Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

Lets not forget an important part of this whole helmet debate.. THe
government of canada repairs injured citizens for no cost (excep that
levied buy taxes). Since the standardized healthcare even covers
stupid people that do thingsl ike drive drunk, ride bikes without
helmets, etc, I applaud the government for taking steps to a-save
lives, and b-lower the costs of health care for the nation.

Just because your county has a constitution doesn't mean you're
entitled to stupidity.

bikeguy11968 wrote:
Lets not forget an important part of this whole helmet debate.. THe
government of canada repairs injured citizens for no cost (excep that
levied buy taxes). Since the standardized healthcare even covers
stupid people that do thingsl ike drive drunk, ride bikes without
helmets, etc, I applaud the government for taking steps to a-save
lives, and b-lower the costs of health care for the nation.

Just because your county has a constitution doesn't mean you're
entitled to stupidity.

Given that you don't seem to know much about Canada; health care is a
provincial responsibility not a federal one, nor from your posting
anything about the mandatory bicycle helmet debate, I would recommend
that you read the entire thread and some of the back ground papers and
then come back.

Have a look at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/index.html;
http://www.bhsi.org/mandator.htm; http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/ for some
possible starts.
And read the articles carefully.

John Kane
Kingston ON Canada

bikeguy11968 wrote:

Lets not forget an important part of this whole helmet debate.. THe
government of canada repairs injured citizens for no cost (excep that
levied buy taxes). Since the standardized healthcare even covers
stupid people that do thingsl ike drive drunk, ride bikes without
helmets, etc, I applaud the government for taking steps to a-save
lives, and b-lower the costs of health care for the nation.

Just because your county has a constitution doesn't mean you're
entitled to stupidity.

Technically, in the U.S., hospitals have to repair injured citizens
regardless of their ability to pay. So we do pay for health care for the
uninsured, we just do it less efficiently and at a much higher cost than
anywhere else. In that sense, there should be an even greater incentive
in the U.S. to encourage safety.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 02:50:52 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

The per mile figure is the best to use for cycling.

And is lower than for pedestrians. Pedestrian helmets anyone?

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 Thu, 16 Dec 2004 02:48:16 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

No, Krygowski, it is because we are discussing bicycle helmets, which
are designed for use while cycling.

And specifically in context we[1] are trying to avoid any objective or
comparative consideration of levels of risk, in order to avoid the
real danger in such discussions: the wholesale slaughter of sacred
cows.

[1] or at least some of us

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

Bill Z. wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:


Bill Z. wrote:


Benjamin Lewis writes:


*I* would compare the risk of activities on a
per-hour-of-exposure basis.

The per mile figure is the best to use for cycling. For similar
conditions, the number of intersections you cross is proportional to
how far you ride and most accidents happen at intersections (street
crossings, driveways, etc.)

Can we then compare with the per-mile figure for walking near traffic?
And climbing ladders? And swimming? And playing basketball?


Or for f___king your wife / significant-other / girlfriend / boyfriend
/ whatever? Earth to Krygowski: this is a cycling newsgroup.


:-) Nice one, Bill! You've done it again!

Specifically, you apparently forgot that you were responding to a
proposal for _comparing_ risk. If we're going to compare the risk of
cycling with some other activities, I'm afraid we're just going to
_have_ to mention those other activities!

Even if it does confuse you terribly! ;-)

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

Bill Z. wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:


"I'll repeat what I said, this time with emphasis. If you can find a
quote where _I_ specifically called Scuffham "a paragon of virtue"
please give it! "


Krygowski, dishonest as ever, is pretending that *you guys* is
singular! Hint to Frank - if you don't know what the word "plural"
means and how it is expressed in what I presume is your native
language, I suggest a remedial course in English.

If we could get you to understand the meaning of "I", we could end this
sub-thread.

OTOH, since we can't get you to understand the meaning of "I", this
sub-thread will (hopefully) end after your next post. In other words,
you've made yourself look sufficiently foolish!


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

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 02:25:21 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Try again.

To explain the flaws in the Scuffham study? It's not worth the effort
- it's been done at least four times now in great detail and you've
ignored it each time.

Which "Scuffman study?" You mean the one you guys praised in the 90s
as a "watershed" study or the more recent one(s)? I've yet to see you
show any credible flaws in his work. Mostly I've just seen assertions
with no proof to back it up.

I have four Scuffham studies in my library:

(1) Head injuries to bicyclists and the New Zealand bicycle helmet
law, Scuffham P, Alsop J, Cryer C, Langley JD. 2000. Accident Analysis
and Prevention: 2000 Jul;32(4):565-73

(2) New Zealand bicycle helmet law-do the costs outweigh the
benefits?, Taylor M, Scuffham P. 2002. Injury Prevention:
2002;8:317-320

(3) The cost-effectiveness of compulsory bicycle helmets in New
Zealand, Hansen P, Scuffham PA. 1995. Aust J Public Health: 1995
Oct;19(5):450-4

(4) Trends in cycle injury in New Zealand under voluntary helmet use,
Scuffham PA, Langley JD. 1997. Accident Analysis and Prevention: 1997
Jan;29(1):1-9

(3) points out that the cost per injury and death prevented is very
high, although sensitive to predicted efficacy; (4) says that the
measured (as opposed to predicted) efficacy was negligible,
specifically: "Results revealed that the increased helmet wearing
percentages has had little association with serious head injuries to
cyclists as a percentage of all serious injuries to cyclists for all
three groups, with no apparent difference between bicycle only and all
cycle crashes."

