Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

Bill Z. wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:


Bill Z. wrote:


Of course, you'll see these two completely ignore the URLs I posted...

Not at all! I read them and responded to the parts that were
pertinent. You can't blame _me_ that they were largely irrelevant!


Where did you respond? Maybe you should repeat it as a real response
never arrived.

I quote:

"Thanks - but what you've given there isn't much in the way of data. In
particular, you haven't proved that bicycling's gotten more dangerous.
Given that the red light cameras are catching these people, it's
entirely plausible that things are _safer_ for cycling. Yes, I know
there were people who said they felt walking was more dangerous - but
really, I was hoping for _data_, not uncorroborated opinions!"




Again, I asked for data. You gave me nine year old news stories about
four injuries, three of whom were pedestrians. You gave me no data.
As usual.


You made a claim that no benefits have been seen for helmet use.

That's true!

It is
*your* responsibility to show that your claim is correct, including
controling for all relevant factors that might effect the results.
Those *include* changes in driver behavior.

Wow. Maybe you should run that by a specialist in logic, Bill.

I claimed there have been no benefits seen for helmet use. I've given
citations elsewhere in this, and related, threads.

If you claim the reason for the lack of benefit is directly attributed
to changes in driver behavior - or to bad fairies, for that matter! -
it's up to _you_ to prove _your_ point. (And news stories that give one
lay person's opinion prove nothing!)


Also, pedestrian fatalities *are* relevant (the issue was evidence of
increasingly irresponsible driving.) Of course you know that and are
IMHO pretending otherwise.

Do you have data indicating that California pedestrian fatalities have
risen in the past 15 years or so? If so, let's have the _data_.


I can tell you from personal experience...

Quit blathering. Let's have the _data_.


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

Frank Krygowski writes:

Bill Z. wrote:


"Thanks - but what you've given there isn't much in the way of data.
In particular, you haven't proved that bicycling's gotten more
dangerous. Given that the red light cameras are catching these people,
it's entirely plausible that things are _safer_ for cycling. Yes, I
know there were people who said they felt walking was more dangerous -
but really, I was hoping for _data_, not uncorroborated opinions!"


Sigh. The red light cameras (located at a handful of intersections
in a city located in a much larger area), were put in *in response*
to a serious problem with red-light runners.

See http://www.its.berkeley.edu/techtransfer/resources/pub/nl/00fall/seeingred.html which states

"In San Francisco, with its compact driving environment and dense
network of signalized intersections, red-light running reached a
political crisis in 1994. This paper reports on a pilot photo
enforcement program which resulted in a 40 percent drop in violations
in the first six months at the enforced intersections."

See http://www.ccsf.edu/Events_Pubs/Guardsman/052297/news.html#red%20light
which says, "In response to the recent epidemic of red-light running, the San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) has developed a one-year pilot program called the Red Light Cameras Program."

You can also read
http://www.walksf.org/DPTPedFatalityReportFor98/report.html
and
http://www.sannet.gov/engineering-cip/services/public/rlphoto/faq.shtml
and
http://www.laub.com/ptf.asp.

Don't pretend that there hasn't been a serious problem.


You made a claim that no benefits have been seen for helmet use.

That's true!

It is
*your* responsibility to show that your claim is correct, including
controling for all relevant factors that might effect the results.
Those *include* changes in driver behavior.

Wow. Maybe you should run that by a specialist in logic, Bill.

Maybe you should learn what it takes to do serious research.

Quit blathering. Let's have the _data_.

You *have* plenty of data. You'll simply ignore it. What you don't
have is data backing up your claims. You specifically made a claim
about helmets, and now are trying to weasel out of the fact that you
have no valid data on which to base those claims due to your inability
to control for changes in driver behavior.

Calling it "blathering" is simply an attempt on your part to get out
of having to back up your claims.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Here's a transcript of the 'debate' for anyone who is interested:

http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/house...4.htm#P75_2972

Of course there are the typical lies and contraditions one would
expect but even now, knowing just how much cyclists self-loathe,
it still kind of surprises me just how much fear mongering and 'his
brains splattered all over the road' anecdotes are tied in with
cycling.

Note that the anti-cyclists have also stepped up their attack in the
UK.

Tragic though the phasing out of cycling on public roadways is, it is
even more tragic when one considers that bicycle helmets could have
been the basis for a landmark psychological experiment.

--
"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

Don't wanna wear one? Fine by be. Wanna drool on your grandkids when your
50. Go right ahead, There's a good chance nothing will happen to you.
Thiere is a risk something will, Me I prefer my kids don't need to change my
Diapers, but hey thats just me.

Like I said I'm still undecided I just know what works for me



"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:03:56 GMT, Chris Phillipo
wrote:


The helmet lobby? Do they fly black helicopters? I bet those
hypocritical *******s don't even wear helmets while doing it!

What point are you trying to make here?

That the helmet lobby in Canada is a figment of someone's overactive
imagination.

The helmet lobby exists. It is indisputable. People are out there
lobbying for helmet laws, and that is why you have this bill in
progress. There are people all over the world lobbying for helmet
laws.

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

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 04:28:49 -0500, Michael quoth:

Me I prefer my kids don't need to change my
Diapers, but hey thats just me.

You're very thoughtful.

bkr

"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.

Steve
http://bicyclelighting.com
"Believe what you're told. There'd be chaos if everyone thought for oneself"
World Famous Top Dog Hot Dog Stand, Berkeley, Oakland, San Jose

Bill Z. wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:


Bill Z. wrote:


"Thanks - but what you've given there isn't much in the way of data.
In particular, you haven't proved that bicycling's gotten more
dangerous. Given that the red light cameras are catching these people,
it's entirely plausible that things are _safer_ for cycling. Yes, I
know there were people who said they felt walking was more dangerous -
but really, I was hoping for _data_, not uncorroborated opinions!"



Sigh. The red light cameras (located at a handful of intersections
in a city located in a much larger area), were put in *in response*
to a serious problem with red-light runners.

See http://www.its.berkeley.edu/techtransfer/resources/pub/nl/00fall/seeingred.html which states

"In San Francisco, with its compact driving environment and dense
network of signalized intersections, red-light running reached a
political crisis in 1994. This paper reports on a pilot photo
enforcement program which resulted in a 40 percent drop in violations
in the first six months at the enforced intersections."

A 40% _drop_ since 1994? I thought you were saying things were _worse_. ??


See http://www.ccsf.edu/Events_Pubs/Guardsman/052297/news.html#red%20light
which says, "In response to the recent epidemic of red-light running, the San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) has developed a one-year pilot program called the Red Light Cameras Program."

Yes, and they too talk about great _reductions_ in the number of red
light runners due to their cameras. For example: "New DPT statistics
show that the number of red-light running violations caught on camera
has dropped by 29.24% since November 1996. "



You can also read
http://www.walksf.org/DPTPedFatalityReportFor98/report.html

"During the 1960's San Francisco averaged 48 pedestrian fatalities
annually, with a high of 62 fatalities in 1963 and a low of 38 in 1966.
The 1970's showed a marked decrease in pedestrian fatality rates, with
an average of 37.3 pedestrian fatalities per year. 1974 had the low for
the decade, with 31 pedestrian fatalities, and 1975 was the high with 49
pedestrian fatalities.2 The 1980's saw another drop in pedestrian
deaths, with an average of 28.2 pedestrians killed each year. 1986 was
the low with 20 fatalities, and 1988 was the high with 38 fatal
collisions.3 In the nine and a half year period 1990 - mid 1999, 307
pedestrians were killed on San Francisco streets, an average of 32.3
fatalities per year."

The graph makes it clear: the overall trend is down, with only the usual
statistical fluctuation due to small numbers overall.


and
http://www.sannet.gov/engineering-cip/services/public/rlphoto/faq.shtml

Nothing there documenting an increase in pedestrian deaths or injuries,
AFAICT.

and
http://www.laub.com/ptf.asp.

I'm all for pedestrian advocacy - but that site is another that does not
have data to indicate the danger to pedestrians is _worsening_.
(Comparing pedestrian deaths between San Fran and the rest of the
country is like comparing rodeo deaths between Oklahoma and Maine.)

You *have* plenty of data. You'll simply ignore it.

You don't understand, Bill. When you claim things have gotten _more_
dangerous for bicyclists and pedestrians, you're supposed to put up
figures that show _increasing_ problems, not problems being fixed!

And BTW, unless you're also pushing for pedestrian helmets (not without
precedent, I admit - http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/jpeds.html) then you
should be posting data about cycling. No?



But returning to your point: your contention is that helmets protect
very well, but it doesn't show up in the numbers because cycling has
gotten more dangerous due to red light running.

You've posted newspaper articles where individual pedestrians complain
about danger; and you say this proves [hah!] it's more dangerous for
both cyclists and pedestrians.

Here's the data on pedestrian and bicycle fatalities for 15 recent years.

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/chart.gif

Is it getting more dangerous to be a pedestrian?

Are the helmets protecting the cyclists? If so, why is the gradual
downward trend in cyclist fatalities not even as good as the gradual
downward trend in pedestrian fatalities?

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

Michael wrote:

Don't wanna wear one? Fine by be. Wanna drool on your grandkids when your
50. Go right ahead, There's a good chance nothing will happen to you.

I'm past 50 by a good margin. No drooling yet. And you're right,
there's an outstandingly excellent chance nothing will happen to me
while riding.


Thiere is a risk something will, Me I prefer my kids don't need to change my
Diapers, but hey thats just me.

Like I said I'm still undecided I just know what works for me

You're allowed to make your own decisions - assuming you live in a place
with a rational government, that is. I'm not trying to force you to
take off your helmet. Feel free to wear it while bicycling. You can
also feel free to wear it for other activities with higher per-hour head
injury risks.

But oddly enough, I've never known the "drooling when you're 50"
fearmongers to say the same thing about the number one cause of serious
American head injuries: riding in cars!

I've never heard them say the same thing about the number two cause:
falling around the home.

It's only bicycling that gets slammed. Despite its low per-hour injury
and death rate, lower than walking near traffic. Despite its tiny
contribution to the national head injury total.

Why disparage bicycling?

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]

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
Quit blathering. Let's have the _data_.

You *have* plenty of data. You'll simply ignore it. What you don't
have is data backing up your claims. You specifically made a claim
about helmets, and now are trying to weasel out of the fact that you
have no valid data on which to base those claims due to your inability
to control for changes in driver behavior.

I don't understand why people who don't want to wear helmets have to resort
to such fantastic fabrications in order to attempt to justify their decision
to others. I agree that wearing a helmet is uncomfortable, and that
statistically the chances of an accident where a helmet would provide the
margin of safety are very small. But you can't ignore the statistics
regarding comparative head injuries of cyclists involved in accidents, which
compare the severity of injuries of helmet wearers versus
non-helmet-wearers; in those cases, the helmet provides a big advantage.

Frank is famous for going on the personal attack when he has no data, just
ignore him. I kill-filed him long ago.

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...

You made a claim that no benefits have been seen for helmet use. It is
*your* responsibility to show that your claim is correct, including
controling for all relevant factors that might effect the results.
Those *include* changes in driver behavior.

The anti-helmet people base their opposition on the second factor, and it is
true that the likelihood of such a crash is extremely small, but often the
occurence of such a crash is beyond their control.

The pro-helmet people base their decision on the chance that they will be
part of the tiny percentage of people that are involved in a crash where
head injuries are likely. There is plenty of data that shows that helmet
wearers are far less likely to experience serious injury.

I don't think anyone disagrees that you're safer with a helmet, it's just a
question of whether the safety advantage is so small that it's immaterial.