A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Social Issues
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ontario Anti-Law Campaign



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 11th 04, 03:50 AM
Frank Krygowski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Chris Phillipo wrote:


Why oh why do these sites only take fatalities into account.


There are good reasons. Here are a couple:

First, those who promote MHLs always seem to focus on saving lives.
It's useful to show that idea's false.

Second, there's little doubt when a person is dead. The definition of
"Dead" is pretty water tight. By contrast, the definition of "head
injury" is amazingly vague - in fact there is no official definition.

More detail on that: the Thompson & Rivara study that calculated the
ridiculous "85%" benefit from helmets literally counted scratched chins
and cut ears as "head injuries," as in "injuries above the neck." Of
course, helmet promoters know that most people hear the words "head
injuries" and think of human vegetables. The fuzzy definition works to
the helmet promoters' advantage.

The FACT
is, if an accident is severe enough to kill you then it's going to kill
you with or without a Styrofoam hat on your head. The value of helmets
is injury prevention.


It would be good if you'd repeat that, loudly and often. If legislators
understood how truly limited helmets are, they wouldn't be trying to
pass inane laws.


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

Ads
  #12  
Old November 11th 04, 04:13 AM
Claire Petersky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Would you PLEASE put "helmet" back in the thread title so my newsreader will
properly disregard these messages?

Many thanks.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky


  #13  
Old November 11th 04, 11:57 AM
Just zis Guy, you know?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:50:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

More detail on that: the Thompson & Rivara study that calculated the
ridiculous "85%" benefit from helmets literally counted scratched chins
and cut ears as "head injuries," as in "injuries above the neck." Of
course, helmet promoters know that most people hear the words "head
injuries" and think of human vegetables. The fuzzy definition works to
the helmet promoters' advantage.


They also claimed a higher efficacy for brain injury, which is
inherently implausible until you realise that headaches were counted
as brain injuries.

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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ontario Anti-Law Campaign JFJones General 12 November 11th 04 11:57 AM
Back on the A12 - Cycle safety campaign starts again Peter Fox UK 4 July 27th 04 09:11 AM
open invite to a Sarnia Ontario trials demo Sofa Unicycling 3 July 13th 04 03:24 AM
Southern Ontario 100KM Coker Ride Aug 21 Sofa Unicycling 5 June 30th 04 02:57 PM
CTC / Cycle Campaign Network Autumn Conference Simon Geller UK 0 September 2nd 03 11:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.