Helmet propaganda debunked

(Tom Keats) writes:

A lot of non-cycling drivers are scared they're going to hit us.
They think riding among car traffic is so very dangerous. MHLs
exist primarily for the comfort of drivers; they have nothing to
do with cyclists' safety.

That's my speculation, anyway.

The mandatory helmet law in California applies to children and
younger teenagers, most of whom avoid streets with heavy traffic.
That would seem to be inconsistent with your hypothesis.

Lobbying for the legislation is another indication - insurance
companies were pushing it. From their standpoint, a MHL is a good
deal - it costs them nothing, and they come out ahead if the law
reduces their payments enough to cover the costs of lobbying. While I
don't know if it has happened in practice, in theory if a child had a
head injury and was not wearing a helmet when required by law, that
could be used to shift some of the liability to the child's family.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:
writes:


I'll admit, it's possible that you _have_ read all the papers we've
discussed over the years. It's possible that you purposely
misstated
what the papers were about, and deliberately pretended to be
confused
about their content. But as with other aspects of your behavior, I
have no idea why you'd do that!

I'll call you a liar on that one, and will note that you have made
these
claims repeatedly and have never once produced a single example.

I thank Guy for tracking down the citation
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...4fc83557666d0d

And of course, we don't normally need older citations to prove you
haven't read papers we're discussing. It's normally perfectly clear in
the context of the immediate discussion. Just look toward the top of
this thread!

More lies. You guys could have simply ignored what I posted, but
instead you've made it the center of your dicussion.

I certainly _could_ ignore everything you post, but you unwittingly
serve a useful purpose. Your inept frothing has done as much damage to
the compulsive helmet pushers as Mike Vandeman's frothing has done to
the anti-mountain-bikers. For that, I thank you!



Note the propaganda - a "significant contribution" is one that
Krygowski thinks advances his argument


Keep in mind, please, that I started out fairly strongly pro-helmet.
The "significant contributions" changed my mind, eventually making me a
confirmed helmet skeptic. In view of that, your above sentence makes
little sense.



Bill, maybe you can remind me of some of your contributions? Maybe
I've forgotten?

You mean you mean like showing that your side's attempt to use
fatality
data is bogus?

:-) That was as significant as a proof that astrology determines all
presidential elections! Be honest, Bill: Nobody bought that argument
but you!

You may think fatality data is unimportant, but those pushing helmets
and helmet laws - i.e. those on your side of the argument - STILL use
fear of fatality as a tool.

Thus, the fact that cycling fatality numbers are _not_ affected by bike
helmet use _is_ a valid point; and your attempt to pooh-pooh it is
hardly a significant contribution to the debate.

I think you should take credit for the one valid point you made, the
one about amortization. I think it's as good as your scorecard is
likely to get!


[regarding Jobst Brandt and Bob Hunt:]
Regrettably, you're not in their class. Not at all.

I'm no doubt well beyond their class, but that is besides the point.

:-) All those who think Bill Zaumen is the intellectual equal of Jobst
Brandt, stand up and be counted! :-)

I believe the count will sit at "zero" for a long, long time!



Of course, that's common on invitational rides... although when I
ran
my club's century, I did not require helmets.

(He probably ran them before helmets were in wide use.)

1990 through 1997, IIRC. Wrong again, Bill.




or would have random people lecture him on the streets.

I think you're confusing me with another poster. I can recall only
one
"random person" even mentioning this to me.

I recall you complaining, and continually making mountains out of
molehills.

By the usual rules of logic, the burden of proof is on you. IOW, show
us a citation.



Since he didn't have the backbone to simply leave
the club and start his own,
??? Why would I do that??

So you wouldn't have to use a helmet if you didn't want to?

Our club does not require helmets on ordinary rides, Bill.

or to tell people lecturing him to buzz off,
I've never had the need to be that rude.

You've never had the backbone to tell someone to mind their own
business...

Tell whom to mind their own business? I do _not_ get harangued for not
wearing a helmet! People have occasionally mentioned my riding without
a helmet, but it's usually generated no more than a brief sentence - as
in "Actually, cycling isn't very dangerous at all. You're as likely to
need a helmet just walking near traffic."

I suspect from your posting style that you're a "Get in peoples' face"
type of person, a bag of frothing hostility. I'm not that way. And I
have little need for the rudeness you seem to equate with "backbone."

Not that I'm never rude. Some people do deserve it. If you and I were
discussing this face to face, I doubt I could be perfectly polite.

- Frank Krygowski

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Sun, 08 May 2005 06:41:49 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :


So, an entirely fair point, if trenchantly put. Tom correctly
identified your post as a fallacious appeal to authority, and
demonstrated why it was fallacious.

Liar. the post Kunich had replied to stated

"While there have (according to another poster) some advances
made in making the helmets less susceptable to UV damage, that doen't
necessary help if you currently own an older one."

I was quite obviously not "appealing to authority," but rather I was
pointing out that many people (at that time) still would have helmets
that were manufactured before a claimed technical advance had been
made. I was obviously pointing out that the other posters claims were not
relevant to many cyclists due to the date at which they purchases their
helmets.

