Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda

On 2/16/2019 1:39 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 16:36:50 +1100, James
wrote:

On 16/2/19 4:27 am, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 6:19:00 AM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:39:56 +1100, James wrote:

A pack of rabid Mandatory Helmet Law zealots in Australia
(Raphael Grzebieta, Jake Olivier (former USian), and some other
clown who's name eludes me), recently published a paper that
looks at the ratio of cycling fatalities per head of population
in comparison with pedestrian fatalities per head of population,
before and after MHL-Day (1990-91).

They claim some 36% decline in cycling fatalities that are a
direct result of the MHL protecting cyclists from death.

They fail to acknowledge *any* reduction in participation due to
the MHL putting people off riding a bike, and IIRC they suggest
there is no good evidence that MHL puts people off riding a
bike.


How can both studies be correct?

Any paper bsed on Australian data can only show corelation and not
causation. The quacks screamed for MHL but failed to collect any
data that enabled them to show that helmets were the reason for the
reduction in cycling fatalities. I've always enjoyed throwing that
factoid in the face of any doctor that sprouts the MHL bleat.

In any case, medical professionals are responsible for far more
fatalities in Australia each year. A recent article stated you'd be
lucky to survive 6 months after surgery in Australia.

From a biomechanical standpoint, helmets prevent or reduce certain
injuries.

Yet the second study I posted a link to, if you examine the numbers,
shows that the number of cyclists with a head injury of any kind, from
either group, is very close to 30%. That means either the helmet
wearers are taking more risks and are still as likely to hurt their
head, or the helmet isn't doing much of anything.

Perhaps extra risk taking by those who chose to wear a helmet is the
reason. I guess forcing people who would not volunteer to wear a
helmet, may either stop them from cycling or make them a fraction less
likely to hurt their head, or make them take similar risks to the
voluntary helmet wearers and they are back to 30% risk of a head injury ;-)

http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com...d-helmets.html

"in the decade that was the 1950s, 8 pro riders were killed while
racing. In the ten years that followed, the 1960s, 4 lost their lives;

The venerable Saint Tommy Simpson (1967) would not have been
helped by a magic foam hat.


another 4 during the 1970s, and 5 in the 1980s. 3 died in pro races in
the 1990s.

However, in the first decade of the New Millennium, the 2000s, 10
professional cyclists died during completion. Two have died already in
this decade when we are only half way through the second year. What
happened? Helmets were made mandatory in 2003 to protect riders."

--
Cheers,
John B.




--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 3:52:01 AM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:27:26 -0800, jbeattie wrote:

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 6:19:00 AM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:39:56 +1100, James wrote:

A pack of rabid Mandatory Helmet Law zealots in Australia (Raphael
Grzebieta, Jake Olivier (former USian), and some other clown who's
name eludes me), recently published a paper that looks at the ratio
of cycling fatalities per head of population in comparison with
pedestrian fatalities per head of population, before and after
MHL-Day (1990-91).

They claim some 36% decline in cycling fatalities that are a direct
result of the MHL protecting cyclists from death.

They fail to acknowledge *any* reduction in participation due to the
MHL putting people off riding a bike, and IIRC they suggest there is
no good evidence that MHL puts people off riding a bike.


How can both studies be correct?

Any paper bsed on Australian data can only show corelation and not
causation. The quacks screamed for MHL but failed to collect any data
that enabled them to show that helmets were the reason for the
reduction in cycling fatalities. I've always enjoyed throwing that
factoid in the face of any doctor that sprouts the MHL bleat.

In any case, medical professionals are responsible for far more
fatalities in Australia each year. A recent article stated you'd be
lucky to survive 6 months after surgery in Australia.

From a biomechanical standpoint, helmets prevent or reduce certain
injuries. Mandating helmet use is a permissible legislative choice.
Policy in Oregon is controlled in large part by voters in Portland,
which by size has the highest bicycle mode share of any city in the US,
and yet Oregon does not have a MHL for adults. This is because efforts
have been turned back by reasonable people appearing at legislative
committee meetings, submitting exhibits and doing the hard work
associated with supporting or opposing legislation.

There was no such chance, the quackery collective demanded it hard and
fast and we had it despite clearly pointing out the lack of evidence.

Your
counter-bleating does nothing to promote your cause, nor does
criticizing doctors who are understandably concerned with individual
patient outcomes and not population studies.

Wrong, the big Phama does population studies and uses the data they
generate to wage a corrupt PR program on the quackery, who line up for
the trinkets and other promo stuff. Suppossedly they are not allowed to
offer"rewards" to the quackery, but all you need to do is look around and
quacks office to see the "gimmicks" all promoting big pharma products.

One of my gigs was to support the Australian Medical Major register who
earned big bickies selling the names and addresses to big pharma promo
campaigns. This included a significant section to deal with complaints
from quacks who didn't get their trinket. Thed joke at the time was the
ENT speciallist who didn't get a free speculum like his gyno mate next
door.

They see a massive scalp
wound and naturally conclude that a semi-rigid head covering would have
helped.

No, they have been taught that mantra and follow it if they want to
obtain their registration. Trainee doctors are assessed on their ability
to see a patient, assess them and write a prescription all within 20
mintes. Woe betide them if they tke longer, even after they are
registered and practising.

An ED physician has no profit motive for recommending a helmet. BTW, the child MHL in Oregon was sponsored by soccer moms and a couple of Kaiser nurses. No BIG HELMET conspiracy. I have not seen any doctors with Giro or POC branded stethoscopes.

I don't want a MHL, but every time I hear the complaining and the level
of upset it causes, it reminds me of a patient dying of heart failure
who is complaining about an unsightly mole.

Shrug, you have to die of something and failure to accept that that is
your lot is just going to lave your family poor and destitute as the
quacks as so log as you have money, there are plenty of quacks who wll
sell you some magic pill.


There are so many other
problems we should be addressing, mostly unrelated bicycles and helmets..

But that doesn't mean we should drop the guard on that area. Haven't you
noticed that the arsehole never give up their chance to rip the general
populaton off.

Like I said, you go to the legislature and oppose the MHL. The constituencies promoting helmets are usually well-intended moms and health-care workers who, like I said, are more concerned with individual patient outcomes than population needs or civil liberties. I've met and talked to these people. They can be shrill, but I don't get any sense of a profit motive.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 11:19:28 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 5:36:56 AM UTC, James wrote:

Yet the second study I posted a link to, if you examine the numbers,
shows that the number of cyclists with a head injury of any kind, from
either group, is very close to 30%. That means either the helmet
wearers are taking more risks and are still as likely to hurt their
head, or the helmet isn't doing much of anything.

An inconclusive study would suggest to me that it was honestly done.

Perhaps extra risk taking by those who chose to wear a helmet is the
reason. I guess forcing people who would not volunteer to wear a
helmet, may either stop them from cycling or make them a fraction less
likely to hurt their head, or make them take similar risks to the
voluntary helmet wearers and they are back to 30% risk of a head injury ;-)

Considering the size of the existing studies (which by themselves makes such studies suspect and confusing), and the 3000+ respondents you would need for a proper study with control groups, and the likely cost, I'll take a modest bet on "We won't know in our lifetime."

My cohort has been studied. https://www.scribd.com/doc/42246724/...e-injury-Study I wonder what the increased density of cyclists in some of the new facilities is doing to the numbers -- along with sharply increased auto traffic. I feel more imperiled in the bicycle facilities than on the roads -- with parallel and crossing pedestrian facilities, side-by-side opposite direction bike lanes, hardscape, bollards, slippery dimpled hard-rubber transitions. There is so much in the way of lines and green paint, I feel compelled to stop and take a free-throw or a penalty kick. Apropos of the helmet discussion, it is a similar class of do-gooders promoting bicycle facilities, although there is more of a profit motive for designers and builders.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2/16/2019 2:23 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

Over here a helmet is pretty much the mark of a recreational rider,
Black shorts, colorful jersey and a color coordinated helmet.

The folks that ride for transportation wear their regular clothes and
usually ride a "girl's bike". I seem them every morning pedaling down
the road to get the days' groceries.

The recreational riders, of course wouldn't be caught dead without
their uniform... how would anyone know that they were the elite if
they didn't dress the part?

Exactly. Fashion is strange, powerful and unpredictable.

I suspect that if USAC (or whatever America's bike racing governing body
was called back then) didn't mandate helmets at some point in time, very
few of today's MAMILs would be wearing them as part of their costume.
When UCI finally succumbed to the back room dealing and mandated helmets
for their riders, the rest of the world's pretend racers adopted the
same special hat.

And humans have a very powerful urge to wear special hats.

It's now common to see plump Americans in overstuffed lycra pootling
along crushed limestone rail-trails, protected from imaginary tragedies
by their fancy foam hats.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/16/2019 10:47 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 11:19:28 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 5:36:56 AM UTC, James wrote:

Yet the second study I posted a link to, if you examine the numbers,
shows that the number of cyclists with a head injury of any kind, from
either group, is very close to 30%. That means either the helmet
wearers are taking more risks and are still as likely to hurt their
head, or the helmet isn't doing much of anything.

An inconclusive study would suggest to me that it was honestly done.

Perhaps extra risk taking by those who chose to wear a helmet is the
reason. I guess forcing people who would not volunteer to wear a
helmet, may either stop them from cycling or make them a fraction less
likely to hurt their head, or make them take similar risks to the
voluntary helmet wearers and they are back to 30% risk of a head injury ;-)

Considering the size of the existing studies (which by themselves makes such studies suspect and confusing), and the 3000+ respondents you would need for a proper study with control groups, and the likely cost, I'll take a modest bet on "We won't know in our lifetime."

My cohort has been studied. https://www.scribd.com/doc/42246724/...e-injury-Study I wonder what the increased density of cyclists in some of the new facilities is doing to the numbers -- along with sharply increased auto traffic. I feel more imperiled in the bicycle facilities than on the roads -- with parallel and crossing pedestrian facilities, side-by-side opposite direction bike lanes, hardscape, bollards, slippery dimpled hard-rubber transitions. There is so much in the way of lines and green paint, I feel compelled to stop and take a free-throw or a penalty kick. Apropos of the helmet discussion, it is a similar class of do-gooders promoting bicycle facilities, although there is more of a profit motive for designers and builders.

-- Jay Beattie.



and their evil bretheren The Road Diet clique and the Mass
Transit tribe. Same ideology:

https://www.citylab.com/transportati...w-ride/380570/


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2/16/2019 11:47 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 11:19:28 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 5:36:56 AM UTC, James wrote:

Yet the second study I posted a link to, if you examine the numbers,
shows that the number of cyclists with a head injury of any kind, from
either group, is very close to 30%. That means either the helmet
wearers are taking more risks and are still as likely to hurt their
head, or the helmet isn't doing much of anything.

An inconclusive study would suggest to me that it was honestly done.

Perhaps extra risk taking by those who chose to wear a helmet is the
reason. I guess forcing people who would not volunteer to wear a
helmet, may either stop them from cycling or make them a fraction less
likely to hurt their head, or make them take similar risks to the
voluntary helmet wearers and they are back to 30% risk of a head injury ;-)

Considering the size of the existing studies (which by themselves makes such studies suspect and confusing), and the 3000+ respondents you would need for a proper study with control groups, and the likely cost, I'll take a modest bet on "We won't know in our lifetime."

My cohort has been studied. https://www.scribd.com/doc/42246724/...e-injury-Study

Ah yes. That was the study where they recruited subjects, then sent them
monthly emails asking "Did you hurt yourself in any way with your bike
last month?" so they would record each and every tiny injury, even the
ones that would naturally be forgotten in a few weeks.

They defined an "injury" as any tiny scratch or bump. They defined one
as "serious" if the victim had shown it to any medical person at all. In
other words, if someone asked the company nurse for a band-aid, the
injury became "serious."

It's a propaganda piece for ever more segregated bike chutes.

Apropos of the helmet discussion, it is a similar class of do-gooders promoting bicycle facilities, although there is more of a profit motive for designers and builders.

Actually, the manic helmet promotion seems to have slowed a bit in the
last few year. But "We MUST have 'protected bike lanes' EVERYWHERE"
effort is going great guns.

And just coming into prominence - after "protected" bike lanes have
killed a fair number of people at intersections - are the calls for
"protected intersections." It turns out no intersection can be safe
unless it costs a hundred thousand dollars, takes up an acre of space,
has at least four auxiliary islands, two different shades of paint,
separate traffic lights for each type of road user, dozens of signs and
a full-time wizard casting protective spells.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/16/2019 12:54 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/16/2019 10:47 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 11:19:28 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 5:36:56 AM UTC, James wrote:

Yet the second study I posted a link to, if you examine the numbers,
shows that the number of cyclists with a head injury of any kind, from
either group, is very close to 30%.Â* That means either the helmet
wearers are taking more risks and are still as likely to hurt their
head, or the helmet isn't doing much of anything.

