Helmet Nazis at It Again!

Bill Z. wrote:
writes:

On 4 Oct 2006 18:29:01 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006 15:18:28 -0700, wrote:

In fact, for you, I wish a Mandatory Helmet *Life* ...
So you _are_ pro-MHL.
If you believe that, you *are* an imbecile.
You're as stupid as the POTUS and I'm done with you.
But you say so yourself.

You say repeatedly "I wish a Mandatory Helmet Law..."

Now you also say that you don't want this law to apply to _you_; is
that what you mean when you also claim you are "anti-MHL"? That MHL's
are fine with you as long as they only apply to some people, and that
you yourself are exempt?

He doesn't want it to apply to "some people", but rather to one
person - you. In case you don't know, the word "people" is a plural
noun. :-)

In your case, think of it as a sentence imposed by the Mikado, who
wanted to make the punishment fit the crime. Buy some tickets to
the next performance of it in your area if you don't get the
reference.

Thanks for trying to clarify things, but, IMO, jtaylor is just being
willfully obtuse.

I do wonder what has led to this obsession he has with helmets and with
seeing a MHL lurking under every rock. He seems even more obsessed with
the subject than Krygowski is.

wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:41:31 +0000 (UTC), (Steven M.
O'Neill) wrote:


a) for the speeds that walkers get up to, helmets may perhaps make
some difference - unlike cyclists;

b) for a helmet that costs proportionate to the cost of the vehicle, a
motorist would be much better able to survive a crash in a motorcar. I
seem to recall reading that something around 50% of all motorcar
fatalities are due to head injuries - can someone confirm this?

At one time, I saw a post from one of our German friends who gave the
percentage of motorist fatalities due to head injuries. It was much
higher, over 70%. He did give a citation, but I apparently didn't save
that information.

It's still availabe via Google



The point is: according to a German textbook on Neurology, brain
injuries are the cause of about 70% of _all_ traffic deaths.
Given that this book was published in 1990, we will have to look at the
accidents statistics in 1990 or before. I have those numbers for 1990.
In 1990, 11046 people died in traffic, in Germany (west). Of these
people, 7975 where using a motorized vehicle, 6256 of these driving a or
passengers in a car. For comparison, there were 908 bicycle deaths in
the very same year. So, if we believe the 70% rate for '90, we can
easily compute an absolute lower bound for the motorists percentage
consistent with these numbers. If we assume that _all_ 908 cyclists died
from a brain injury, we still get ~62 % for motorists.

The widely quoted lore "most*) bicyclists deaths are caused by a brain
injury" is a Lie of Omission. In itself, it's true, But it derives its
scare from hiding the fact that this statement applies to _all_ traffic
deaths, too. In actual fact, it even applies to _all_ accidental
deaths. (from the same texbook) about 60 % of all accidental fatalities
involve a deadly injury of the brain.

*) more than 50%, that is.

--
Thank you for observing all safety precautions

Lester Mosley wrote:
marika wrote:
NYC XYZ wrote:
Great discussion, y'all.

Thats a big 10-12 there..


ok I am baffled what are you TALKING about

mk5000

"If you object to playing on women's insecurities, maybe you should be
writing
to any number of women's magazines. They're the ones who feature
hairless bikini lines, cosmetics, diets, breast implants, liposuction,
nose
jobs - the full pageantry of surgical horrors and all the rest of the
bull----
that women spend millions on every month."--Chrissie Hynde

Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
wrote:

At one time, I saw a post from one of our German friends who gave the
percentage of motorist fatalities due to head injuries. It was much
higher, over 70%. He did give a citation, but I apparently didn't save
that information.


It's still availabe via Google



The point is: according to a German textbook on Neurology, brain
injuries are the cause of about 70% of _all_ traffic deaths.
Given that this book was published in 1990, we will have to look at the
accidents statistics in 1990 or before. I have those numbers for 1990.
In 1990, 11046 people died in traffic, in Germany (west). Of these
people, 7975 where using a motorized vehicle, 6256 of these driving a or
passengers in a car. For comparison, there were 908 bicycle deaths in
the very same year. So, if we believe the 70% rate for '90, we can
easily compute an absolute lower bound for the motorists percentage
consistent with these numbers. If we assume that _all_ 908 cyclists died
from a brain injury, we still get ~62 % for motorists.

The widely quoted lore "most*) bicyclists deaths are caused by a brain
injury" is a Lie of Omission. In itself, it's true, But it derives its
scare from hiding the fact that this statement applies to _all_ traffic
deaths, too. In actual fact, it even applies to _all_ accidental
deaths. (from the same texbook) about 60 % of all accidental fatalities
involve a deadly injury of the brain.

*) more than 50%, that is.


Glad you dropped in again, Wolfgang. As always, I appreciate the data.
I only wish my skill with the German language was equal to your skill
with English.

- Frank Krygowski

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

In article ,
(Bill Z.) writes:

I'll leave it to readers to decide whether Keats is a bald-faced liar or
merely delusional.
Please try not to run over any cyclists (helmeted or not)
while you're out driving your stoopid car.

I guess I'll vote for delusional. The sooner this guy gets some
meds, the better.

Yet you still respond to him, instead of kill-filing him as most of us
have done.

You helmet zealots are too much.

But then, you car worshippers are too much, too.

Especially when you demand that we cyclists wear
helmets for /your/ car-driving comfort.

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

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

In article ,
(Bill Z.) writes:

Ssshhhhhh. Don't worry. Everything's gonna be all right.
Everybody's gonna wear helmets, just like you want.
There are no enemies, only friends who smile & nod and
agree with you.

Good night, sleep tight. Don't let the Nazis bite.


Keats sure made a fool of himself.

Yup, he sure did.

Keep on a-wrigglin' & a-squirmin'. It just goes to show
what you pro-helmet zealot, car-driving, Nazi-Moron-Liars
are all about -- viz: greedy, selfish piggishness.

Oink, oink.

Are you still in elementary school?

Why do you have such an interest in
elementary school students?

Please try to not run over any cyclists (helmeted or not)
while you're out, driving your stoopid car.

Please try to act like an adult, even if that is difficult
for you.

Actually, just for you, I /am/ acting like an adult.
Acting exactly like you, ya Nazi-moron-liar.

Maybe you should be something more like a child -- without
a bellyful of prejudice & hatred & bile.

'cuz if being an adult means being such a bitter, dour,
objectionable, cantankerous ol' helmet zealot crank as
yourself, I'd just as soon jump off a bridge and be
done with it.


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

Wolfgang Strobl writes:

snip
The widely quoted lore "most*) bicyclists deaths are caused by a brain
injury" is a Lie of Omission. In itself, it's true, But it derives its
scare from hiding the fact that this statement applies to _all_ traffic
deaths, too. In actual fact, it even applies to _all_ accidental
deaths. (from the same texbook) about 60 % of all accidental fatalities
involve a deadly injury of the brain.

Which is completely irrelevant to the question of whether helmets are
useful or not (and keep in mind that most bicycle accidents are not
fatal, so an argument based on fatalities in this context is really a
red herring).



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

(Tom Keats) writes:

In article ,
SMS writes:
I'll leave it to readers to decide whether Keats is a bald-faced liar or
merely delusional.
Please try not to run over any cyclists (helmeted or not)
while you're out driving your stoopid car.

I guess I'll vote for delusional. The sooner this guy gets some
meds, the better.

Yet you still respond to him, instead of kill-filing him as most
of us have done.

You helmet zealots are too much.
But then, you car worshippers are too much, too.
Especially when you demand that we cyclists wear
helmets for /your/ car-driving comfort.

Liar - neither of us demanded that anyone wear a helmet, and I
certainly don't worship cars (nor computers, nor any other product I
might need) and would assume that Steven doesn't either.

Posting such rubbish really makes you look like an idiot.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 23:34:45 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

(Tom Keats) writes:

In article ,
SMS writes:
I'll leave it to readers to decide whether Keats is a bald-faced liar or
merely delusional.
Please try not to run over any cyclists (helmeted or not)
while you're out driving your stoopid car.

I guess I'll vote for delusional. The sooner this guy gets some
meds, the better.

Yet you still respond to him, instead of kill-filing him as most
of us have done.

You helmet zealots are too much.
But then, you car worshippers are too much, too.
Especially when you demand that we cyclists wear
helmets for /your/ car-driving comfort.

Liar - neither of us demanded that anyone wear a helmet,

There are more than two pro-helmet zealots posting on these
newsgroups.

And some of them have posted that they are perfectly happy with MHL's
- as long as they apply to other people.

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 23:27:30 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Wolfgang Strobl writes:

snip
The widely quoted lore "most*) bicyclists deaths are caused by a brain
injury" is a Lie of Omission. In itself, it's true, But it derives its
scare from hiding the fact that this statement applies to _all_ traffic
deaths, too. In actual fact, it even applies to _all_ accidental
deaths. (from the same texbook) about 60 % of all accidental fatalities
involve a deadly injury of the brain.

Which is completely irrelevant to the question of whether helmets are
useful or not (and keep in mind that most bicycle accidents are not
fatal, so an argument based on fatalities in this context is really a
red herring).

If so, as cyclists' deaths occur at a rate of roughly one per 450
years of cycling non-stop 24 hours a day (FRA figure), rate of death
from head injury must be less than one per 900 years of cycling 24
hours a day (assuming that your "most" = the minimum possible value -
51%).

Of these, some small percentage (perhaps as low as zero) of head
deaths might have been reduced by cycle helmets to a less serious
injury, like permanent vegetative state etcetera. There remains, of
course, the probability that additional injuries occur due to the
wearing of cycle helmets; and so considering that, how can you claim
that helmets are "useful" when the magnitude of the effect they might
produce of the death rate of cyclists is essentially zero; and the
other effects (reduction of cycling rates, possibility of other
trauma, increase in the seriously maimed instead of dead) are
negative?