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

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).

"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

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.

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

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).

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

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

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.

But that is not the data that is being used to push through the MHLs.

The MHL proponents look at the comparative injury data of helmeted
versus non-helmeted cyclists. This data is compelling on its own. Also,
since they measure and report the severity of the injuries, a lot of
injuries that would be classified as minor on a non-helmeted rider show
up in the statistics, while the helmeted rider would not even go into
the ER for treatment.

I agree that they should look at the overall data, not just the
comparative severity of injury data when injuries occur. No law is
needed. They'd be better off finding another way to encourage helmet
use, i.e. charging for emergency care to non-helmted cyclists involved
in crashes where helmets would have an effect.

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote:

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.

Yes it is, the issue is having a law shoved on the population to
protect people from harm, regardless of how the people feel
about it. Ok, then let's ban stairs, people are killed on them
also. Motorists lose control of their vehicles and kill
pedestrians and bicyclists, let's ban cars; or restrict them
to certain streets and not allow pedestrians or bicyclists
on those streets. Increase bicycle safety? Ok, no more
two wheel bicycles, people fall down without having a third or
fourth wheel. Mandatory knee pads, elbow pads, heavy clothing
to prevent road rash. Excessive speed? Gee, there goes all those extra
gears, now they won't ride so fast they speed into an accident.
Sound silly? Think of the how many people would be saved from
harm by those laws. When you make laws to protect
people from harm where do you stop? Helmets should be a
choice for the individual.



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.

And it would be nice for the mandatory helmet crowd to admit that wearing
a helmet does not guarantee safety, or survival in case of an accident.
Your whole life is a risk. How much of it are you willing to give up to
government regulation?


--

-TTFN

-Steven

wrote:

Yes it is, the issue is having a law shoved on the population to
protect people from harm, regardless of how the people feel
about it.

You misunderstand the mindset of the people pushing the MHLs. They are
not going out and looking at myriad other ways that people do stupid
things and hurt themselves. They are not looking at other steps they
could take to make cycling safer. They are looking solely at the data
regarding head injuries in bicycle accidents involving helmeted versus
non-helmeted cyclists. We have all sorts of laws that many people or
corporations don't like, i.e. child car seats, seat belts, safety-glass,
etc. In each case it would be better to prevent an accident from
happening in the first place.

Ok, then let's ban stairs, people are killed on them
also. Motorists lose control of their vehicles and kill
pedestrians and bicyclists, let's ban cars; or restrict them
to certain streets and not allow pedestrians or bicyclists
on those streets. Increase bicycle safety? Ok, no more
two wheel bicycles, people fall down without having a third or
fourth wheel. Mandatory knee pads, elbow pads, heavy clothing
to prevent road rash. Excessive speed? Gee, there goes all those extra
gears, now they won't ride so fast they speed into an accident.
Sound silly? Think of the how many people would be saved from
harm by those laws. When you make laws to protect
people from harm where do you stop? Helmets should be a
choice for the individual.

Cute, but it demonstrates that you don't understand how the MHL
politicians think. I'm against the MHLs because the benefit is so small
that this is one case where they should just let people decide on taking
the extra risk.