American (?) daemon in Australia. Take him back!

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 10:09:44 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/1/2016 11:21 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 16:17:31 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 8/1/2016 2:48 PM, James wrote:
Jake Olivier just keeps coughing up the statistical fluff balls to damn
us with bicycle helmet laws for eternity.

Though I can't read the text, you can be sure there were loaded
questions asked of people who already happily pull on a foam hat to ride.

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2016/...deters-cycling


This guy always produces study results that fit his predetermined views.
Remarkable!

Except there really are no studies that link mandatory helmet laws with
decreased cycling rates.


But there are studies. See:
http://ipa.org.au/publications/2019/...t-law-disaster

Which says, in part, "The most extensive study of the real-world
effects of MHLs on injury rates was by Australian researcher, Dr
Dorothy Robinson from the University of New England, who found
enforced helmet laws discourage cycling but produce no obvious
response in percentage of head injuries'"

One can only speculate whether someone making positive statements like
"there really are no studies" is a liar, or simply in total ignorance
of his/her's subject.

Ignornace and lying are not mutually exclusive. I think Scharf combines
both.

But I have a quibble with the article cited above. One part's out of
date. The author said "MHLs are the main reason for the failure of
Australia's two public bike hire schemes. Brisbane and Melbourne are the
only two cities in the world with helmet laws to have attempted public
bike hire. While schemes in places like Paris, London, Montreal, Dublin
and Washington DC have flourished, Brisbane and Melbourne have amongst
the lowest usage rates in the world."

There's now a third city that's attempted bike share with a mandatory
helmet law: Seattle, Washington. And predictably, it's been failing.
After doing terribly as an independent initiative, the city finally
propped it up by buying it. But ridership is still terrible.

See
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-...cycle-sharing/

and three years later, see
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-...es-self-image/


Neither Portland nor Oregon has a mandatory helmet law for anyone over 16, yet based on my observations, I doubt our new bike share program will survive. https://www.biketownpdx.com/ http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/...ized_righ.html

It made a big splash in the first week (well, better than expected), but I walk by the racks downtown, and none of the bikes are out. It's very odd. Maybe its doing better than appearances indicate. I think the whole program is a waste of money, but at least its mostly someone else's money.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 02/08/2016 9:49 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 10:09:44 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/1/2016 11:21 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 16:17:31 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 8/1/2016 2:48 PM, James wrote:
Jake Olivier just keeps coughing up the statistical fluff balls to damn
us with bicycle helmet laws for eternity.

Though I can't read the text, you can be sure there were loaded
questions asked of people who already happily pull on a foam hat to ride.

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2016/...deters-cycling


This guy always produces study results that fit his predetermined views.
Remarkable!

Except there really are no studies that link mandatory helmet laws with
decreased cycling rates.


But there are studies. See:
http://ipa.org.au/publications/2019/...t-law-disaster

Which says, in part, "The most extensive study of the real-world
effects of MHLs on injury rates was by Australian researcher, Dr
Dorothy Robinson from the University of New England, who found
enforced helmet laws discourage cycling but produce no obvious
response in percentage of head injuries'"

One can only speculate whether someone making positive statements like
"there really are no studies" is a liar, or simply in total ignorance
of his/her's subject.

Ignornace and lying are not mutually exclusive. I think Scharf combines
both.

But I have a quibble with the article cited above. One part's out of
date. The author said "MHLs are the main reason for the failure of
Australia's two public bike hire schemes. Brisbane and Melbourne are the
only two cities in the world with helmet laws to have attempted public
bike hire. While schemes in places like Paris, London, Montreal, Dublin
and Washington DC have flourished, Brisbane and Melbourne have amongst
the lowest usage rates in the world."

There's now a third city that's attempted bike share with a mandatory
helmet law: Seattle, Washington. And predictably, it's been failing.
After doing terribly as an independent initiative, the city finally
propped it up by buying it. But ridership is still terrible.

See
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-...cycle-sharing/

and three years later, see
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-...es-self-image/


Neither Portland nor Oregon has a mandatory helmet law for anyone over 16, yet based on my observations, I doubt our new bike share program will survive. https://www.biketownpdx.com/ http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/...ized_righ.html

It made a big splash in the first week (well, better than expected), but I walk by the racks downtown, and none of the bikes are out. It's very odd. Maybe its doing better than appearances indicate. I think the whole program is a waste of money, but at least its mostly someone else's money.


The Bixie program in Montreal had a distinctly Montreal flavor. It was
very well used from the beginning but lost a lot of money due to
mismanagement. Typical story here. The City bailed them out though and
now it seems to be making money.

As far as helmets go, we don't have an MHL here but the managers of
Bixie were getting a lot of requests from people to supply helmets with
the bikes or some way of locking helmets at the stations etc from
people that didn't want to carry their helmets around all day. I don't
think they ever really worked out a solution for that. I remember some
guy came up with a folding helmet. I didn't pay attention to that.

That's not to say everyone using them wants a helmet. I don't know the
ratio. People riding around the city on Bixies certainly tend to wear
helmets less than roadies but they probably also spend more time on bike
paths going at slower speeds.

On 8/2/2016 10:05 AM, Duane wrote:

The Bixie program in Montreal had a distinctly Montreal flavor. It was
very well used from the beginning but lost a lot of money due to
mismanagement. Typical story here. The City bailed them out though and
now it seems to be making money.

As far as helmets go, we don't have an MHL here but the managers of
Bixie were getting a lot of requests from people to supply helmets with
the bikes or some way of locking helmets at the stations etc from
people that didn't want to carry their helmets around all day. I don't
think they ever really worked out a solution for that. I remember some
guy came up with a folding helmet. I didn't pay attention to that.

That's not to say everyone using them wants a helmet. I don't know the
ratio. People riding around the city on Bixies certainly tend to wear
helmets less than roadies but they probably also spend more time on bike
paths going at slower speeds.

Of course bike share riders wear helmets less than "roadies" - at least,
as the term "roadie" is normally used.

When I hear "roadie" I visualize a lightweight, performance oriented
bike, and a person frequently interested in riding sort of athletically.
More to the point, I also visualize lycra shorts, special shoes,
special jersey, special gloves, and often special sunglasses. "Full
mating plumage" as someone once said.

Of _course_ that roadie is going to wear a helmet! Omitting that part of
the uniform would be as incongruous as riding in Harris tweed plus-fours!

Then there's the blatant practicality matter for the bike share rider.
Is he really going to carry a bulky styrofoam hat around day after day
just in case he decides to jump on a bike? Or in the very few cities
that attempt this strategy, is he really going to try to rent or borrow
a hat that who-knows-who has just taken off his unwashed head?

Given the tremendously excellent safety record of bike share systems,
there's simply no need to even consider those unpalatable options. As
usual, the data shows that the supposed need is superstition.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 02/08/16 10:16, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 2:49:16 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
Jake Olivier just keeps coughing up the statistical fluff balls to damn
us with bicycle helmet laws for eternity.

Though I can't read the text, you can be sure there were loaded
questions asked of people who already happily pull on a foam hat to ride.

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2016/...deters-cycling

This guy always produces study results that fit his predetermined views.
Remarkable!


Why American demon (or daemon as the case may be)?

Oops - too long talking software.

There is no US state with an all-ages mandatory helmet law. You guys are on the cutting edge there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycl...s_in_Australia Keep your nationwide mandatory helmet law along with all your poisonous creatures!


Take a look at Jake's education history. He's a product of the US.
https://research.unsw.edu.au/people/...r-jake-olivier

And who knows what the report says -- there is not so much as a summary posted online.


I read a news paper article that referred to the report and it says our
helmet law doesn't deter cycling.

This is contrary to popular belief and evidence. There are several
organizations here trying to apply pressure to have the law repealed.
It was partially repealed in the Northern Territory shortly after its
introduction. There are some councillors and parliamentarians who
support its repeal. I regularly see people riding without a helmet -
risking a fine. There are obviously those who would not risk a fine and
instead don't ride.

--
JS

On 8/2/2016 4:34 PM, James wrote:
On 02/08/16 10:16, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 2:49:16 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
Jake Olivier just keeps coughing up the statistical fluff balls to damn
us with bicycle helmet laws for eternity.

Though I can't read the text, you can be sure there were loaded
questions asked of people who already happily pull on a foam hat to
ride.

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2016/...deters-cycling


This guy always produces study results that fit his predetermined views.
Remarkable!


Why American demon (or daemon as the case may be)?

Oops - too long talking software.

There is no US state with an all-ages mandatory helmet law. You guys
are on the cutting edge there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycl...s_in_Australia Keep your
nationwide mandatory helmet law along with all your poisonous creatures!


Take a look at Jake's education history. He's a product of the US.
https://research.unsw.edu.au/people/...r-jake-olivier

And who knows what the report says -- there is not so much as a
summary posted online.


I read a news paper article that referred to the report and it says our
helmet law doesn't deter cycling.

This is contrary to popular belief and evidence.

Well it may be contrary to popular belief but it's certainly not
contrary to any evidence. Cycling rates typically dip briefly following
the imposition of helmet laws, but quickly recover. The number of
cyclists that give up cycling rather than wear a helmet is vanishingly
small.

Perhaps it's the presence of government provided health care that leads
to some countries going overboard in trying to reduce the likelihood of
large amounts of medical care.

The real argument against MHLs are a) adults should be permitted to
decide the level of risk that they are willing to accept, and b) the
number of injuries and fatalities that are prevented by bicycle helmets
is not so large that the government needs to spend resources on such a law.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 2:14:00 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 8/2/2016 4:34 PM, James wrote:
On 02/08/16 10:16, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 2:49:16 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
Jake Olivier just keeps coughing up the statistical fluff balls to damn
us with bicycle helmet laws for eternity.

Though I can't read the text, you can be sure there were loaded
questions asked of people who already happily pull on a foam hat to
ride.

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2016/...deters-cycling


This guy always produces study results that fit his predetermined views.
Remarkable!


Why American demon (or daemon as the case may be)?

Oops - too long talking software.

There is no US state with an all-ages mandatory helmet law. You guys
are on the cutting edge there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycl...s_in_Australia Keep your
nationwide mandatory helmet law along with all your poisonous creatures!


Take a look at Jake's education history. He's a product of the US.
https://research.unsw.edu.au/people/...r-jake-olivier

And who knows what the report says -- there is not so much as a
summary posted online.


I read a news paper article that referred to the report and it says our
helmet law doesn't deter cycling.

This is contrary to popular belief and evidence.

Well it may be contrary to popular belief but it's certainly not
contrary to any evidence. Cycling rates typically dip briefly following
the imposition of helmet laws, but quickly recover. The number of
cyclists that give up cycling rather than wear a helmet is vanishingly
small.

Perhaps it's the presence of government provided health care that leads
to some countries going overboard in trying to reduce the likelihood of
large amounts of medical care.

The real argument against MHLs are a) adults should be permitted to
decide the level of risk that they are willing to accept, and b) the
number of injuries and fatalities that are prevented by bicycle helmets
is not so large that the government needs to spend resources on such a law.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

in the beginning

we imagine there was no data

only opinion from law enforcement to the ER from giving parents, vociferous injured.....

paths into law vary from parade to serious analysis ( conjecture as there was no ...)

hard to dislocate once in place as there are positive results

how could there not be ?

a weak voice from the MHL cawses physical injury group growing louder as this area is absorbed by the anti MHL.

on the hole, that motorcyclist laying in the intersection with his head split open surrounded by 10 EM vehicles promotes MHL laws.

Jake is prob one more dude needing paper output for job security.

the German electro Islip will be interesting .... lean left go right ...

we await a quality video of one run down by a Grosser MB at 145.....

On 8/2/2016 4:34 PM, James wrote:

This is contrary to popular belief and evidence.

With statistics, it's critical to beware of people that pick and choose
their time-frames.

The AHZs are fond of statements like "cycling participation declined by
30-40% immediately the laws were enforced in different states." Yes, the
key word is "immediately." What they don't want to admit is the fact
that but the rate quickly recovered.

Even the AHZs no longer claim that cycling rates declined after an MHL,
other than a brief dip. The new rationalization is that cycling rates
should increase at least as fast as population increases, and if that
doesn't happen then it's helmet laws that are to blame. Never mind the
fact that cycling rates go up and down for a plethora of reasons. There
are no helmet laws in China, but cycling rates have greatly deccreased,
so if I wanted to behave like the AHZs I would insist that the decrease
was due to the lack of helmet laws!

