and somewhow they could show you a video? Where was
the power source? Did they bring a laptop along, did they give you a
handout for later viewing? Did you just make this up?

The Safe Kids table was not far from our bike club's table. Safe Kids
had reams of helmet promotion literature on their table - in fact, bike
helmet promotion was their main activity at that time. And they had a
TV and VCR going continuously, playing that helmet video over and over.

Oh, so you weren't "staffing a table" when you saw this video but
instead searched them out. Were you on a break or just goofing off?
Sounds to me that you were beating the bushes looking for "evidence"
of your favorite obsession. :-)

By your standards, I'm sure it was a minor helmet promotion effort.

A table in a single mall surrounded by all sorts of other distractions?
Sounds like a pretty minor effort to me. If you think otherwise, I'll
refer you to what the Palo Alto Daily News (slightly overpriced) said
about the "SpongeBob" flap - it quoted a corporate attorney as saying
that people complaining about some nondescript square holding hands with
some equally nondescript object should see their doctors to increase
their meds.

It reached only thousands of people in a three day event. And
after all, anything smaller than the population of the San Francisco
Bay area doesn't count in your mind. We've already heard that from
you! ;-) Thanks for yet another amusing post!

"Thanks" for showing that you are a fool who pretends that a small
outfit touting something would be noticed and actually taken seriously
amid all the people selling every scam under the earth and more.

This is so trivial that your complaints simply look pathetic.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:
writes:

It's fun watching you try to GUESS what's going on in the world, Bill!


It's "fun" watching you put out one version of the facts after another,
usually with missing data or various other holes that you leave to
the reader's imagination (knowing that what the reader imagines will
most likely be quite different from what actually happened.)

I try to give enough details for a reasonable reader. I see nobody else
having a problem with that!

I imagine you'll next be asking for the hair color of the Safe Kids rep,
the exact date of the event, the GPS coordinates of the Safe Kids table,
etc, etc? :-)

The video was shown to me when I was part of a crew of bike club
volunteers staffing a table at a local mall's "health fair." They had
many organizations present, and they had literally thousands of people
stopping by to view the exhibits and talk to the representatives.


Uh huh. Sure Frank. You were "staffing a table at a local mall's
'health fair'" and somewhow they could show you a video? Where was
the power source? Did they bring a laptop along, did they give you a
handout for later viewing? Did you just make this up?

You'll find this hard to believe, but this particular mall actually has
electricity! Pretty darned high tech, isn't it? ;-)

The Safe Kids table was not far from our bike club's table. Safe Kids
had reams of helmet promotion literature on their table - in fact, bike
helmet promotion was their main activity at that time. And they had a
TV and VCR going continuously, playing that helmet video over and over.


Oh, so you weren't "staffing a table" when you saw this video but
instead searched them out. Were you on a break or just goofing off?
Sounds to me that you were beating the bushes looking for "evidence"
of your favorite obsession. :-)

Actually, that Safe Kids person came to our table and asked me to visit
their table to see the video. She was quite confident it would convince
me to endorse mandatory helmets. So after my volunteer time was done, I
went to see it. Of course, I wasn't convinced.

Really, Bill, all this shouldn't be too hard to figure out!

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

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 07:30:03 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

You've made claims about "helmet promotion" and to show that it is
less trivial, you should be able to model this as advertising
impressions, and see if it reaches the threshold needed for a
real advertising campaign.

You are a laugh sometimes. You know, I was recently visiting schools
with my son who is choosing a high school. Every school we visited
had posters promoting helmet use. Not one had a single poster
promoting any other aspect of cycle safety. Do you believe that
helmets are not just the single most important component of cycle
safety, but so much so as to allow all others to be safely ignored? I
don't think so.

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 Mon, 17 Jan 2005 07:31:50 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Mentioning the "H" word as in "the victim was/was-not wearing a helmet"
is not promoting anything. It is simply reporting the facts, whether
accurately or not. Most of the time that is all the reporter says.

Except that for some reason the helmet often seems to escape mention
when the victim was wearing one. It's almost as if the reporters
don't want to undermine people's faith in the magic foam hats...

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 Mon, 17 Jan 2005 07:37:18 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

And when you admitted to not having read one study you used the excuse
of the library being closed for July 4 (presumably you live in some
kind of Groundhog Day, since it had been published years before).

Let's see. I stated I *found* a URL that day (the discussion had
been dead for years on the newsgroup I'm following) put the URL in
a response, and you and maybe some others started to whine that I
didn't first go down to the library on a day it was closed. Did
you want me to break in or something?

Here it is:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...d?dmode=source

Nor did you account for your failure to obtain the paper in the years
between publication and your raising it.

Question: now that the library is open after the July 4 holiday, have
you read it? My money says: not yet, not hardly.

You
have also admitted to only having read the abstracts of other articles
you attempted to discuss ...

Guy, you are a liar.

As we see from the link above, it is you who are lying.

