Helmet Nazis at It Again!

A news item the last two days has been how the City is planning another
200 miles of bike lanes. For some reason, the liberals can't resist
throwing in the tidbit about some study finding that ~97% of bike
fatalities in the City involve riders not wearing a helmet. WTF???

Anyway, there's a spokesman from the Rebel Alliance on a segment of
Brian Lehrer's show "On the Line." It should be podcasted by tomorrow
if you miss it today.


http://www.wnyc.org/

NYC XYZ wrote:
A news item the last two days has been how the City is planning another
200 miles of bike lanes. For some reason, the liberals can't resist
throwing in the tidbit about some study finding that ~97% of bike
fatalities in the City involve riders not wearing a helmet. WTF???

Anyway, there's a spokesman from the Rebel Alliance on a segment of
Brian Lehrer's show "On the Line." It should be podcasted by tomorrow
if you miss it today.


http://www.wnyc.org/


Wow, Godwin's Law in the very first post of a thread.

SMS wrote:
NYC XYZ wrote:
A news item the last two days has been how the City is planning another
200 miles of bike lanes. For some reason, the liberals can't resist
throwing in the tidbit about some study finding that ~97% of bike
fatalities in the City involve riders not wearing a helmet. WTF???

Anyway, there's a spokesman from the Rebel Alliance on a segment of
Brian Lehrer's show "On the Line." It should be podcasted by tomorrow
if you miss it today.


http://www.wnyc.org/


Wow, Godwin's Law in the very first post of a thread.

It doesn't matter **** when you get run over by a semi or train. My
grand daughter saw one of her friends run over and chopped into pieces
by a semi with a hand, and only a hand, coming to rest near her foot.
The multi section dead girl did not have a scratch on her helmet, as if
it would have prevented an 80,000 pound vehicle from sectioning her body
in parts, obviously a bit more fatal than a bump on the head. If she
hadn't had a helmet, that statistic would have made it into the paper,
but I think the helmet impaired her hearing.
For all the idiot helmet fanatics.
Bill Baka

Jesus -- glad I used my spell-checker!

Are you Jewish or German?

LOL



SMS wrote:



Wow, Godwin's Law in the very first post of a thread.

"NYC XYZ" writes:

A news item the last two days has been how the City is planning another
200 miles of bike lanes. For some reason, the liberals can't resist
throwing in the tidbit about some study finding that ~97% of bike
fatalities in the City involve riders not wearing a helmet. WTF???

First, it is not "liberals" per se---politicians and city staff in
general like to throw out statistics, whether valid or not, that help
make a project they are pushing sound like it is necessary.

Second, why would a 97% figure sound surpising? Around where I live,
helmet use is far higher in the more wealthy communities compared to
the poorer ones, but the the wealthy communities also have the
resources for bike education programs in public schools that attempt
to teach children to obey traffic laws. The kids still run stop
signs, but at least they are more likely to be on the right side of
the road. If something similar is true in NYC, the 97% figure is
quite plausible. It simply means that the safest cyclists also tend
to use helmets (and probably lights at night as well). In addition
(around here) unlicensed drivers are more prevalent in the poorer
areas. That also may be true in NYC as well.

If you couple some extra protection from a helmet with using lights at
night, more or less obeying traffic laws, and riding where there are
fewer unlicensed drivers, then a huge fatality rate reduction (and
substantial accident rate reduction) is quite plausible.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:57:57 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:


If you couple some extra protection from a helmet with using lights at
night, more or less obeying traffic laws, and riding where there are
fewer unlicensed drivers, then a huge fatality rate reduction (and
substantial accident rate reduction) is quite plausible.

No need to couple the helmet at all - population studies show that
they have no positive effect.

writes:

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:57:57 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:


If you couple some extra protection from a helmet with using lights at
night, more or less obeying traffic laws, and riding where there are
fewer unlicensed drivers, then a huge fatality rate reduction (and
substantial accident rate reduction) is quite plausible.

No need to couple the helmet at all - population studies show that
they have no positive effect.

We went over this crap for years, and the "helmets don't work"
claim has been completely discredited. Nobody is claiming that
helmets are a panacea, but they are useful.

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 04:50:24 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:57:57 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:


If you couple some extra protection from a helmet with using lights at
night, more or less obeying traffic laws, and riding where there are
fewer unlicensed drivers, then a huge fatality rate reduction (and
substantial accident rate reduction) is quite plausible.

No need to couple the helmet at all - population studies show that
they have no positive effect.

We went over this crap for years, and the "helmets don't work"
claim has been completely discredited. Nobody is claiming that
helmets are a panacea, but they are useful.

Useful for scratches and scrapes perhaps.

But preventing serious injuries - zero (or negative) effect.

A net health cost.

writes:

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 04:50:24 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:


Useful for scratches and scrapes perhaps.
But preventing serious injuries - zero (or negative) effect.
A net health cost.


Pure rubbish! Measurements have shown a positive effect and
the things are dirt cheap. Check the archives if you want to
read up on it.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

How long can this crap go on, this must be some kind of record of wasted
time, either wear one and be happy, or don't wear one and be happy