(1) is the one in which he massages the data in (2) to produce a 19%
benefit, which as we all know by now is actually nothing other than
the time-trend with a bit of added careful selection of dates thrown
in for good measure. He provided his source data to Nigel Perry (and
eventually to me) and the %HI trend for cyclists is (a) flat and (b)
not distinguishable from that for the general population over a ten
year period. So if we ignore the conclusions and believe the data (a
sort of reverse Crook & Feikh, if you like) this paper actually shows
no measurable benefit.

(2) is the worst of the lot by a long way, in that the author appears
to have entirely forgotten the fact, noted in the 1995 and 1997
papers, that wearing rates rose sharply as a result of pre-law
promotion. It then compounds that by taking the 19% figure from (3),
which by this time had been subject to some fairly robust criticism in
the press, and also ignores the manufacturers' recommended replacement
intervals and any element of growth (kids are not known for growing,
are they?) to produce a remarkably small cost benefit only for the
very youngest children.

All this you know because you have been told it many times.

You will also note that there are different co-authors; it is entirely
possible that Scuffham's own role was different in each case, varying
from a provider of source data in one to the author of the conclusions
in another.

I wonder who you think you are fooling?

I've better things to do than to answer each and every objection you
try to raise, particularly given your track record.

Of raising sound objections to helmet zealotry? Yes, I can quite see
why you would want to avoid reading facts which undermine your case.

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

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

bikeguy11968 wrote:

Lets not forget an important part of this whole helmet debate.. THe
government of canada repairs injured citizens for no cost (excep that
levied buy taxes). Since the standardized healthcare even covers
stupid people that do thingsl ike drive drunk, ride bikes without
helmets, etc, I applaud the government for taking steps to a-save
lives, and b-lower the costs of health care for the nation.

Just because your county has a constitution doesn't mean you're
entitled to stupidity.


Technically, in the U.S., hospitals have to repair injured citizens
regardless of their ability to pay. So we do pay for health care for the
uninsured, we just do it less efficiently and at a much higher cost than
anywhere else. In that sense, there should be an even greater incentive
in the U.S. to encourage safety.


Not that any of that is justification for helmet promotion or mandates.

Even if you accept Scharf's and "bikeguy's" arguments regarding costs,
you'd have to show a) that cycling is dangerous enough regarding head
injuries that it deserves special persecution; and that b) any
hypothetical danger of cycling is NOT counterbalanced by benefits that
reduce medical costs.

We've been concentrating on point "a", the fact that cycling's risk of
head injury, or its contribution to serious HI totals, is not unusual
nor significant. By this point, anyone thinking otherwise is long
overdue at posting evidence. Evidence that cycling's not dangerous that
way has been posted repeatedly. So let's move on to point "b."

Regarding point "b": Even if cycling were more dangerous than, say,
motoring, cycling confers health benefits on both the cyclist (through
healthful exercise) and on the public (through reduced external hazards,
compared to cars). Mayer Hillman has computed a roughly 20:1 ratio in
favor of cycling, in terms of years of life gained versus years of life
lost.

So, if you start discouraging cycling by saying "It's dangerous enough
that you've got to wear a helmet," you'll soon be _increasing_ medical
expenses, due to increased obesity, heart disease, air pollution,
pedestrian fatalities, and yes, head injuries.

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

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 02:41:20 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Your critical faculties have let you down again. Praising the
uncharacteristic honesty of this study does not imply endorsement of
the researcher.

Oh come off it. These guys have been praising Scuffham from day 1.

No, they have been praising one study. Are you of the opinion that if
an author writes one good book, all his books are necessarily as good?

Prof. Eric Laithwaite invented the linear motor, but also made a
complete fool of himself over gyroscope precession.

It was a statement of fact, Bill. He was pilloried by the helmet
zealots.

I doubt that he was "pilloried," even if people disagreed with his
results.

Since you are a helmet zealot you have doubtless never experienced the
sheer nastiness of which helmet zealots are capable when their sacred
cows look to be in danger of slaughter. I have.

In my world, people who produce the "very best paper" on some subject
don't typically go on to produce trash on that same subject.

Presumably because in BillWorld[tm] once your mind is made up it stays
that way and cannot be changed under any circumstances whatever facts
may come to light.

Do you have a good explanation for why time-trends and Scuffham's own
documentation of the law's responsibility for the majority of pre-law
child helmet purchases /should/ be ignored in this way?

I'll drop the rest of your posts today ... have more important things
to do and you are obviously not trying to have a serious discussion.

I really do wonder who you think you are fooling.

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