|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1351
|
|||
|
|||
b_baka writes:
Steven M. Scharf wrote: Bill Z. wrote: On the contrary, your side has been claiming that helmets are not effective and "our" side is suggesting that your claims are based on inadequate evidence. Oh please. There are no "sides" here. There are two people, Guy and Frank, that ignore the volumes of evidence, and there is the ROW (rest of world), that looks at things objectively. It is true that cycling is not a dangerous activity, and that no mandatory helmet laws are necessary, but there is no debate that helmeted cyclists fare better than non-helmeted cyclists, when crashes do occur. There really is no argument over the logic that helmets do reduce head injuries, but I would like the option of making the decision to wear a helmet for myself. Unfortunately, these guys have been arguing that helmets do not reduce head injuries for years. Some of them even claimed that helmets cause injuries. I don't think you are familiar with the history of this discussion (undertandable since some of it occurred years ago.) -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
Ads |
#1353
|
|||
|
|||
b_baka wrote:
There really is no argument over the logic that helmets do reduce head injuries, You might want to go back and read this thread in its entirety! You're wrong when you say "there really is no argument." but I would like the option of making the decision to wear a helmet for myself. This is exactly what I, and most other people in this thread, have been saying for months. Unfortunately, for some people, it just isn't comprehensible how anyone can both acknowledge the reduction in head injuries and fatalities, when crashes occur, yet be opposed to compulsion. It's as if they simply can't bear to see someone who is able to understand both sides of the issue. |
#1354
|
|||
|
|||
On 6 Feb 2005 18:59:20 -0800, "
wrote: This is true. However look at the statistics on fatalities of motorcyclists in states that dropped their motorcycle MHLs. Not surprising that the rates went way up, i.e. in Lousiana they went from 26 to 55, in Kentucky from 24 to 38 (this was for the year after the repeal). Not magnitudes difference, but around 50-100% increase. That's not quite the whole picture, though, is it? CDC stats show that non-law states have a lower than average motorcyclist fatality rate per registered motorcycle (helmet-law states 3.38 deaths per 10,000, non-helmet-law states 3.05 deaths per 10,000), and as Adams shows in Risk, the effect of the helmet law in the UK was a significant relative rise in motorcyclist injuries and fatalities, and the effect of repeal in US states was a drop in the rates for those states. Much was made of the increase in fatality rates after repeal or partial repeal, but it was found on investigation that the increase was almost exclusively in states which had retained the law, with repeal states showing both better rates and better trends. IS it a "safety in numbers" thing? Maybe, maybe not. During the seven-year period from 1987 through 1993, states with no helmet laws or partial helmet laws (for riders under 21) suffered fewer deaths (2.89) per 100 accidents than those states with full helmet laws (2.93 deaths). Once again the probability of injury given crash is only half the story. And it remains the case that motorcycle helmets are not especially relevant to a discussion of cycle helmets. 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 CHS, Puget Sound |
#1355
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ups.com... .... However look at the statistics on fatalities of motorcyclists in states that dropped their motorcycle MHLs. Not surprising that the rates went way up, i.e. in Lousiana they went from 26 to 55, in Kentucky from 24 to 38 (this was for the year after the repeal). Not magnitudes difference, but around 50-100% increase. It's not just Louisiana and Kentucky (or the other states that have repealed their universal MHL's for motorcyclists in the last few years: Arkansas, Texas, and Florida) where motorcycle fatalities have been rising rapidly. From 1997, when motorcycle fatalities reached an all-time low of 2116 in the US, they have since risen by nearly 75% across the entire country (to 3661 as of 2003), in both MHL and non-MHL states alike. While it's true that the increases in motorcycle fatalities in those states that recently repealed their MHL's have outpaced the average rate of increase in other states, this is mostly because increases in motorcycle registrations in those same states have also outpaced the average rate of increase in other states. Attributing an increase in a state's motorcycle fatality rate exclusively or even primarily to the repeal of a MHL is exceedingly simplistic--except insofar as repeal of a MHL encourages more motorcycling of course. Riley Geary |
#1356
|
|||
|
|||
Riley Geary wrote:
this is mostly because increases in motorcycle registrations in those same states have also outpaced the average rate of increase in other states. This is not true. The fatalities have _far_ outpaced the increase in registrations. Motorcyclists Killed per 10,000 Registered have steadily increased since the repeal of the law. You can see the data at: "http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/kentuky-la03/LawChgLa.html" Look, most of us here are opposed to MHLs for both motorcycles and bicycles, but this is in spite of the data, because of the personal freedom aspect. It does this cause no good to lie about reality. |
#1357
|
|||
|
|||
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message ... .... And it remains the case that motorcycle helmets are not especially relevant to a discussion of cycle helmets. I'll have to respectfully disagree with Guy (and Bill Baka) on this, since my research into motorcycling fatalities has led me to conclude that some form of risk compensation among helmet-using motorcyclists is by far the most compelling rationale to explain the huge differences seen in the apparent effectiveness of motorcycle helmets between states with a MHL and states without a MHL, and particularly in states that have recently repealed a MHL. If similar risk compensation characteristics apply equally well to bicyclists, then we not only have a reasonably coherent explanation as to why bike helmet use has had little or no favorable impact on overall bicycle fatality rates, but a powerful argument against imposing a MHL on bicyclists as well. Riley Geary |
#1358
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:21:25 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote: There are no "helmet zealots" posting in this discussion, although there are several anti-helmet zealots. Those of us disagreeing with you have simply been pointing out that you haven't proven your case. So you say, and yet you repeatedly make claims in defence of helmets which turn out to have no evidential basis - which looks suspiciously like zealotry to me. And I remind you: I have no case to prove, I am not proposing any intervention. You downplay your position here - I wonder why? I'm not "downplaying" it. I'm stating what I've been stating for the past 10 years (your sides attempt to pretend otherwise notwithstanding.) I don't think anybody is trying to say that you are anything other than consistent; that has no bearing on the quality or otherwise of your argument, or on the inference which may be drawn from your repeated attempts to make claims for helmets which turn out to be either without evidential basis (and in at least one case directly contradicted by the evidence). Neither does it have any bearing on the fundamental truth that we, the sceptics, have no case to prove: it is quite sufficient for us to point out flaws in the arguments advanced by those who seek to promote an intervention. But I'm always open for new facts, and have been known to change my mind based on new and emerging evidence (that's how I arrived at my current view, after all). If you have evidence that cycling is unusually dangerous, unusually productive of head injuries, if you can cite a pro-helmet study free of self-selection bias and other confounding, if you can detail a jurisdiction where increases in helmet use have led directly to improved cycle safety, if you can detail an enforced helmet law which has not resulted in significant reductions in cycling, then let me know. I want to hear about it. In the mean time the well-funded handwringers pushing laws use the discredited 85% and misrepresent even that. Twenty years ago the idea that cycling was lethally dangerous would have been laughed at. Now the model of cycling pursued by many is driving to some off-road leisure facility with the bikes on the back of the car - and I believe that a lot of this is the result of hysterical "BIKE DANGER!!!" posturing by the helmet lobby.. plonk for the rest of today Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening". 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 CHS, Puget Sound |
#1359
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:18:30 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote: Unfortunately, these guys have been arguing that helmets do not reduce head injuries for years. Really? Where? If you look at real-world figures they have no measurable effect on serious and fatal head injuries, but I don't know anybody who says they don't prevent the trivial cuts and bumps they are designed for. 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 CHS, Puget Sound |
#1360
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:35:36 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote: There really is no argument over the logic that helmets do reduce head injuries, You might want to go back and read this thread in its entirety! You're wrong when you say "there really is no argument." Up to a point: the argument is whether the probability of injury given ride is more important than the probability of injury given crash (which I would suggest it is), and whether the prevention of mainly trivial injuries is sufficient to make such a song and dance about. but I would like the option of making the decision to wear a helmet for myself. This is exactly what I, and most other people in this thread, have been saying for months. Up to a point. What you've actually been doing is pleading that this is your position, while telling anybody who will listen that they should use your "helmets work but don't make us wear them" approach rather than the reality-based approach which has defeated several helmet laws recently. Unfortunately, for some people, it just isn't comprehensible how anyone can both acknowledge the reduction in head injuries and fatalities, when crashes occur, yet be opposed to compulsion. It's as if they simply can't bear to see someone who is able to understand both sides of the issue. Time to get a mirror, Mr Scharf. And time to read up on risk compensation. 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 CHS, Puget Sound |
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 05:56 PM |