Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

Erik Freitag wrote:

Must be nice to live in such a simple world.


You'd have to ask Frank about that.

Hence the fantastic tales of helmet inefficacy. Clearly, you have not
been
paying attention.


Huh? All the ER studies that have looked at injuries incurred by helmet
wearers versus non-helmet wearers prove a huge difference.

Or rather, "All the ER studies that Scharf has googled so far - never
mind the rest." And for a person whose thinking is very simple, there's
nothing more to consider.

More sophisticated people - such as professional statisticians familiar
with such studies - have noted that every "ER study" that's found
benefit has had OTHER very significant differences between the helmeted
and non-helmeted cyclists. For example, the most oft-quoted study (T&R,
1989) had non-helmeted cyclists who were much more likely to have lower
incomes, had fallen on hard surfaces rather than soft, had been more
likely to be hit by cars, had been riding on streets instead of bike
paths, etc.

Furthermore, in that study, the percentage of cyclists presenting to the
ER wearing helmets was much higher than the street percentages of
helmeted cyclists. IOW, people wearing helmets were _more_ likely to go
to the ER!

Whether this was because the richer folks in helmets went to the ER
"just to be sure," or whether it was because the people in helmets took
more risks, it's hard to say.

But again: for people who live in very simple worlds, all this matters
little. Those folks tend to grab the first number they find in Google,
ignore any information they don't like, and confidently declare that
they know more than anyone else.

Ignorance and hubris. Bookends for a closed mind.


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

R15757 wrote:

Frank K wrote:


:-) Ah, I see. It seems to _you_ that commuting would be no more than

one billion hours. And it seems to _you_ that all kids and all
recreational riding would total another billion hours. That's what it
seems to _you_.


Yes, that's what it seems to _me_.

Is anyone else impressed with that information source? ;-)


And you say "To me, your numbers appear to be based on JACK SQUAT."
Of course, some readers may be confused about how "It seems to YOU"
differs from "based on JACK SQUAT."


Yeah, especially if they possess Krygowski-like
reading comprehension skills. As I wrote, my
"numbers" (I didn't really give any)...

That says volumes, Robert.


Right now you are claiming 72 million Americans
ride 40 hours per year.

What I am _actually_ doing is quoting the data that the National Safety
Council posts on its web page. They determine participation in sports
and activities by referring to national surveys, among other things.
They determine fatalities from the national Fatal Accident Reporting
System. They determine ER visits from the National Electronic Injury
Surveillance System. These are the best numbers available in this country.

And the numbers they come up with are closely matched by similar
agencies in other countries who use different tactics.

Once again, this data indicates that the number of ER visits due to
bicycling are only a little higher than the number due to beds and
bedclothes. The data indicates that cycling causes far fewer ER visits
per hour than common, low risk activities, and that the risk of fatality
is even lower.

In other words, although you may hate to hear it, cycling is really very
safe!

I understand that your prejudice makes you detest this data. But at
this point, I'd say it's up to YOU to prove that the data collected by
these national experts - and by experts in other countires - is faulty.

So stop with the desparate protestation, Robert. And stop trying to get
_me_ to prove the National Safety Council's figures are wrong. If you
want to show cycling is horribly dangerous, it's time _you_ came up with
some real numbers - some numbers that have been accepted by someone
other than a "lowly bicycle messenger," as you describe yourself.

And as you poetically put it, those numbers should be based on something
other than "jack squat."



Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.


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

"R15757" wrote in message
...
Frank K wrote:

:-) Ah, I see. It seems to _you_ that commuting would be no more than

one billion hours. And it seems to _you_ that all kids and all
recreational riding would total another billion hours. That's what it
seems to _you_.

Yes, that's what it seems to _me_.
And that would be near the maximum
it seems to _me_. 3.2 billion hours per
year--Does that honestly seem like
an accurate figure to _you_, given the
complete lack of information on
methodology provided by the mysterious
Failure Analysis Associates? Please
tell us why you think that is a good
number. Maybe you can persuade me.
....
As I wrote, my
"numbers" (I didn't really give any) are based
on the US population and known figures for
bicycle commuters, known annual sales figures
for bicycles, and the knowledge that many
of these new bikes are virtually unused. Also,
the fact that most figures for the number of
cyclists in the country tends to range 20-50 million.
This is not enough information to come up with any
accurate per-hour figure, as I wrote. Let me ask you
again although you will not answer the
question: What are your per-hour numbers
based on??

Right now you are claiming 72 million Americans
ride 40 hours per year. These are the numbers
necessary for you to remain consistent with your
posted claims of per-hour fatality and injury
numbers.

Why should this seem such a grossly inflated number, when it represents an
average of less than 1 hour of cycling per week on average? While I don't
have any actual survey data to back up the following conjectural analysis,
let me illustrate how we could easily reach or exceed a total of 3.2 billion
hours of cycling per year here in the US.

If we were to assume there are roughly 1 million hard-core American cyclists
who manage to average 1000 hours of cycling per year (or 20 hours of cycling
per week), that would represent 1.0 billion cycling hours already. While
this might seem rather excessive to most non-cyclists or casual cyclists,
it's a level of effort easily reached or exceeded by nearly all "serious"
cyclists (racers, messengers, long-distance and/or full-time commuters,
etc), and a level of effort I personally managed to reach without too much
difficulty for two years running back in 1993-94.

If we now assume the next 2 million US cyclists average about 400 hours per
year (or a little more than an hour of cycling per day), that adds another
0.8 billion hours to the total. If we further assume the next 4 million
cyclists average 150 hours per year (or just 3 hours of cycling per week),
and the next 15 million cyclists average 40 hours per year, that adds
another 0.6 + 0.6 billion cycling hours, bringing the total up to 3.0
billion hours for 22 million US cyclists. If we then assume the huge
majority of US cyclists (the remaining 50 million) average just 10 hours per
year (less than 1 hour per month), the additional 0.5 billion hours brings
us to 3.5 billion hours of total cycling.

While these estimates are just my own WAG's of course, the relative
distribution of total cycling hours is probably a fairly decent reflection
of reality--where a relatively small portion of "serious" participants
manage to account for the vast majority of total activity (in this example,
the top 10% of cyclists accounting for over 2/3 of all cycling hours, and
probably over 80% of all cycling miles as well).

Riley (the once and future Iron Tortoise) Geary

In article ,
Frank Krygowski writes:
Bill Z. wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:


Not wearing a helmet _shouldn't_ have to be justified. But helmet
manufacturers, and organizations funded by their donations,
continually call for mandatory helmet laws. Thus, it's now
regrettably necessary to justify not wearing a helmet.


When was the last call for a mandatory helmet law and who made it?

Such ignorance!

There was one in committee in my state late last year. There are
efforts in Great Britain now, IIRC. There's an effort in Ontario right
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
now, for cyclists of all ages.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In fact that's still the subject heading (and was the
original topic) of this whole thread -- "Ontario Helmet
Law being pushed through" :-)


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Frank Krygowski writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:


:-) Come on, Bill, give Eric credit. [Erik's post] was an elegant example of
using Usenet to inject exactly the right timing, for perfect humorous
effect.

Your problem is you really don't have a sense of humor...

Oh, I don't know. I certainly thought Erik's post about you was
funny! I take it you disagree?

Snipped the part which showed you didn't get a joke, didn't you?
I wonder why. :-)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Frank Krygowski writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:


Not wearing a helmet _shouldn't_ have to be justified. But helmet
manufacturers, and organizations funded by their donations,
continually call for mandatory helmet laws. Thus, it's now
regrettably necessary to justify not wearing a helmet.
When was the last call for a mandatory helmet law and who made it?

Such ignorance!

There was one in committee in my state late last year. There are
efforts in Great Britain now, IIRC. There's an effort in Ontario
right now, for cyclists of all ages. And of course, there are
organizations like Safe Kids which have stated policies favoring
all-ages MHLs.

Uh Huh. "Stated policies" are not serious attempts at passing a
law, and a "committee" can be some number of citizens (including
just one) with an axe to grind.

I'll note that, after from your "such ignorance" snide remark,
you lacked the integrity to answer the question. Now, why don't you
start by naming the committee in your state, and give us its budget -
some indication that this is a serious effort and not something akin
to "The Veterans of Foreign Women" (my generic name for some
non-entity group with an axe to grind.)

And your behavior, Krygowski, is why I pretty much hold you in
complete contempt. I've yet to see you even attempt to engage
in a real discussion. All you do is mindless marketing and
amaturish attempts to imitate slime like Karl Rove.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

(Tom Keats) writes:

In article ,
Frank Krygowski writes:
Bill Z. wrote:

In fact that's still the subject heading (and was the
original topic) of this whole thread -- "Ontario Helmet
Law being pushed through" :-)

The "subject line" is nearly 6 months old. It isn't clear if
the effort succeeded or if it would at all qualify as as
serious one. What I was trying to get Frank to do is to list
all the cases he rants about - any current ones - and see if
what he really means. Given that he pretended that _Parade_
is a serious publication (it is really just a fluff-piece
filler for Sunday newspapers), one really can't take anything
he says on face value.

-
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Frank Krygowski writes:

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

The motivation is perfectly clear. Frank does not wear a helmet, and
hence if someone wears a helmet they must be misinformed because
Frank has never been in an accident where a helmet would have
prevented or reduced injuries. Frank eschews powerful bicycle
lights, so anyone that opts for more powerful lights must be
misinformed because Frank has never experienced a vehicle not seeing
him, or striking him.

As usual, Scharf speaks with incredible hubris and incredible
ignorance. And as usual, Scharf distorts what I've said in a desparate
attempt to look a little less foolish.

Hmm. You just said that about me, as you do about anyone who disagrees
with you on your helmet pet peeve.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. Wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:


As usual, Scharf speaks with incredible hubris and incredible
ignorance. And as usual, Scharf distorts what I've said in a
desparate
attempt to look a little less foolish.

Hmm. You just said that about me, as you do about anyone who disagrees
with you on your helmet pet peeve.

My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Well Bill - if the cap fits...?
There are some discernable differences between you and Scharf, but for
the most part you two do seem to exhibit striking similarities - I'd
say you two were cut from the same cloth - and what a weave it is!

As for what Frank says - it's appropriate - misrepresentation of your
opponents position seems to be one of your stock standard responses.

Roger


--
RogerDodger

Bill Z. wrote:

Hmm. You just said that about me, as you do about anyone who disagrees
with you on your helmet pet peeve.

Duh. Coming from Frank, that's a compliment.