"According to a 2008 report by the Earth Policy Institute, between 1995
and 2005, "China's bike fleet declined by 35 percent, from 670 million
to 435 million, while private car ownership more than doubled, from 4.2
million to 8.9 million. Blaming cyclists for increasing accidents and
congestion, some city governments have closed bike lanes. Shanghai even
banned bicycles from certain downtown roads in 2004." So the decline was
actually caused by greater vehicle ownership, and also was caused by
huge improvements in mass transit infrastructure.

On 8/3/2016 10:34 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/2/2016 4:34 PM, James wrote:

This is contrary to popular belief and evidence.

With statistics, it's critical to beware of people that pick and choose
their time-frames.

The AHZs are fond of statements like "cycling participation declined by
30-40% immediately the laws were enforced in different states." Yes, the
key word is "immediately." What they don't want to admit is the fact
that but the rate quickly recovered.

Sorry, the rate (i.e. number of cyclists per capita) did not recover.
It's still lower than it was before the helmet laws.

Even the AHZs no longer claim that cycling rates declined after an MHL,
other than a brief dip.

Scharfian bull****.


The new rationalization is that cycling rates
should increase at least as fast as population increases...

"Cycling rates" are generally understood to be _per capita_. Although
Scharf may find this difficult to understand, that means if bicycling
counts, miles ridden, trips taken by bike etc. do not increase as fast
as population, then the bicycling rate _has_ decreased.

This sort of thing is an acceptable topic for a math class filled with
13-year-olds. It's astonishing that an adult posting here fails to
understand the concept!

, and if that
doesn't happen then it's helmet laws that are to blame.

Since the sudden decreases occurred immediately after the helmet laws
were enforced, and since all other potentially causative changes were
gradual and not sudden, that certainly is a rational conclusion.

But if that's not enough, surveys at the time definitely confirmed the
reason for the drops in cycling. Surveys since have continued to
confirm it.

Never mind the
fact that cycling rates go up and down for a plethora of reasons. There
are no helmet laws in China, but cycling rates have greatly deccreased,
so if I wanted to behave like the AHZs I would insist that the decrease
was due to the lack of helmet laws!

"According to a 2008 report by the Earth Policy Institute, between 1995
and 2005, "China's bike fleet declined by 35 percent, from 670 million
to 435 million, while private car ownership more than doubled, from 4.2
million to 8.9 million. Blaming cyclists for increasing accidents and
congestion, some city governments have closed bike lanes. Shanghai even
banned bicycles from certain downtown roads in 2004." So the decline was
actually caused by greater vehicle ownership, and also was caused by
huge improvements in mass transit infrastructure.

And so, what's been seen in China is a drop in cycling concurrent with
an increase in prosperity, thus a great increase in the number of
Chinese owning a car. Given that the car purchases and cycling
reduction happened concurrently and are logically connected, the growth
in car ownership is an identifiable cause of the decrease in bicycling.

In Australia, there was no sudden increase in car ownership. There was
the sudden (territory by territory) imposition of helmet laws. Given
the the helmet laws and cycling reduction happened concurrently and are
logically connected, the helmet law is an identifiable cause of the
decrease in cycling.

The surveys merely confirmed what should have been obvious.

The relevant data is easy to find on the web.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Mule donkey burro oxen camel use age decreased with prosperity, financial institution's ability to lend money to annoy Everett Dirckson

On 04/08/16 13:04, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/3/2016 10:34 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/2/2016 4:34 PM, James wrote:

This is contrary to popular belief and evidence.

With statistics, it's critical to beware of people that pick and choose
their time-frames.

The AHZs are fond of statements like "cycling participation declined by
30-40% immediately the laws were enforced in different states." Yes, the
key word is "immediately." What they don't want to admit is the fact
that but the rate quickly recovered.

Sorry, the rate (i.e. number of cyclists per capita) did not recover.
It's still lower than it was before the helmet laws.

And still falling, according to a nation wide survey.

"While bicycle ownership has remained steady in comparison to the 2011
National Cycling Participation Survey, there has been a small but
statistically significant decrease in the level of cycling participation
in Australia between 2011 and 2015."

http://www.bicyclecouncil.com.au/pub...on-survey-2015

--
JS