An inconclusive study would suggest to me that it was honestly done.

Perhaps extra risk taking by those who chose to wear a helmet is the
reason.Â* I guess forcing people who would not volunteer to wear a
helmet, may either stop them from cycling or make them a fraction less
likely to hurt their head, or make them take similar risks to the
voluntary helmet wearers and they are back to 30% risk of a head
injury ;-)

Considering the size of the existing studies (which by themselves
makes such studies suspect and confusing), and the 3000+ respondents
you would need for a proper study with control groups, and the likely
cost, I'll take a modest bet on "We won't know in our lifetime."

My cohort has been studied.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/42246724/...injury-StudyÂ* I wonder
what the increased density of cyclists in some of the new facilities
is doing to the numbers -- along with sharply increased auto traffic.
I feel more imperiled in the bicycle facilities than on the roads --
with parallel and crossing pedestrian facilities, side-by-side
opposite direction bike lanes, hardscape, bollards, slippery dimpled
hard-rubber transitions.Â* There is so much in the way of lines and
green paint, I feel compelled to stop and take a free-throw or a
penalty kick.Â* Apropos of the helmet discussion, it is a similar class
of do-gooders promoting bicycle facilities, although there is more of
a profit motive for designers and builders.

-- Jay Beattie.



and their evil bretheren The Road Diet clique and the Mass Transit
tribe. Same ideology:

https://www.citylab.com/transportati...w-ride/380570/

Why do so few ride? The Onion knows the answer:
https://www.theonion.com/report-98-p...ans-1819565837


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/16/2019 11:16 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 3:52:01 AM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:27:26 -0800, jbeattie wrote:

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 6:19:00 AM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:39:56 +1100, James wrote:

A pack of rabid Mandatory Helmet Law zealots in Australia (Raphael
Grzebieta, Jake Olivier (former USian), and some other clown who's
name eludes me), recently published a paper that looks at the ratio
of cycling fatalities per head of population in comparison with
pedestrian fatalities per head of population, before and after
MHL-Day (1990-91).

They claim some 36% decline in cycling fatalities that are a direct
result of the MHL protecting cyclists from death.

They fail to acknowledge *any* reduction in participation due to the
MHL putting people off riding a bike, and IIRC they suggest there is
no good evidence that MHL puts people off riding a bike.


How can both studies be correct?

Any paper bsed on Australian data can only show corelation and not
causation. The quacks screamed for MHL but failed to collect any data
that enabled them to show that helmets were the reason for the
reduction in cycling fatalities. I've always enjoyed throwing that
factoid in the face of any doctor that sprouts the MHL bleat.

In any case, medical professionals are responsible for far more
fatalities in Australia each year. A recent article stated you'd be
lucky to survive 6 months after surgery in Australia.

From a biomechanical standpoint, helmets prevent or reduce certain
injuries. Mandating helmet use is a permissible legislative choice.
Policy in Oregon is controlled in large part by voters in Portland,
which by size has the highest bicycle mode share of any city in the US,
and yet Oregon does not have a MHL for adults. This is because efforts
have been turned back by reasonable people appearing at legislative
committee meetings, submitting exhibits and doing the hard work
associated with supporting or opposing legislation.

There was no such chance, the quackery collective demanded it hard and
fast and we had it despite clearly pointing out the lack of evidence.

Your
counter-bleating does nothing to promote your cause, nor does
criticizing doctors who are understandably concerned with individual
patient outcomes and not population studies.

Wrong, the big Phama does population studies and uses the data they
generate to wage a corrupt PR program on the quackery, who line up for
the trinkets and other promo stuff. Suppossedly they are not allowed to
offer"rewards" to the quackery, but all you need to do is look around and
quacks office to see the "gimmicks" all promoting big pharma products.

One of my gigs was to support the Australian Medical Major register who
earned big bickies selling the names and addresses to big pharma promo
campaigns. This included a significant section to deal with complaints
from quacks who didn't get their trinket. Thed joke at the time was the
ENT speciallist who didn't get a free speculum like his gyno mate next
door.

They see a massive scalp
wound and naturally conclude that a semi-rigid head covering would have
helped.

