A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Social Issues
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 10th 04, 01:38 AM
Chris B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 16:21:48 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote:

"Chris Phillipo" wrote in message
. ..

When I see soemone without a helmet I an urked by it but when I see

soemone riding towards me on the wrong side of the road I can only think
that Darwinism sure takes a long time to kick in.

It does take a long time.

There are a lot of people that believe that because they've gotten away with
dangerous behavior for a long time, that this is somehow proof that their
behavior is in fact not dangerous, or even proof that their resultant
survival is proof that their behavior enhances their safety.

How many times have you seen (or heard) people say, "I've been doing xyz
(smoking, riding without a helmet, not wearing a seatbelt, running red
lights, cycling without good lights, cycling on the wrong side of the road,
etc) for years and I'm still here," as if that proves anything other than
that they've been extremely lucky for having engaged in such behavior.

My favorite one is when they cite the example of an extremely horrific
accident, where a helmet did not (or would not have) saved the person, as
proof that helmets are worthless.

I don't like holier than thou people that try to tell other people what to
do; I encourage people to look at the facts and make their own informed
decisions. But people that intentionally misinform others, while deluding
themselves, are not my favorite people.


Contrasting the last paragraph in your post with nearly everything
else I have seen you write, I must conclude that you are doing parody
here.

No one person could possibly contain as much hypocrisy and
self-contradiction as you do.

--
"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
Ads
  #2  
Old November 10th 04, 04:26 AM
Steven M. Scharf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Chris B. wrote:

I don't like holier than thou people that try to tell other people what to
do; I encourage people to look at the facts and make their own informed
decisions. But people that intentionally misinform others, while deluding
themselves, are not my favorite people.



Contrasting the last paragraph in your post with nearly everything
else I have seen you write, I must conclude that you are doing parody
here.


No parody. On my lighting pages I provide referenced facts, and informed
opinions. The negative comments I've seen posted all use the same flawed
logic I see in the helmet debate: "this is what I do, I've been doing it
for a long time, I haven't had a problem with it, so this proves that
I'm right and everyone should do everything the same way I do it." This
line of reasoning is not logical. These people will refuse to believe
anything that contradicts their beliefs, regardless of the evidence.

I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly
over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the
anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries in
helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies.

Steve
http://bicyclelighting.com

"Let’s pass more laws to make everything safe for everybody" P.J.
O'Rourke, National Lampoon Sunday Newspaper Parody, (c)1978 (and about
to be re-issued on 11/16/04).

  #3  
Old November 10th 04, 07:40 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote:

Chris B. wrote:

I don't like holier than thou people that try to tell other people what to
do; I encourage people to look at the facts and make their own informed
decisions. But people that intentionally misinform others, while deluding
themselves, are not my favorite people.



Contrasting the last paragraph in your post with nearly everything
else I have seen you write, I must conclude that you are doing parody
here.


No parody. On my lighting pages I provide referenced facts, and informed
opinions. The negative comments I've seen posted all use the same flawed
logic I see in the helmet debate: "this is what I do, I've been doing it
for a long time, I haven't had a problem with it, so this proves that
I'm right and everyone should do everything the same way I do it." This
line of reasoning is not logical. These people will refuse to believe
anything that contradicts their beliefs, regardless of the evidence.


I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly
over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the
anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries in
helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies.


I guess it would depend on the definition of dangerous, wouldn't it?
How many people are killed on stairs, in the bathtub/shower, walking
on the street. Wearing a motorcyle helmet is as dangerous as not
wearing one; if you have an impact accident, you -may- reduce
the injuries, if you happen to whiplash your head during the accident,
the extra weight of the helmet -can- snap your neck and kill you.

A bicycle helmet is much lighter than a motorcycle helmet, I grant you,
but I still think the choice should rest with the individual, not the
government.

--

-TTFN

-Steven


  #4  
Old November 10th 04, 03:41 PM
Just zis Guy, you know?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:26:26 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote:

I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly
over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the
anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries in
helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies.


And the sceptics acknowledge both, look at the injury trends for whole
populations (which are necessarily more robust than for the tiny
groups in pro-0helmet observational studies) and conclude that,
overall, if you want to reduce cyclist injuries, helmets are a long
way down the prority list.

A poll of British doctors put it sixth out of six possible
interventions, a study by the Transport research Laboratory put it
tenth of ten possible interventions and a factor of 25 behind the
likely most effective, being traffic calming.

So the logical thing to do is tell all the helmet zealots to butt out
and return to a proper cycle safety agenda.

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 Washington University
  #5  
Old November 10th 04, 05:06 PM
Steven M. Scharf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
...
"Steven M. Scharf" wrote:


I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly
over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the
anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries in
helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies.


I guess it would depend on the definition of dangerous, wouldn't it?
How many people are killed on stairs, in the bathtub/shower, walking
on the street.


None of this is relevant to the bicycle helmet debate.

Some people accept the added risk inherent in not wearing a helmet, because
the risk of being involved in an accident where head injuries are involve
are small. Very few people deny the evidence that shows that helmeted riders
had less severe head injuries in crashes involving head injuries.


  #6  
Old November 10th 04, 05:12 PM
Steven M. Scharf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:26:26 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote:

I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly
over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the
anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries in
helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies.


And the sceptics acknowledge both, look at the injury trends for whole
populations (which are necessarily more robust than for the tiny
groups in pro-0helmet observational studies) and conclude that,
overall, if you want to reduce cyclist injuries, helmets are a long
way down the prority list.


