Austin to Evaluate Local Emergency Room Data to Determine Whetheror Not to Implement an All-Ages Helmet Law

"http://keyetv.com/topstories/local_story_284175358.html"

I think that the second line of the story was supposed to say "They will
now get some from local hospitals," rather than "They will not get some
from local hospitals."

This is likely bad news for the AHZ's, as the current ER data already
proves the benefits of helmet use when a head impact accident occurs.

IMVAIO, the city council needs to not look at just ER data, but at the
relatively small number of serious accidents. By looking only at the
subset of accidents, they are not looking at the big picture, but then
politicians rarely do.

SMS wrote:
"http://keyetv.com/topstories/local_story_284175358.html"

I think that the second line of the story was supposed to say "They will
now get some from local hospitals," rather than "They will not get some
from local hospitals."

This is likely bad news for the AHZ's, as the current ER data already
proves the benefits of helmet use when a head impact accident occurs.

IMVAIO, the city council needs to not look at just ER data, but at the
relatively small number of serious accidents. By looking only at the
subset of accidents, they are not looking at the big picture, but then
politicians rarely do.

This should bring the Anti-helmet Psychos out in force, with their
usual maniacal, self-defeating rants:

*Helmets make it more likely you will hit your head

*Helmets make it more likely you will receive a brain injury

*Helmets make it more likely you will be hit by a car

*Helmets make cycling more dangerous

.....and they'll wonder why sane people roll their eyes, shrug and stop
listening to them.

(Duck! here they come!)

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:53:47 -0700, SMS
wrote:

IMVAIO, the city council needs to not look at just ER data, but at the
relatively small number of serious accidents. By looking only at the
subset of accidents, they are not looking at the big picture, but then
politicians rarely do.

Even more rational would be to look at the real number of incidents
and then consider that in the light of the number of riders and miles
travelled. Unless they're getting an awfully large number of ER
visits involving head injuries, a helmet law seems like a poor place
to start improving bike safety; the place to spend the money is where
you can achieve a reduction in the number of incidents overall, not in
trying to mitigate one type of injury in a group that's probably not
very large to start with. Of course, the city council's actions will
doubtless be influenced by the fact that they can mandate rider helmet
usage without having to allocate one cent to making those helmets
available or effective, while anything else they tried in pursuit of
injury reduction (short of just banning bikes) would require that they
actually do something to make riding safer overall...and would need
money to get the job done.

Yes, I wear a helmet. No, I don't give a rat's ass whether anyone
else does as long as I won't have to directly pay their bills.


--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Werehatrack wrote:
Yes, I wear a helmet. No, I don't give a rat's ass whether anyone
else does as long as I won't have to directly pay their bills.


Without getting into the argument of helmet efficacy I'd just say that
if your statement is to be taken as meaning that YOU believe helmets
work but don't care if others use them as long as you don't directly
pay I'd just point out that unless you are defing "directly" very
narrowly that the situation is impossible.
If you pay taxes you are paying directly.
If you pay for health insurance you pay directly.
If your employer pays for health insurance you are paying directly in
the form of adjusted (lower) wages.
If you have no insurance but still get medical care you pay directly as
both the costs of excess capacity and non reimbursed care are reflected
in what you pay.

So, it is pretty hard to avoid paying.

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:35:32 GMT, Werehatrack
wrote:


Even more rational would be to look at the real number of incidents
and then consider that in the light of the number of riders and miles
travelled. Unless they're getting an awfully large number of ER
visits involving head injuries, a helmet law seems like a poor place
to start improving bike safety; the place to spend the money is where
you can achieve a reduction in the number of incidents overall, not in
trying to mitigate one type of injury in a group that's probably not
very large to start with.

Motorcar drivers and passengers would be a good place. There are a
large number of head injuries and deaths resulting from head injury
amongst occupants of motocars; they can wear heavy helmets that are
truly designed (unlike cycle helmets) to significantly reduce these
injuries, and they can afford to purchase them.

That we have pro-helmet and pro-MHL posters in this newgroup who are
not (as far as we know) advocating for such more sensible laws might
seem odd, except that they are the same ones that can't count, can't
do sums, brag about ignoring the data, ceaselessly insult people who
point out their errors, and in general show that pro-helmet zealots
and pro-helmet-law zealots do their "cause" no good by their mere
existance.

And a Good Thing too.

On 17 Oct 2006 10:54:29 -0700, "gds" wrote:


Werehatrack wrote:
Yes, I wear a helmet. No, I don't give a rat's ass whether anyone
else does as long as I won't have to directly pay their bills.