No, they have been taught that mantra and follow it if they want to
obtain their registration. Trainee doctors are assessed on their ability
to see a patient, assess them and write a prescription all within 20
mintes. Woe betide them if they tke longer, even after they are
registered and practising.

An ED physician has no profit motive for recommending a helmet. BTW, the child MHL in Oregon was sponsored by soccer moms and a couple of Kaiser nurses. No BIG HELMET conspiracy. I have not seen any doctors with Giro or POC branded stethoscopes.

I don't want a MHL, but every time I hear the complaining and the level
of upset it causes, it reminds me of a patient dying of heart failure
who is complaining about an unsightly mole.

Shrug, you have to die of something and failure to accept that that is
your lot is just going to lave your family poor and destitute as the
quacks as so log as you have money, there are plenty of quacks who wll
sell you some magic pill.


There are so many other
problems we should be addressing, mostly unrelated bicycles and helmets.

But that doesn't mean we should drop the guard on that area. Haven't you
noticed that the arsehole never give up their chance to rip the general
populaton off.

Like I said, you go to the legislature and oppose the MHL. The constituencies promoting helmets are usually well-intended moms and health-care workers who, like I said, are more concerned with individual patient outcomes than population needs or civil liberties. I've met and talked to these people. They can be shrill, but I don't get any sense of a profit motive.

You're looking only at the tip of the iceberg.

When I testified before a committee against a kids' MHL for Ohio, the
bulk of the testifiers were from Safe Kids.

Safe Kids mounted a major, major effort to get MHLs in the 1990s. They
distributed videos, pamphlets, PSAs, their officers spoke about it
whenever they could.

At the same time, Bell Sports was listed as being a major donor to Safe
Kids Inc.

I don't think the connection was accidental.

We still don't have a kids MHL. But there is a pediatrician's group that
constantly whines that we need one. Now, such organizations are subject
to domination by a couple individuals with bees in their bonnet. But
that doesn't mean that Bell Sports isn't sending them money.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 8:47:46 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 11:19:28 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 5:36:56 AM UTC, James wrote:

Yet the second study I posted a link to, if you examine the numbers,
shows that the number of cyclists with a head injury of any kind, from
either group, is very close to 30%. That means either the helmet
wearers are taking more risks and are still as likely to hurt their
head, or the helmet isn't doing much of anything.

An inconclusive study would suggest to me that it was honestly done.

Perhaps extra risk taking by those who chose to wear a helmet is the
reason. I guess forcing people who would not volunteer to wear a
helmet, may either stop them from cycling or make them a fraction less
likely to hurt their head, or make them take similar risks to the
voluntary helmet wearers and they are back to 30% risk of a head injury ;-)

Considering the size of the existing studies (which by themselves makes such studies suspect and confusing), and the 3000+ respondents you would need for a proper study with control groups, and the likely cost, I'll take a modest bet on "We won't know in our lifetime."

My cohort has been studied. https://www.scribd.com/doc/42246724/...e-injury-Study I wonder what the increased density of cyclists in some of the new facilities is doing to the numbers -- along with sharply increased auto traffic. I feel more imperiled in the bicycle facilities than on the roads -- with parallel and crossing pedestrian facilities, side-by-side opposite direction bike lanes, hardscape, bollards, slippery dimpled hard-rubber transitions. There is so much in the way of lines and green paint, I feel compelled to stop and take a free-throw or a penalty kick. Apropos of the helmet discussion, it is a similar class of do-gooders promoting bicycle facilities, although there is more of a profit motive for designers and builders.

-- Jay Beattie.

In California it appears to be almost entirely due to no enforcement of traffic laws by autos around bicycles. I have been absolutely astonished that there is no sort of traffic enforcement 99% of the time. When someone runs a stoplight directly in front of a cop 5 seconds after the light has changed and has sped up so that he is going 50% above the speed limit MAYBE the cop might pull him over. But it is actually a toss-up. I think when they are going back to get off duty they simply don't care what is going on in front of them.

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 11:11:46 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
Thanks Jay, thanks Jeff. Just checking to see if anyone is awake. Without you guys, I'd be wrong twice a day.

My suggestion still stands.

Andre Jute
Amazing grace

Come on Andre - according to Zen and Newsie you are wrong by definition. These are the two guys that were criticizing my programming skills when neither is a programmer. What is in the minds of people like these?