That is the typical flawed logic we've seen in this thread. The fact that
there are other ways to also reduce injuries, are irrelevant. These other
measures should be taken, but they are not exclusive. The anti-helmet
zealots want to prove that helmets don't prevent injuries, but the facts
speak for themselves. You have to look at how helmeted versus non-helmeted
cyclists fare in crashes, the fact that traffic calming might have prevented
some of the accidents doesn't figure into the equation.


  #7  
Old November 10th 04, 05:19 PM
Paul R
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly
over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the
anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries

in
helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies.


I guess it would depend on the definition of dangerous, wouldn't it?
How many people are killed on stairs, in the bathtub/shower, walking
on the street.


None of this is relevant to the bicycle helmet debate.

Some people accept the added risk inherent in not wearing a helmet,

because
the risk of being involved in an accident where head injuries are involve
are small. Very few people deny the evidence that shows that helmeted

riders
had less severe head injuries in crashes involving head injuries.


Granted. However, the debate here is on mandatory helmet laws. The important
question to be answered is "Will mandatory helmet laws make the streets
safer for cyclists?".

I'm not going to re-hash all my reasons (i've given them in other posts),
but I firmly believe that they will NOT improve the situation.

Paul


  #8  
Old November 10th 04, 06:17 PM
Steven M. Scharf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Paul R wrote:

Granted. However, the debate here is on mandatory helmet laws. The important
question to be answered is "Will mandatory helmet laws make the streets
safer for cyclists?".


That is not the question. The reason that the mandatory helmet law is
being advocated is because it will reduce the severity of head injuries
when a crash occurs. In Canada, with its universal health care, they
have a vested interest in reducing injuries, due to the cost of treatment.

I am not saying that the MHL is a good idea, but the reasoning behind it
is not to make the streets safer; making the streets safer is desirable,
but a separate issue.

The government is misguided in its effort because the absolute number of
injuries (or reduction in severity of injuries) that the helmet law will
impact (no pun intended) is very small. They are taking an emotional
response to a couple of accidents where helmets would likely have made a
difference between life and death. I'm not saying that anyone dumb
enough not to wear a helmet deserves death, but it was their choice to
take the risk, and they have to accept the consequences. Maybe the
province should simply insert a provision into the health care laws that
they will not treat bicycle related injuries that would have been
prevented by the wearing of helmet; treatment will be at the patient's
expense.

Steve
http://bicyclelighting.com

"Let’s pass more laws to make everything safe for everybody"
P.J. O'Rourke, National Lampoon Sunday Newspaper Parody, (c)1978
(wll be re-issued on 11/16/04).

  #9  
Old November 10th 04, 06:24 PM
Just zis Guy, you know?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:06:46 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote:

Very few people deny the evidence that shows that helmeted riders
had less severe head injuries in crashes involving head injuries.


But many deny the evidence - robust though it is, and colected by
traffic statistics programmes which have existed for decades - that
helmets have no measurable effect at the population level.

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 Washington University
  #10  
Old November 10th 04, 06:36 PM
Just zis Guy, you know?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:12:51 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote:

And the sceptics acknowledge both, look at the injury trends for whole
populations (which are necessarily more robust than for the tiny
groups in pro-0helmet observational studies) and conclude that,
overall, if you want to reduce cyclist injuries, helmets are a long
way down the prority list.


That is the typical flawed logic we've seen in this thread. The fact that
there are other ways to also reduce injuries, are irrelevant. These other
measures should be taken, but they are not exclusive. The anti-helmet
zealots want to prove that helmets don't prevent injuries, but the facts
speak for themselves. You have to look at how helmeted versus non-helmeted
cyclists fare in crashes, the fact that traffic calming might have prevented
some of the accidents doesn't figure into the equation.


Steven, please introduce me to an anti-helmet zealot some time. I
have never met one. I have met one person who is anti-helmet (in two
years of active campaigning at a national level), but he is an
academic and absolutely not a zealot of any description.

The logic is not flawed. Mention cyclist safety in almost any public
context and helmets will be the first ting mentioned. The reason for
that is that helmet zealots are obsessed with them. They put up
posters, they have websites, they lobby parliaments, they write bills
which sometimes become law, they fill the medical press, they are in
the newspapers and on TV. When was the last time you saw any
large-scale campaign on cycle safety which was not primarily focused
on helmets?

There is simply no justification for this monomania. We know that in
New Zealand %HI for peds and cyclists trended identically through a
period where helmet use went from the mid 40s percent to the high 90s.
We know that head injury risk per cyclist in the USA increased by 40%
as helmet use rose from 18% to 50%. We know that the two safest
cycling countries - Netherlands and Denmark - have negligible helmet
wearing rates. We know that the countries with the worst cyclist
safety records have high helmet wearing rates.

Any remotely sane approach to cyclist safety cannot help but view
helmets as a controversial irrelevance, a sideshow. The known bad
effects - portraying cycling as dangerous and thus deterring
participation; and giving an exaggerated view of the benefit of
helmets - make even promotion a risky business, let alone compulsion.

I can't immediately think of any other area of public policy where the
glare of legislative attention is focused so brightly and so
relentlessly on so obviously the wrong target.

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 Washington University
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
published helmet research - not troll Frank Krygowski Social Issues 1716 October 24th 04 06:39 AM
Another doctor questions helmet research JFJones General 80 August 16th 04 10:44 AM
First Helmet : jury is out. Walter Mitty General 125 June 26th 04 02:00 AM
Fule face helmet - review Mikefule Unicycling 8 January 14th 04 06:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.