Without getting into the argument of helmet efficacy I'd just say that
if your statement is to be taken as meaning that YOU believe helmets
work but don't care if others use them as long as you don't directly
pay I'd just point out that unless you are defing "directly" very
narrowly that the situation is impossible.
If you pay taxes you are paying directly.
If you pay for health insurance you pay directly.
If your employer pays for health insurance you are paying directly in
the form of adjusted (lower) wages.
If you have no insurance but still get medical care you pay directly as
both the costs of excess capacity and non reimbursed care are reflected
in what you pay.

So, it is pretty hard to avoid paying.

worse - in the case of increased health costs due to helmet promotion
and legislation, nearly impossible.

wrote:
SMS wrote:
"http://keyetv.com/topstories/local_story_284175358.html"

I think that the second line of the story was supposed to say "They will
now get some from local hospitals," rather than "They will not get some
from local hospitals."

This is likely bad news for the AHZ's, as the current ER data already
proves the benefits of helmet use when a head impact accident occurs.

IMVAIO, the city council needs to not look at just ER data, but at the
relatively small number of serious accidents. By looking only at the
subset of accidents, they are not looking at the big picture, but then
politicians rarely do.

This should bring the Anti-helmet Psychos out in force, with their
usual maniacal, self-defeating rants:

*Helmets make it more likely you will hit your head

*Helmets make it more likely you will receive a brain injury

*Helmets make it more likely you will be hit by a car

*Helmets make cycling more dangerous


Ooops, I forgot to include one Anti-helmet Psycho rant:

*Helmet use increases health costs


....and they'll wonder why sane people roll their eyes, shrug and stop
listening to them.

(Duck! here they come!)

wrote:


This should bring the Anti-helmet Psychos out in force, with their
usual maniacal, self-defeating rants:

*Helmets make it more likely you will hit your head

*Helmets make it more likely you will receive a brain injury

*Helmets make it more likely you will be hit by a car

*Helmets make cycling more dangerous

....and they'll wonder why sane people roll their eyes, shrug and stop
listening to them.

(Duck! here they come!)

:-) Hilarious!

Pro-helmet "Ozark" doesn't seem to realize that, by posting the above,
he's eagerly resurrecting his "usual maniacal, self-defeating rants!"

Carry on, Ozark! You're fun to watch!

- Frank Krygowski

Speaking of Anti-helmet Psychos, the Grand Poohbah of Anti-helmet
Psychos, Frank "Limp Willy" Krygowski, just weighed in:


wrote:
wrote:


This should bring the Anti-helmet Psychos out in force, with their
usual maniacal, self-defeating rants:

*Helmets make it more likely you will hit your head

*Helmets make it more likely you will receive a brain injury

*Helmets make it more likely you will be hit by a car

*Helmets make cycling more dangerous

....and they'll wonder why sane people roll their eyes, shrug and stop
listening to them.

(Duck! here they come!)

:-) Hilarious!

Pro-helmet "Ozark" doesn't seem to realize that, by posting the above,
he's eagerly resurrecting his "usual maniacal, self-defeating rants!"

Carry on, Ozark! You're fun to watch!

- Frank Krygowski

wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:35:32 GMT, Werehatrack
wrote:


Even more rational would be to look at the real number of incidents
and then consider that in the light of the number of riders and miles
travelled. Unless they're getting an awfully large number of ER
visits involving head injuries, a helmet law seems like a poor place
to start improving bike safety; the place to spend the money is where
you can achieve a reduction in the number of incidents overall, not in
trying to mitigate one type of injury in a group that's probably not
very large to start with.

Motorcar drivers and passengers would be a good place. There are a
large number of head injuries and deaths resulting from head injury
amongst occupants of motocars; they can wear heavy helmets that are
truly designed (unlike cycle helmets) to significantly reduce these
injuries, and they can afford to purchase them.

That we have pro-helmet and pro-MHL posters in this newgroup who are
not (as far as we know) advocating for such more sensible laws might
seem odd, except that they are the same ones that can't count, can't
do sums, brag about ignoring the data, ceaselessly insult people who
point out their errors, and in general show that pro-helmet zealots
and pro-helmet-law zealots do their "cause" no good by their mere
existance.

And a Good Thing too.

Just wondering what meds you are on.
I can't remember a single person posting here who is in favor of MHL's.
Beyond that those who actively promote helmet use for others is also
pretty small.
If you read the threads you have a fair number of folks saying
something like "using a helmet, especially in certain circumstances
makes sense to me, so I'll choose to do so"
That is hardly a zealot postion being staked out.

It is also interesting, at least to me, that you can manage to sound so
angry over this. Why is it so important?