Helmet Nazis at It Again!

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).

The point was this: Helmet promotion material often uses a statement
like "up to 2/3 of bicycle fatalities involve head injury."

This is an attempt to convince people that bicycling produces many more
head injuries than other activities. It is an attempt to scare people
into wearing helmets.

And it's as disingenuous as a political campaign ad. Even if it is
true of cycling (and there's doubt), it's equally true of motoring or,
indeed, _all_ accidental deaths.

So why not push helmets for everybody, all the time? Why wouldn't
helmets be "useful" for walking, driving, jogging, jumping rope, etc.?

Why make _bicycling_ sound especially dangerous?

Hope that helps you remember the point, Bill. ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

On 7 Oct 2006 06:11:51 -0700, wrote:


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).

The point was this: Helmet promotion material often uses a statement
like "up to 2/3 of bicycle fatalities involve head injury."

This is an attempt to convince people that bicycling produces many more
head injuries than other activities. It is an attempt to scare people
into wearing helmets.

And it's as disingenuous as a political campaign ad. Even if it is
true of cycling (and there's doubt), it's equally true of motoring or,
indeed, _all_ accidental deaths.

So why not push helmets for everybody, all the time? Why wouldn't
helmets be "useful" for walking, driving, jogging, jumping rope, etc.?


Indeed.

And as I have posted before, it is the question that pro-helmet and
pro-MHL zealots like Ozark, Starr, Sornson, and Zaumen will do
anything to wriggle out of answering. Were they to answer truthfully,
it would expose the fallacy on which their pro-helmet/pro-MHL stance
is based; they know this, and so do anything they can to distort
statistis, divert the line of questioning, denegrate the questioner,
and deny the truth.

writes:

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.

Keats was responding to posts from Steven Sharf and me, neither of which
are "pro-helmet zealots" as neither of us has demanded that others
wear helmets. I don't recall anyone else demanding that either.

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

Are you really that stupid? Someone simply posted a wisecrack
suggesting that a particularly obnoxious poster, and no one else, be
required to wear a helmet. It was obviously meant as a joke.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

writes:

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%).
snip

So what? A perfectly valid reason to use a helmet is to reduce
the time spend recovering from non-fatal head injuries, or (if you
are lucky) to avoid a head injury.

I.e, you might choose to wear one not to "save your life", but to
avoid additional "down time" if you are in an accident. It is a
perfectly reasonable choice to make, whether you like it or not.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

writes:

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).

The point was this: Helmet promotion material often uses a statement
like "up to 2/3 of bicycle fatalities involve head injury."
snip

Nobody gives a damn, Krygowski. Your "helmet promotional material" is
probably just advertising, and IMHO anyone who believes advertising
is such a fool that they probably shouldn't be riding a bike anyway.

This is an attempt to convince people that bicycling produces many more
head injuries than other activities. It is an attempt to scare people
into wearing helmets.

No, Krygowski, it is probably simply a factoid that someone thought
would help encourage the sale of a product. That's what advertising
is supposed to do. If you don't like it, start ranting about this
country's "Advertizing ueber alles" culture.

What you are complaining about is no different than "Brand X toothpaste"
fights cavities better than Brand Y (even though the only difference
between Brand X and Brand Y is a logo).

Hope that helps you remember the point, Bill. ;-)

You have no point, Krygowski - you are simply making a fool of
yourself.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

writes:

On 7 Oct 2006 06:11:51 -0700, wrote:


Bill Z. wrote:
Wolfgang Strobl writes:
So why not push helmets for everybody, all the time? Why wouldn't
helmets be "useful" for walking, driving, jogging, jumping rope, etc.?


Indeed.

And as I have posted before, it is the question that pro-helmet and
pro-MHL zealots like Ozark, Starr, Sornson, and Zaumen will do
anything to wriggle out of answering.

More lies from Talyor, as none of the above are in favor of mandatory
helmet laws, and none of us are pushing people to use helmets. We
are merely suggesting that they are useful enough that using one is
a reasonble choice for people to make.

There is nothing to "wriggle out of" as we never made the claim Taylor
claims.

If Taylor and Krygowski want to wear helmets while walking or jogging,
that's fine by me - it is, after all, their decision.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

(Tom Keats) writes:

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

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?

Let's just say that I wish that the parents of certain elementary
school students would monitor their children's use of computers more
carefully.

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.

You are delusional, not to mention dishonest.

rest of this moron's post snipped.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:27:53 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:

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%).
snip

So what? A perfectly valid reason to use a helmet is to reduce
the time spend recovering from non-fatal head injuries, or (if you
are lucky) to avoid a head injury.


And by doing so one increases both the perception that cycling is
dangerous (false) and that probability that politicians will introduce
an MHL (true), both of which will reduce cycling, with concommittant
increases in public health costs; your vaunted validiity vanishes.

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:39:36 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:

On 7 Oct 2006 06:11:51 -0700, wrote:


Bill Z. wrote:
Wolfgang Strobl writes:
So why not push helmets for everybody, all the time? Why wouldn't
helmets be "useful" for walking, driving, jogging, jumping rope, etc.?


Indeed.

And as I have posted before, it is the question that pro-helmet and
pro-MHL zealots like Ozark, Starr, Sornson, and Zaumen will do
anything to wriggle out of answering.

More lies from Talyor, as none of the above are in favor of mandatory
helmet laws

False - at least one (Ozark) has repeatedly called for an MHL. The
rest know that such a position would be unpopular, and hence have been
careful to claim that they are anti-MHL for themselves - Sornson, for
instance has no trouble with the MHL in his state because he happens
to be exempt.

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:35:23 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:

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).

The point was this: Helmet promotion material often uses a statement
like "up to 2/3 of bicycle fatalities involve head injury."
snip

Nobody gives a damn, Krygowski. Your "helmet promotional material" is
probably just advertising,

Nonsense. Where I live there are "public service" announcements on
the radio from the local police force, stating that helmets prevent
88% of head injuries.

and IMHO anyone who believes advertising
is such a fool that they probably shouldn't be riding a bike anyway.


That might well be the goal.