Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 07:09:42 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

Krygowksi, of course, is lying

Ladies and gentlemen, I encourage you to read this in the light of Mr
Zaumen's earlier post defining a call of "liar" as unacceptable
personal abuse.

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

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 07:09:42 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

Krygowksi, of course, is lying

Ladies and gentlemen, I encourage you to read this in the light of Mr
Zaumen's earlier post defining a call of "liar" as unacceptable
personal abuse.

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

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:57:26 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

What facts and what "ability to argue constructively"? Sure they'll
cite things, but they'll misrepresent what the original says (and
disparage any research that doesn't fit their agenda).

I acknowledge that I disparage some research, most notably the 1989
Seattle study, but not because it does not fit my agenda. Actually my
agenda changed completely in response to finding out just how shoddy
some of thet research is. If you want to argue point-by-point over
the research I disparage, I'd be glad to oblige.

Have you read that paper yet?

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

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:57:26 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

What facts and what "ability to argue constructively"? Sure they'll
cite things, but they'll misrepresent what the original says (and
disparage any research that doesn't fit their agenda).

I acknowledge that I disparage some research, most notably the 1989
Seattle study, but not because it does not fit my agenda. Actually my
agenda changed completely in response to finding out just how shoddy
some of thet research is. If you want to argue point-by-point over
the research I disparage, I'd be glad to oblige.

Have you read that paper yet?

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

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 23:35:51 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote:

It isn't just the name-calling. It's all the snide comments, something
that Frank is also famous for. It isn't funny, and it isn't interesting.

Yeah. Snide comments like: prove it" and "cite a reference for that".
Completely unacceptable. We are supposed to take your word for it,
you are, after all, "one of Earth's leading experts on cycle helmets".
Even if you haven't read much of the research.

I think what got Frank's and my goat in particular was your stating
that our methods of opposing helmet laws - i.e. showing that the
research underpinning them is often junk and the claimed benefits have
*never* been realised in a real population - do not work.

Frank and I have both opposed helmet laws. A group of which I am part
led the campaign against the law in the UK, and the law was defeated.
I have letters from MPs who have changed their view to oppose
compulsion based on the information we provided. Frank has testified
in front of legislators.

Scharf then comes along and says that this approach cannot work.
Based on what? When challenged, he doesn't say. The website
http://www.cyclehelmets.org was instrumental in defeating the UK law
last year. Scharf says this site is "not credible". Based on what?
When challenged, he doesn't say - although he is happy to cite Randy
"don't confuse them with the facts" Swart's BHSI, which uses the
discredited 85% figure (which he acknowledges is wrong) because a
change "would not be helpful". Some of us think that honesty is more
important than helpfulness to helmet promoters; we are funny that way.

Scharf denounces dissent, refuses to acknowledge contradictory
evidence, and when challenged, takes his ball away to his private
website where he can control both medium and message. He has done
this on the issue of dynamo lighting, and again on the issue of
helmets. I conclude that he believes his own hype: having decided
that he is one of Earth's leading experts, anyone who disagrees -
however much evidence they might have - must simply be wrong.

I have followed the helmet argument for a long time, and become
substantially better informed than in the days when I believed the
hype. The more I study it the more convinced I am that there are no
easy answers. I also note that Frank, for example, displays much more
detailed knowledge of the evidence base than do any of those proposing
helmets as "necessary." This is a consistent theme in helmet wars
throughout Usenet, as far as I can tell; the detailed knowledge always
seems to be found in those arguing against the dominance of the entire
cycle safety agenda by the single issue of helmets.

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

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 23:35:51 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote:

It isn't just the name-calling. It's all the snide comments, something
that Frank is also famous for. It isn't funny, and it isn't interesting.

Yeah. Snide comments like: prove it" and "cite a reference for that".
Completely unacceptable. We are supposed to take your word for it,
you are, after all, "one of Earth's leading experts on cycle helmets".
Even if you haven't read much of the research.

I think what got Frank's and my goat in particular was your stating
that our methods of opposing helmet laws - i.e. showing that the
research underpinning them is often junk and the claimed benefits have
*never* been realised in a real population - do not work.

Frank and I have both opposed helmet laws. A group of which I am part
led the campaign against the law in the UK, and the law was defeated.
I have letters from MPs who have changed their view to oppose
compulsion based on the information we provided. Frank has testified
in front of legislators.

Scharf then comes along and says that this approach cannot work.
Based on what? When challenged, he doesn't say. The website
http://www.cyclehelmets.org was instrumental in defeating the UK law
last year. Scharf says this site is "not credible". Based on what?
When challenged, he doesn't say - although he is happy to cite Randy
"don't confuse them with the facts" Swart's BHSI, which uses the
discredited 85% figure (which he acknowledges is wrong) because a
change "would not be helpful". Some of us think that honesty is more
important than helpfulness to helmet promoters; we are funny that way.

Scharf denounces dissent, refuses to acknowledge contradictory
evidence, and when challenged, takes his ball away to his private
website where he can control both medium and message. He has done
this on the issue of dynamo lighting, and again on the issue of
helmets. I conclude that he believes his own hype: having decided
that he is one of Earth's leading experts, anyone who disagrees -
however much evidence they might have - must simply be wrong.

I have followed the helmet argument for a long time, and become
substantially better informed than in the days when I believed the
hype. The more I study it the more convinced I am that there are no
easy answers. I also note that Frank, for example, displays much more
detailed knowledge of the evidence base than do any of those proposing
helmets as "necessary." This is a consistent theme in helmet wars
throughout Usenet, as far as I can tell; the detailed knowledge always
seems to be found in those arguing against the dominance of the entire
cycle safety agenda by the single issue of helmets.

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

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 07:14:46 GMT, Bill "laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

I'm describing their behavior accurately. Draw your own conclusions.
Also, there is a difference between a liar and a fool. You might
want to consider that in any evaluation.

So what you are saying here is that you are a fool, and Frank and I
are liars. Or is it the other way around?

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

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 07:14:46 GMT, Bill "laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

I'm describing their behavior accurately. Draw your own conclusions.
Also, there is a difference between a liar and a fool. You might
want to consider that in any evaluation.

So what you are saying here is that you are a fool, and Frank and I
are liars. Or is it the other way around?

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

Erik Freitag wrote:


Making this about Bill is as bad as Bill making this about you.
rec.bicyclyes.soc would be a more useful place if it were used for
mentoring and education.

I'm all for getting the discussion off the personal issues and onto the
factual issues.

Erik, if you want to be the one to monitor the conversation and cry
"foul," that might be a useful effort. As it is, I think one person
tends to mistakenly read a "tone of voice" into the post of another - a
limitation of the medium. They retaliate by throwing out an unkind word
- a human failing, to be sure. The original poster sees the unkind word
and returns more unkindness, and the situation deteriorates.

Of course, there are those who are on hair-trigger, so to speak.

Perhaps we could use a referee to keep us onto factual matters. I'd
like that.



--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Erik Freitag wrote:


Making this about Bill is as bad as Bill making this about you.
rec.bicyclyes.soc would be a more useful place if it were used for
mentoring and education.

I'm all for getting the discussion off the personal issues and onto the
factual issues.

Erik, if you want to be the one to monitor the conversation and cry
"foul," that might be a useful effort. As it is, I think one person
tends to mistakenly read a "tone of voice" into the post of another - a
limitation of the medium. They retaliate by throwing out an unkind word
- a human failing, to be sure. The original poster sees the unkind word
and returns more unkindness, and the situation deteriorates.

Of course, there are those who are on hair-trigger, so to speak.

Perhaps we could use a referee to keep us onto factual matters. I'd
like that.



--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]