I see that really this is a kind of Yad Gohdourg - where everybody but
you moves on, and you alone have your memory rolled back every night.

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 Mon, 17 Jan 2005 07:33:42 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Oh come off it. Steven has no obligation to actively oppose
legistation in a country he doesn't live in (and he subsequently
did write a letter, as you should well know.)

So why did he get involved in the argument in the first place? From
where I stand he is sitting there telling those of us who have
successfully opposed helmet laws in the past that our methods cannot
possibly work, telling us that only his method can work, but he is
strangely reluctant to take any part in proving that by applying his
method. I wonder why? Surely it is not because he is anything less
than 100% confident of his own rightness - we have seen enough of
Scharf by now to know that could never happen.

Remember the old saw about "First they came for the Jews." If Scharf
genuinely believes helmet laws are bad, he should oppose them
everywhere, otherwise he risks being crushed under the wheels of the
polystyrene juggernaut.

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

Frank Krygowski writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
writes:

It's fun watching you try to GUESS what's going on in the world, Bill!

It's "fun" watching you put out one version of the facts after
another, usually with missing data or various other holes that you
leave to the reader's imagination (knowing that what the reader
imagines will most likely be quite different from what actually
happened.)

I try to give enough details for a reasonable reader. I see nobody
else having a problem with that!

More Krygowksi spin - no one else was paying attention (although Guy,
being equally disingenious, will probably jump at the chance.)

I imagine you'll next be asking for the hair color of the Safe Kids
rep, the exact date of the event, the GPS coordinates of the Safe Kids
table, etc, etc? :-)

Typical Krygowksi hyperbole!

Sure Frank. You were "staffing a table at a local mall's
'health fair'" and somewhow they could show you a video? Where was
the power source? Did they bring a laptop along, did they give you a
handout for later viewing? Did you just make this up?

You'll find this hard to believe, but this particular mall actually
has electricity! Pretty darned high tech, isn't it? ;-)

Usually when Joe Blow's little organization with 20 real members,
10 associative members, and 3 unhappy members shows up at some "faire"
along with the even more obscure Veterans of Foriegn Women, they
just get a table with now power. You know, like the people sitting
at small tables asking you to sign petitions, donate to charities,
etc. Of course, you knew that, didn't you. Did *your* group have
any power run to your table? Why would a cycling club even need it?

The Safe Kids table was not far from our bike club's table. Safe Kids
had reams of helmet promotion literature on their table - in fact, bike
helmet promotion was their main activity at that time. And they had a
TV and VCR going continuously, playing that helmet video over and over.
Oh, so you weren't "staffing a table" when you saw this video but
instead searched them out. Were you on a break or just goofing off?
Sounds to me that you were beating the bushes looking for "evidence"
of your favorite obsession. :-)

Actually, that Safe Kids person came to our table and asked me to
visit their table to see the video. She was quite confident it would
convince me to endorse mandatory helmets. So after my volunteer time
was done, I went to see it. Of course, I wasn't convinced.

You mean she thought you looked weak minded enough to be convinced by
her no doubt amateurish salesmanship? :-)

Really, Bill, all this shouldn't be too hard to figure out!

I'm supposed to guess which of several options might apply when you,
of course, refuse to say? I do, however, think it is clear that the
"facts" are just a tad different than one would expect from your
initial spin on the subject. And that is typical of you (and of
course is why I asked - so your tactics would be obvious to even
casual readers.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 07:30:03 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

You've made claims about "helmet promotion" and to show that it is
less trivial, you should be able to model this as advertising
impressions, and see if it reaches the threshold needed for a
real advertising campaign.

You are a laugh sometimes. You know, I was recently visiting schools
with my son who is choosing a high school. Every school we visited
had posters promoting helmet use.

Posters and lions and tigers and bears, oh my. Get a grip, Guy.

Not one had a single poster promoting any other aspect of cycle
safety. Do you believe that helmets are not just the single most
important component of cycle safety, but so much so as to allow all
others to be safely ignored? I don't think so.

Ever take a first aid course where they tell you, "first stop the
bleeding and keep him breathing"? It takes a few minutes at most to
learn how to fit and fasten a helmet, which would hopefully minimize
the damage if your kid crashes before learning how to ride
competently.

Did it occur to you that they might teach how to cycle safely in
class, where more than the few seconds needed to digest a poster
could be applied to the subject?

Oh, I guess not. You simply react to a poster like the bull in
front of the red cape.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 07:31:50 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Mentioning the "H" word as in "the victim was/was-not wearing a helmet"
is not promoting anything. It is simply reporting the facts, whether
accurately or not. Most of the time that is all the reporter says.

Except that for some reason the helmet often seems to escape mention
when the victim was wearing one. It's almost as if the reporters
don't want to undermine people's faith in the magic foam hats...

That's not true either. Looks to me like you are making things up
again. I'll flush your remaining messages from today.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB