Irresponsible Ad

At Sun, 03 Jul 2005 09:46:44 -0400, message
was posted by Cheery
Littlebottom , including some,
all or none of the following:

And yet, you don't seem to comprehend the differences in these
activities.

False: Frank is well aware that the risk of head injury while driving
or walking is much higher than for cycling, he just doesn't think it's
high enough to merit special protective equipment.

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

Cheery Littlebottom (apparently too timid to give his real name) wrote:
On 1 Jul 2005 07:54:45 -0700, wrote:


But thank you, I will feel free to ride unhelmeted. I also feel free
to jog unhelmeted. I ride in my car unhelmeted, despite the fact that
car interiors cause far more brain injuries and deaths than bikes ever
will. I also climb ladders unhelmeted. I've done rock climbing
unhelmeted. I've ridden everything from kick scooters to ice skates
unhelmeted.

And yet, you don't seem to comprehend the differences in these
activities.

For someone who pro\fesses to being so well versed in risk management,
you don't understand much about the risk of making this argument, do
you?

My bet is I understand all these risks far better than you.

All those things I listed are potential sources of serious head injury.
As stated, car interiors (air bags and all) are still the number one
cause of head injury fatalities in the US. Falls around the home are
the number two.

(Interesting news story from yesterday: http://tinyurl.com/9zuns )

The head injury rate, per hour exposure, for walking near traffic is
about the same as for cycling. The number of pedestrian fatalities
(including head injury fatalities) dwarfs those for cycling.

Cycling is responsible for less than 1% of America's head injury
fatalities. Motorists are roughly 50% of the victims. Falls around
the home cause roughly 40%. Yet where are the calls for helmets for
motorists? For ladder-climbers and stair-descenders? Why do the
safety nuts pick on cycling?

Before Bell began marketing the Bell Biker in the mid-70s, there were
_no_ warnings about head injuries and cycling. But Bell, and Snell (to
whom Bell contributes) and Safe Kids (to whom Snell contributes) and
various hand-wringing organizations have successfully convinced the
public that brain-injured cyclists had to be plowed off the roads in
1970. They have successfully influenced cycling magazines so that
Bicycling, Adventure Cyclist and the League of American Bicyclists
magazine have editorial policies forbidding photos of Caucasians
without helmets!

And now, we have legions of well-meaning cyclists who have never seen
someone on a quality bike without a foam topping. And, since they know
about presta valves and butted spokes, these guys think they know about
head injuries.

Sorry, "Cheery Littlebottom," but it's all as silly as your pen name.

- Frank Krygowski

On 3 Jul 2005 10:10:09 -0700, wrote:



Cheery Littlebottom (apparently too timid to give his real name) wrote:
On 1 Jul 2005 07:54:45 -0700, wrote:


But thank you, I will feel free to ride unhelmeted. I also feel free
to jog unhelmeted. I ride in my car unhelmeted, despite the fact that
car interiors cause far more brain injuries and deaths than bikes ever
will. I also climb ladders unhelmeted. I've done rock climbing
unhelmeted. I've ridden everything from kick scooters to ice skates
unhelmeted.

And yet, you don't seem to comprehend the differences in these
activities.

For someone who pro\fesses to being so well versed in risk management,
you don't understand much about the risk of making this argument, do
you?

My bet is I understand all these risks far better than you.


OK, you're on.

snip of useless blather

Sorry, "Cheery Littlebottom," but it's all as silly as your pen name.

Well, that's the point, innit?

Your turn.

The bashful "Cheery Littlebottom" wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 10:10:09 -0700, wrote:

Cheery Littlebottom (apparently too timid to give his real name) wrote:
On 1 Jul 2005 07:54:45 -0700, wrote:

For someone who pro\fesses to being so well versed in risk management,
you don't understand much about the risk of making this argument, do
you?

My bet is I understand all these risks far better than you.


OK, you're on.

snip of useless blather

Sorry, "Cheery Littlebottom," but it's all as silly as your pen name.

Well, that's the point, innit?

Your turn.

Hmmm. Interesting discussion tactic: Claim knowledge, but trim any
discussion of facts!

Ah well. If you have a factual point, please present it. If you're
logical enough, you needn't be embarrassed into pseudonyms.

If your point is merely to look silly, I can help make you look silly -
but really, Bill Z provides all the silliness that's needed!

- Frank Krygowski

writes:

The bashful "Cheery Littlebottom" wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 10:10:09 -0700, wrote:

snip of useless blather

Sorry, "Cheery Littlebottom," but it's all as silly as your pen name.

Well, that's the point, innit?

Your turn.

Hmmm. Interesting discussion tactic: Claim knowledge, but trim any
discussion of facts!

Ah well. If you have a factual point, please present it. If you're
logical enough, you needn't be embarrassed into pseudonyms.

If your point is merely to look silly, I can help make you look silly -
but really, Bill Z provides all the silliness that's needed!

Krygowski was soundly trounced on the facts and is now reduced to
nothing but non-stop personal attacks. I guess I'm on the top of
his enemies list for merely suggesting that Krygowski and friends
have not proven their case. After all, it is pretty damn hard to
prove that helmets do absolutely nothing useful.

When asked to quantify his results, by stating the maximum level of
helmet effectiveness the best studies could detect, they all simply
ignore the question. Yet that question is the critical one for any
cyclist making a buy/don't buy decision.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:
writes:

If your point is merely to look silly, I can help make you look silly -
but really, Bill Z provides all the silliness that's needed!

Krygowski was soundly trounced on the facts...

??? Oh? AFAIK, you're the only one claiming that!

...and is now reduced to
nothing but non-stop personal attacks. I guess I'm on the top of
his enemies list...

No, Bill, I don't think of you as an enemy at all. I think of you more
like an unwitting class clown - sort of an obnoxious elementary school
kid, the kind who's convinced he's brilliant but is always saying dumb
things. And who doesn't understand why people are always laughing at
him!

... for merely suggesting that Krygowski and friends
have not proven their case. After all, it is pretty damn hard to
prove that helmets do absolutely nothing useful.

That was a _perfect_ example of a straw man argument - i.e. an argument
you _claim_ I make, because it's easy for you to shoot down.

Bike helmets do protect against minor injuries, like scrapes, cuts and
bruises. AFAIK, nobody's claimed otherwise. If that's "useful" to
you, fine. By the same token, feel free to wear knee protectors when
you ride. They're just as "useful."

But helmets are promoted, sold and mandated for their supposed ability
to prevent a very large proportion of the serious or fatal head
injuries bicycling causes.

Here's my position:

1) Ordinary cycling - that is, riding on roads and not racing - has an
extremely low incidence of serious or fatal head injuries. In fact,
the head injury rates are about the same (or better than) motoring or
walking near traffic.

2) When large populations have had tremendous increases in bike helmet
use, serious or fatal head injuries per rider have not significantly
dropped.

3) The "case-control" studies that claim to show helmet benefit, and
upon which the helmet promoters rest their entire argument, are fatally
flawed by (among other things) self-selection of subjects. For
example, helmets will never prevent 85% of serious head injuries in the
real world, and claiming they will is wrong and misleading.

In summary: Cycling is already safe enough that helmets are not
needed, so it's time to stop claiming cycling is dangerous. And bike
helmets don't work as advertised anyway, so it's time to stop the
over-promotion of bike helmets.


When asked to quantify his results, by stating the maximum level of
helmet effectiveness the best studies could detect, they all simply
ignore the question. Yet that question is the critical one for any
cyclist making a buy/don't buy decision.

I beg to differ! I ignore the question because it's silly, and it's
one that _no_ cyclist asks before buying a helmet!

Try to prove me wrong on that final point, Bill. Come up with a few
dozen cyclists who actually asked themselves that "critical" question
and used it to decide about a helmet!

- Frank Krygowski

writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
writes:

If your point is merely to look silly, I can help make you look silly -
but really, Bill Z provides all the silliness that's needed!

Krygowski was soundly trounced on the facts...

??? Oh? AFAIK, you're the only one claiming that!

As far as I can tell, nearly everyone is ignoring you while you,
are ignoring the criticism you received from Stephen Scharf, among
others.

No, Bill, I don't think of you as an enemy at all. I think of you more
like an unwitting class clown - sort of an obnoxious elementary school
kid, the kind who's convinced he's brilliant but is always saying dumb
things. And who doesn't understand why people are always laughing at
him!

Gee. I think of you as a Karl Rove wannabee - someone who will push his
agenda by resorting to every sleazy tactic known to man. You are kind
of a Karl Rove with 1/1000000 the skill.

rest of this idiot's repeated spiel, no doubt cut and pasted from
his previous posts, snipped.

Krygowski, you have no valid argument. You've trotted these strawmen
out for over 10 years, and after 10 years of ranting, nobody believes
you. If you don't realize how ineffectual you are, look around you
the next time you go on a bike ride and count the number of people
who are using helmets compared to the number who aren't.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 15:43:29 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

As far as I can tell, nearly everyone is ignoring you while you,
are ignoring the criticism you received from Stephen Scharf, among
others.

ROFLMAO! That's the same Steven M Scharf who is one of earth's
leading experts on hubris and who responds to questions by killfiling
people and sniping at them from his website, right?

Damn but that's funny!

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:
writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
writes:

If your point is merely to look silly, I can help make you look silly -
but really, Bill Z provides all the silliness that's needed!

Krygowski was soundly trounced on the facts...

??? Oh? AFAIK, you're the only one claiming that!

As far as I can tell, nearly everyone is ignoring you while you,
are ignoring the criticism you received from Stephen Scharf, among
others.

:-) Ah yes, the World's Greatest Authority! But as I recall, Scharf
was saying it's right to fight mandatory helmet laws. He was simply
telling us that we had to fight the laws only the way _he_ preferred.

No, Bill, I don't think of you as an enemy at all. I think of you more
like an unwitting class clown - sort of an obnoxious elementary school
kid, the kind who's convinced he's brilliant but is always saying dumb
things. And who doesn't understand why people are always laughing at
him!

Gee. I think of you as a Karl Rove wannabee - someone who will push his
agenda by resorting to every sleazy tactic known to man. You are kind
of a Karl Rove with 1/1000000 the skill.

My "agenda" is to promote cycling. I push my "agenda" by writing
articles telling the good news about cycling, by serving on various
volunteer committees to aid cyclists, by teaching cycling classes, by
answering questions people ask me about cycling, and by giving factual
information to disprove anti-cycling hype. I wouldn't call those
tactics sleazy.



rest of this idiot's repeated spiel, no doubt cut and pasted from
his previous posts, snipped.

:-) "No doubt"? Really, Bill, you should stop posting based on
guesswork!

We're very used to you arguing against scientific research papers that
you've never read. And we've seen you refusing to read Guy's posts
dozens and dozens of times. But if you carry this non-reading habit
too far, you'll be even more marginalized than you are now.

Seriously, if you don't want to actually discuss facts, you shouldn't
post! Your "... take my ball and go home" debate tactics really come
off as elementary school pouting.


Krygowski, you have no valid argument. You've trotted these strawmen
out for over 10 years, and after 10 years of ranting, nobody believes
you. If you don't realize how ineffectual you are, look around you
the next time you go on a bike ride and count the number of people
who are using helmets compared to the number who aren't.

Bike helmets will be the norm for organized "Bike Rides" for the next
decade, I suppose, in the same way as multicolored shoes, jerseys with
advertisements and aerodynamic sunglasses. They're part of the "mating
plumage." And there's certainly no accounting for fashion! But I'm
not concerned with changing fashion.

OTOH, as I rode to work today, I passed about eight people on bikes.
None of us was wearing a helmet. There are those who would forbid such
a situation, who think a cyclist without a helmet is a terrible thing.
I disagree. I think cycling is a good thing, helmet or no.


- Frank Krygowski

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 15:43:29 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

As far as I can tell, nearly everyone is ignoring you while you,
are ignoring the criticism you received from Stephen Scharf, among
others.

ROFLMAO! That's the same Steven M Scharf who is one of earth's
leading experts on hubris and who responds to questions by killfiling
people and sniping at them from his website, right?

Damn but that's funny!

Steven is a hell of a lot more reasonable and intelligent than either
you or Krygowksi. I guess he's on your enemies list too.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB