Helmet Nazis at It Again!

writes:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:58:45 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:


Mandatory helmet laws for adults or children or both? :-) Please provide
a one-word answer (either "adults", "children", or "both") instead of
a long diatribe.

Why does it matter?

MHL's are a bad idea, adults, children, or both.

The question is Krygowski's claim about Bell Helmets allegedly paying
Safe Kids to lobby. BTW, yesterday I saw a college-aged guy fall off
a bike. He was carrying something that might have swung into the
front spokes, but whatever happened, he fell to the side, wasn't going
fast, and didn't get seriously hurt - maybe at worst a few scratches.
He wasn't wearing a helmet but didn't hit his head. Had he gone over
the handlebars, do you think a helmet might have helped prevent or at
least mitigate an injury? That's a simple yes/no question. Can you
manage providing a simple yes/no answer?


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

writes:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:44:01 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:

Cathy Kearns wrote:
"Bill Z." wrote in message
...


Given that the mileage on utility trips is apparently much less than
the mileage on the fun/training rides, I presume whatever additional
risk Cathy takes by not using a helmet has hardly any effect on
her risk per year.


True, but a person such as "Cathy" is probably using her cycle as
nearly much as she would absent an MHL. It is thise people who might
or might not use a cycle for utility tripos that we need to encourage.

That's probably why the mandatory helmet law in California excludes
adults - in the letter I wrote opposing a mandatory helmet law for
adults, I pointed out that we had a number of people who rode short
distances on quiet residential streets to a nearby train station,
followed by a 30 mile train ride to San Francisco, and that they were
safer commuting that way regardless of whether they used a helmet
due to train travel being so safe.

But I didn't disparage helmets to make that point (and that probably
made my letter seem a bit more credible to my elected representative).




--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Given that the mileage on utility trips is apparently much less than
the mileage on the fun/training rides, I presume whatever additional
risk Cathy takes by not using a helmet has hardly any effect on
her risk per year.

Oh, but wait! Safe Kids has told the world that the great majority of
kids bike accidents happen within one mile of home! That could be true
for people like Cathy, too! Why, it sounds like bicycling close to
home is TERRIBLY hazardous!!! A magic helmet might be her only way to
survive the Home-Centered Vortex of Danger!!!

Krygowski, are you really that dumb? The fast majority of kids' bike
accidents could easily happen within one mile of home because that
is where they spend most of their time riding. Why on earth would
you expect that to be true of Cathy?

Is Krygowski pretending that "within one mile of home" means "no
more than two miles per day"?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

If
you can't produce valid documentation, I simply won't believe you.

Yes, it's true. You won't believe me if I don't produce valid
documentation.

Oh, so you have no documentation.


OTOH, you also won't believe me if I _do_ produce valid documentation.
That's what's been going on here for many, many years.

Another lie from Krygowski. (In previous discussions, he'd cite some
paper that was either irrelevant, flawed, or misinterpretted and then
he'd complain when the problems with what he was saying were pointed
out.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:41:28 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:58:45 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:


Mandatory helmet laws for adults or children or both? :-) Please provide
a one-word answer (either "adults", "children", or "both") instead of
a long diatribe.

Why does it matter?

MHL's are a bad idea, adults, children, or both.

The question is Krygowski's claim about Bell Helmets allegedly paying
Safe Kids to lobby. BTW, yesterday I saw a college-aged guy fall off
a bike. He was carrying something that might have swung into the
front spokes, but whatever happened, he fell to the side, wasn't going
fast, and didn't get seriously hurt - maybe at worst a few scratches.
He wasn't wearing a helmet but didn't hit his head. Had he gone over
the handlebars, do you think a helmet might have helped prevent or at
least mitigate an injury? That's a simple yes/no question. Can you
manage providing a simple yes/no answer?


Why does it matter?

Helmets are a bad idea, adults, children, college-aged guys, or all
three.

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:53:09 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:44:01 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:

Cathy Kearns wrote:
"Bill Z." wrote in message
...


Given that the mileage on utility trips is apparently much less than
the mileage on the fun/training rides, I presume whatever additional
risk Cathy takes by not using a helmet has hardly any effect on
her risk per year.


True, but a person such as "Cathy" is probably using her cycle as
nearly much as she would absent an MHL. It is thise people who might
or might not use a cycle for utility tripos that we need to encourage.

That's probably why the mandatory helmet law in California excludes
adults

So far.

It'll be pretty easy to pass a law requiring all cyclists to wear
helmets when

a) they've all grown up suffering under a law that required them to do
so; and

b) there are many fewer of them because those whop would have been
cyclists gave it up due to the helmet law.

In light of those two points, it's worth remembering that California
passed the first of its helmet laws in 1987, just under 20 years ago.

writes:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:41:28 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:58:45 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:


Mandatory helmet laws for adults or children or both? :-) Please provide
a one-word answer (either "adults", "children", or "both") instead of
a long diatribe.

Why does it matter?

MHL's are a bad idea, adults, children, or both.

The question is Krygowski's claim about Bell Helmets allegedly paying
Safe Kids to lobby. BTW, yesterday I saw a college-aged guy fall off
a bike. He was carrying something that might have swung into the
front spokes, but whatever happened, he fell to the side, wasn't going
fast, and didn't get seriously hurt - maybe at worst a few scratches.
He wasn't wearing a helmet but didn't hit his head. Had he gone over
the handlebars, do you think a helmet might have helped prevent or at
least mitigate an injury? That's a simple yes/no question. Can you
manage providing a simple yes/no answer?


Why does it matter?

Helmets are a bad idea, adults, children, college-aged guys, or all
three.

Read what I said. Krygowski made a claim and apparently cannot
document it. I guess you anti-helmet zealots don't care about
the accuracy of what you say.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

wrote:
wrote:
On 3 Oct 2006 09:22:22 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:54:25 GMT, "Cathy Kearns"
wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...

Cathy Kearns wrote:
"Bill Z." wrote in message
...

What I'm claiming is that the drop in cyclist miles is less than the
drop in the number of cyclists, possibly by a lot, making a lot of
your claims doubtful.

I can certainly understand this. When I'm out to go bicycling, in my
lycra
garb, I wear my helmet. It matches, or rather, doesn't detract from my
already outrageous outfit. When I'm running errands, heading to
meetings,
going to sporting events I don't wear a helmet. If there were a
mandatory
helmet law for adults, I'd just drive my car to all those things
instead.
This use of bicycles is many, many less miles. Does get a car off the
road.


Are you saying that you view your helmet as a sort of fashion
accessory, one that "completes" your look when you are en regalia? Is
that why you wear it?

I'm in the "it doesn't hurt" category.

Look up "rotational injury", and "risk compensation".


And then look up "twisted, psychotic liar", to learn all about jtaylor.

Insults are a sign that the person employing them has no other form of
argument.

Calling a spade a spade is not an insult.


You'll find this is common among pro-MHL zealots.

Other than a tongue-in-cheek post by me that was pointed specifically
at you, I challenge you to show any evidence that I am pro-MHL. When
you fail to do so, and you surely will fail, I expect you to STFU.

How's it coming with the evidence that I am pro-MHL, butt nugget? Can't
produce any, eh? That's what I thought.

I'll remind you of your failure regularly.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:40:00 GMT, "Cathy Kearns"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:54:25 GMT, "Cathy Kearns"
wrote:
I'm in the "it doesn't hurt" category.

Look up "rotational injury", and "risk compensation".

I'm riding the back of a tandem. I am much, much, much more likely to
get
hit by a low hanging branch than go over the handlebars. As for risk
compensation, sitting on the back, with no control over steering,
braking,
or even shifting, I'm fairly sure I have no power over the "risk
compensation" portion of the ride. But that did make me smile.:-)


Yes -

but was your evaluation that for you individually "it doesn't hurt",
or for the population in general?

I'm not interested in putting a helmet on anyone but myself, so why would I
even consider the population in general? They get to make their own
decisions.

And in either case, did the fact that helmet-wearing and helmet laws
put people off cycling (with the resultant increase in health care
costs) enter into your evaluation?

Why would it? Now I did evaluate the risks for my health, and thought the
extra exercise I get running errands by bike would help my health enough to
completely mitigate the slight chance of me getting hurt in such a way a
helmet would make a difference. So given the choice the ride without a
helmet and get exercise or take the car and get no exercise, I ride without
the helmet. I must admit, if the choice was ride without a helmet, get
exercise, but risk getting a ticket, I'd take the car.

On 2006-10-03 07:50:58 -0400, said:

MHL's are a bad idea, adults, children, or both.

You have your opinion.

--
- Slim