|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:26:26 GMT, "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. And the sceptics acknowledge both, look at the injury trends for whole populations (which are necessarily more robust than for the tiny groups in pro-0helmet observational studies) and conclude that, overall, if you want to reduce cyclist injuries, helmets are a long way down the prority list. A poll of British doctors put it sixth out of six possible interventions, a study by the Transport research Laboratory put it tenth of ten possible interventions and a factor of 25 behind the likely most effective, being traffic calming. So the logical thing to do is tell all the helmet zealots to butt out and return to a proper cycle safety agenda. 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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:26:26 GMT, "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. And the sceptics acknowledge both, look at the injury trends for whole populations (which are necessarily more robust than for the tiny groups in pro-0helmet observational studies) and conclude that, overall, if you want to reduce cyclist injuries, helmets are a long way down the prority list. That is the typical flawed logic we've seen in this thread. The fact that there are other ways to also reduce injuries, are irrelevant. These other measures should be taken, but they are not exclusive. The anti-helmet zealots want to prove that helmets don't prevent injuries, but the facts speak for themselves. You have to look at how helmeted versus non-helmeted cyclists fare in crashes, the fact that traffic calming might have prevented some of the accidents doesn't figure into the equation. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:12:51 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote: And the sceptics acknowledge both, look at the injury trends for whole populations (which are necessarily more robust than for the tiny groups in pro-0helmet observational studies) and conclude that, overall, if you want to reduce cyclist injuries, helmets are a long way down the prority list. That is the typical flawed logic we've seen in this thread. The fact that there are other ways to also reduce injuries, are irrelevant. These other measures should be taken, but they are not exclusive. The anti-helmet zealots want to prove that helmets don't prevent injuries, but the facts speak for themselves. You have to look at how helmeted versus non-helmeted cyclists fare in crashes, the fact that traffic calming might have prevented some of the accidents doesn't figure into the equation. Steven, please introduce me to an anti-helmet zealot some time. I have never met one. I have met one person who is anti-helmet (in two years of active campaigning at a national level), but he is an academic and absolutely not a zealot of any description. The logic is not flawed. Mention cyclist safety in almost any public context and helmets will be the first ting mentioned. The reason for that is that helmet zealots are obsessed with them. They put up posters, they have websites, they lobby parliaments, they write bills which sometimes become law, they fill the medical press, they are in the newspapers and on TV. When was the last time you saw any large-scale campaign on cycle safety which was not primarily focused on helmets? There is simply no justification for this monomania. We know that in New Zealand %HI for peds and cyclists trended identically through a period where helmet use went from the mid 40s percent to the high 90s. We know that head injury risk per cyclist in the USA increased by 40% as helmet use rose from 18% to 50%. We know that the two safest cycling countries - Netherlands and Denmark - have negligible helmet wearing rates. We know that the countries with the worst cyclist safety records have high helmet wearing rates. Any remotely sane approach to cyclist safety cannot help but view helmets as a controversial irrelevance, a sideshow. The known bad effects - portraying cycling as dangerous and thus deterring participation; and giving an exaggerated view of the benefit of helmets - make even promotion a risky business, let alone compulsion. I can't immediately think of any other area of public policy where the glare of legislative attention is focused so brightly and so relentlessly on so obviously the wrong target. 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | Social Issues | 1716 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
Another doctor questions helmet research | JFJones | General | 80 | August 16th 04 10:44 AM |
First Helmet : jury is out. | Walter Mitty | General | 125 | June 26th 04 02:00 AM |
Fule face helmet - review | Mikefule | Unicycling | 8 | January 14th 04 06:56 PM |