Kunich's response was to call me a "a sack of ****." Oh, and this was
cited as an example of who is being abusive.


I'll call you a liar on that one, and will note that you have made these
claims repeatedly and have never once produced a single example.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...4fc83557666d0d

And, come to think of it,

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2f0a8754ac5266

Yep, and I'll call you a liar too. One stated that I had not read a paper
within 24 hours of when I posted an abstract (in response to someone asking
for some pointers to what might be interesting reading, so the abstract
was perfectly appropriate). That post occured on the 4th of July, when our
libaries are closed, and the full paper was not available on line without
paying $30. The second is an outright fabrication on your part as the
statements I made were in fact completely true. I wrote

While I don't have a time to post a long analysis of anything
right now, I'll refer you to
http://www.perg.bham.ac.uk/pdf/IRCOBI03.pdf, which describes
a finite element analysis comparing new bicycle helmet designs
to old ones. It includes an analysis of Curnow's paper, in
particular, stating that it's criticism is based on unproven
premises.

He also metions Burdett's "FAQ" page, pointing out a number of
times that the information in it is simply wrong.

If you actually look at the URL, you'll see that he criticizes Curnow's
claims (indicating that they are overstated), and (refering to Burdett's
URL) gives several examples of technically false claims on Burdett's part.
Now, explain how I'd know that without reading the URL. I'm the first
person to cite it in this dicussion.



But Bill, you *started* with a personal attack! This subthread exists
solely because you decided to trash an article you (finally) admitted
you had not read properly on the sole grounds that you disagreed with
one quoted source!

Well, that's another lie. I stated that an article was bogus (with no
comment about anyone posting on this discussion), and gave the
reasons. And I never "admitted" that I had not read it properly: I
stated that IMO it was not worth reading because it probably heavily
relied on a source that is suspect given how prominently that source
was quoted. If I saw an article on evolution, and it quoted a
prominent "creationist", I'd say the same thing.


You've never had the backbone to tell someone to mind their own business,
which is why you spend so much time compensating as you sit behind your
keyboard.

I have. I have been attacked in the press for interfering with
people's making an informed choice, because the zealot in question
wanted their choice to be informed by only their favoured facts.

Whether you have or not, Krygowski (the person I was replying to)
obviously hasn't.


As usual you forget which side of the debate is selling something.

Nope - you are the guys selling snake oil. I'm not selling anything.


Oh, and you are going back into your timeout - your other posts are
going to be flushed for lack of time and because you are simply
trolling - posting lie after lie and engaging in just the sort of
personal attack you whine about.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Sun, 08 May 2005 18:58:18 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

A lot of non-cycling drivers are scared they're going to hit us.
They think riding among car traffic is so very dangerous. MHLs
exist primarily for the comfort of drivers; they have nothing to
do with cyclists' safety.

The mandatory helmet law in California applies to children and
younger teenagers, most of whom avoid streets with heavy traffic.
That would seem to be inconsistent with your hypothesis.

No, it's entirely consistent. Why else would they mandate helmets
only for road use, when they are plainly not designed to resist motor
vehicle impacts?

Lobbying for the legislation is another indication - insurance
companies were pushing it. From their standpoint, a MHL is a good
deal - it costs them nothing, and they come out ahead if the law
reduces their payments enough to cover the costs of lobbying. While I
don't know if it has happened in practice, in theory if a child had a
head injury and was not wearing a helmet when required by law, that
could be used to shift some of the liability to the child's family.

Actually yo have that the wrong way round. Right now they try to get
the payout reduced if the cyclist was not wearing a helmet (cf. Darren
Coombs); since most claims are settled out of court they routinely get
away with this (Fulbrook, 2004). An enforced helmet law means that
almost all will be wearing helmets, depriving them of this excuse.
Since the serious and fatal injury rate does not change with helmet
use in real populations, they lose out. The only way they win is if
the law is not enforced so helmet use does not change; then they have
an extra stick with which to beat the victim in the event of a crash.

Cyclists lose all ways.

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 Sun, 08 May 2005 19:19:39 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

an entirely fair point, if trenchantly put. Tom correctly
identified your post as a fallacious appeal to authority, and
demonstrated why it was fallacious.

Liar. the post Kunich had replied to stated

I know what it stated, I reproduced it in its entirety in the message
I just posted - Kunich quoted your entire post thus:

--- repost of cited message ---
Zaumen:
While there have (according to another poster) some advances made in
making the helmets less susceptable to UV damage, that doen't
necessary help if you currently own an older one.

Kunich:
Well, if we're relying on other posters, one poster thinks that you
are a sack of ****. Are we to believe that because it's posted or are
we to judge from your postings? Obviously we get the same answer in
both cases.
--- end repost of cited message ---

So, your post contained a fallacious appeal to authority.

Kunich's response was to call me a "a sack of ****." Oh, and this was
cited as an example of who is being abusive.

Not that you would ever dream of being abusive yourself. Much.

I'll call you a liar on that one, and will note that you have made these
claims repeatedly and have never once produced a single example.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...4fc83557666d0d
And, come to think of it,
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2f0a8754ac5266

Yep, and I'll call you a liar too.

For some values of liar, obviously. In this case the Zaumen/Vandeman
definition, being "one who dares to disagree".

But Bill, you *started* with a personal attack! This subthread exists
solely because you decided to trash an article you (finally) admitted
you had not read properly on the sole grounds that you disagreed with
one quoted source!

Well, that's another lie. I stated that an article was bogus (with no
comment about anyone posting on this discussion), and gave the
reasons.

And the "reasons" amounted to a personal attack on Kunich. QED.

And I never "admitted" that I had not read it properly:

Message-ID:
"Oh, and I actually did read through it (quickly) - I just snipped it
all and wrote it off as trash given how the title started with such
rubbish"

You lose. Again.

As usual you forget which side of the debate is selling something.
Nope - you are the guys selling snake oil. I'm not selling anything.

Snake oil. Hmmm. Unproven remedy for an imaginary ailment, sold with
hyperbole. Does that ring any bells, anyone?


Oh, and you are going back into your timeout - your other posts are
going to be flushed for lack of time and because you are simply
trolling - posting lie after lie and engaging in just the sort of
personal attack you whine about.

Translation: "Tra la la la la, I'm not listening".

Once again you carefully evade any possibility of substantive debate,
preferring to stay on your home ground, ad-hominem. Amusingly, you
accuse others of trolling. I think that message ID
is as blatant a troll as one could
want. But then, like the bear said, you're not here for the hunting,
are you?

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

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
(Tom Keats) writes:

A lot of non-cycling drivers are scared they're going to hit us.
They think riding among car traffic is so very dangerous. MHLs
exist primarily for the comfort of drivers; they have nothing to
do with cyclists' safety.

That's my speculation, anyway.

The mandatory helmet law in California applies to children and
younger teenagers, most of whom avoid streets with heavy traffic.

Just to set the record straight, the CA MHL actually applies to every
bicyclist under the age of 18. CA is the only state thus far to specify
such a broad range for a juvenile MHL (MA is next broadest at 17). Of the
20 states that have thus far enacted a MHL for juveniles, nearly 2/3 (13)
specify 16 as the cutoff point beyond which the law is no longer applicable,
and 4 states use either 14 (NJ & NY) or 12 (LA & PA) as the cutoff point.

Riley Geary

In article ,
(Bill Z.) writes:
(Tom Keats) writes:

A lot of non-cycling drivers are scared they're going to hit us.
They think riding among car traffic is so very dangerous. MHLs
exist primarily for the comfort of drivers; they have nothing to
do with cyclists' safety.

That's my speculation, anyway.

The mandatory helmet law in California applies to children and
younger teenagers, most of whom avoid streets with heavy traffic.
That would seem to be inconsistent with your hypothesis.

Here in British Columbia our MHL applies to riders
of all ages (if it can happen here ... who's next?)
And the most vocal admonishers of helmet-wearing
I've encountered, are non-cycling drivers. That
would seem to support my hypothesis.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Frank Krygowski wrote:

You may think fatality data is unimportant, but those pushing helmets
and helmet laws - i.e. those on your side of the argument - STILL use
fear of fatality as a tool.

So true. Despite there being no primary research showing helmet use
saves lives, helmet campaigners keep saying it does.
Few researchers would try to show helmet use reduces cycling deaths
once they have seen the data. Sacks et al made one pathetic attempt in
a report published in JAMA 1991. They used the bogus 85% estimate for
head injuries and concluded 85% of fatalities could be avoided with
helmet use. Even the most zealous of campaigners are too embarrassed to
base claims on such a grotesque abuse of logic.

On 9 May 2005 13:50:07 -0700, wrote in message
. com:

Few researchers would try to show helmet use reduces cycling deaths
once they have seen the data.

Indeed. Rodgers concluded the exact opposite, based on eight million
cases. But obviously we are supposed to believe studies based on a
couple of hundred instead.

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

(Tom Keats) writes:

In article ,
(Bill Z.) writes:
(Tom Keats) writes:

A lot of non-cycling drivers are scared they're going to hit us.
They think riding among car traffic is so very dangerous. MHLs
exist primarily for the comfort of drivers; they have nothing to
do with cyclists' safety.

That's my speculation, anyway.

The mandatory helmet law in California applies to children and
younger teenagers, most of whom avoid streets with heavy traffic.
That would seem to be inconsistent with your hypothesis.

Here in British Columbia our MHL applies to riders of all ages (if
it can happen here ... who's next?) And the most vocal admonishers
of helmet-wearing I've encountered, are non-cycling drivers. That
would seem to support my hypothesis.

Poor reasoning on your part - you are looking for data that supports
your hypothesis when a proper test of it is one that can disprove it.

If you have some drivers who yell at you, what makes you think those
drivers (probably a minority) have much influence with Parliament?
And how do you even know they are non-cycling drivers? It is not like
you are going to have much of a discussion with someone passing by in
a car.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB