Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through - Page 2

Re: Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:08:50 +0000, Chris Phillipo wrote:

> In article <ol7mo05n8jn7kanquq2qpgqt7e6f4t7972@4ax.com>, bikerider@-no-
> spam-thanks-rogers.com says...
>>
>> I wonder why. Are you aware that mandatory helmet laws implemented in
>> Alberta, Nova Scotia, New Zealand and parts of Australia have not only
>> not shown benefits but have actually had negative effects (decreased
>> numbers of cyclists in all cases and sometimes an increase in the rate
>> of head injury after the law is enacted)?
>>
>
> Ho hum, that would be a neat trick considering the helmet laws are not
> even enforced outside of Halifax in Nova Scotia. Which makes me think
> the rest of these "statitics" are in quesiton.


In New Zealand the law is savagely and ferociously enforced.
Between 1994 (law begin) and now:
Reduction in numbers of bicyclists 34%
Reduction in numbers of children bicycling 80%
Reduction in numbers of women bicycling 90%
Reduction in head injuries, deaths 19%

Peter


--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

Re: Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

So Bob, it improves your odds of walking away huh? Well I have a question for you (actually it more of a challenge than a question - an epistemological challenge).
How would you know that? That's the crux question, Bob.

See you don't know that wearing a helmet improves you odds of walking away. Indeed you're not alone in believing it, but just cause a lot of people all believe something doesn't make it true. The evidence suggests that the belief that a helmet will improve your odds of walking away is an illusion, an enticing illusion that a lot of people willingly buy into and, even worse tend to become advocates for and expouse fervently. There's the problem - people erroneously believe that helmets make a substantial and worthwile difference when they in fact don't and then the emphasis that is given to wearing helmets takes priority and the place of other *real* safety initiatives and improvements that could be made for us cyclists. The bottom line is that those cyclists among us who bang on about the "vital need" for helmets are doing Cycling a grave disservice. Something like sucking a dummy, but worse. It's hard enough trying to get respect, care and consideration from motorists as it is without some of our number bleating on about our need to wear poly-bonnets which which aren't worth a pinch of s_ _ t.

Roger

Re: Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

While not disputing what Peter is getting at, the last figure
--Reduction in head injuries, deaths 19%-- has been shown to be flawed [1], it is procured by means of the ubiquitous "fudge factor method". It comes from a report published in Accident Analysis & Prevention by Scuffham P, Alsop J, Cryer C, Langley JD.
(AAP, 2000;32, p565-573) which dispensed with the inclusion of a downward trend variable from the data analysis because when it was included (as it should have been) it swamped the "helmet effect" to such an extent that there was no significant helmet effect! (Omit the downward trend variable and hey presto we get a helmet effect appearing in its place - statistical abra cadabra!)

So it is more accurate to say that Scuffhams previous research finding of no significant helmet effect (AAP 1997) is the safer and more reliable finding. Incidentally what Scuffham found in the earlier research (Accid.Anal and Prev.,1997, Vol.29 pp1-9.) was that while there wasn't a detectable significant association between increased helmet wearing and head injuries there was a significand downward trend in head injuries due to other unidentified factors (this downward trend is not atypical, it seems to be a worldwide phenomenon) and this downward trend was apparent in the period 1980 - 1986 when helmet wearing was basically zilch (less than 1% nationwide) futhermore this this downward trend continued at the same rate from 1987 1990-92 despite the helmet wearing rate rocketing up past 50%.

[1]Note Dorothy Robinson has a piece published in AAP (2001) demonstrating the flaw in Scuffham et al's research.

Roger

Re: Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

Chris B. <bikerider@-no-spam-thanks-rogers.com> writes:

> On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:25:14 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@mousepotato.com> wrote:
>
> >Chris B. wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Frank, why did you remove the cross post? It is very much on topic
> >> for ont.bicycle.
> >
> >Because my system won't let me post there. When I try, the entire post
> >hangs. I agree it's very much on topic there. Feel free to copy.
>
> I hadn't even considered that, sorry.
>

Krygoswki's claim doesn't make much sense - normally you get an
error if you can't post and the newsreader just reports it. If
he really can't post, then he should first try a different newsreader
to rule out a bug in the version of Mozilla he uses (5.0) and
then report the problem to his employer (he seems to be posting
from work.)

Re: Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

No Maggie, you are not hurting even yourself if you don't wear a helmet and that's because helmets don't and can't do anything like what all the hyperbolic hoopla says they can do. It's utter drivel. Even the manufacturers pay attention to this fact in the disclaimer that accompanies the helmet - if they didn't they'd lay themselves wide open to claims. I'll tell you who is stupid - its the peabrains who have this peculiar need to make these off the planet exaggerations about what helmets are capable of (sfa) and go overboard trying to persuade us that we're the stupid ones (yeah perverse that - they've got that back to front). Talking about perverse and back to front have you heard about a Zilly yob by the name of Zau?

Roger

Re: Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

Whenever I see someone writing that they get irked at the sight of someone riding not wearing a poly bonnet, well, by gee, does that get me irked -irretrievably irked. Irked beyond compare.
I get irked that someone else gets irked? Watchout for that loop!

Tennis with C.S.Lewis => how about this from Henry David Thoreau "If someone should come to my house with the conscious design of doing me some good, I should run for my life"

DodgerRoger

Re: Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

Bill Z ALERT! Bill Z ALERT! Bill Z ALERT! Bill Z

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

Any time soon, for those not au fait with this naught little boy (yob) Zilly Billy Z will undoubtedly start up here with his stock in trade gratuitous character assinations.

Re: Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

PS "assinations" was an unintended spelling mistake, but it adds an interisting twist so I'll let it stand?

Re: Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@mousepotato.com> wrote in message news:<418c35ec@news.ysu.edu>...
> Chris B. wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Frank, why did you remove the cross post? It is very much on topic
> > for ont.bicycle.
>
> Because my system won't let me post there. When I try, the entire post
> hangs. I agree it's very much on topic there. Feel free to copy.

You can post via Google. It can be accessed via the three newsgroups, eg
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...up=ont.bicycle

Re: Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in message news:<m3fz3nwwze.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
> Dragan Cvetkovic <me@privacy.net> writes:
>
> > Chris Phillipo <cphillipo@ramsays-online.com> writes:
> >
> > > In article <ol7mo05n8jn7kanquq2qpgqt7e6f4t7972@4ax.com>, bikerider@-no-
> > > spam-thanks-rogers.com says...
> > >>
> > >> I wonder why. Are you aware that mandatory helmet laws implemented in
> > >> Alberta, Nova Scotia, New Zealand and parts of Australia have not only
> > >> not shown benefits but have actually had negative effects (decreased
> > >> numbers of cyclists in all cases and sometimes an increase in the rate
> > >> of head injury after the law is enacted)?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Ho hum, that would be a neat trick considering the helmet laws are not
> > > even enforced outside of Halifax in Nova Scotia. Which makes me think
> > > the rest of these "statitics" are in quesiton.
> >
> > Are you saying that people should obey the law only if it is actually and
> > actively enforced?
>
>
> He's saying what I have said for years on this topic: that laws that
> are not obeyed or enforced have zero impact on human behavior. People
> are not going to stop cycling because of a helmet law that is neither
> obeyed nor enforced.
>
> Bill

Unlike cynical Bill, some people have ethical values that prevent them
becoming lawbreakers. They quit cycling through self-enforcement or in
the case of kids parental enforcement.

Re: Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

According to Canadian Cyclist
http://www.canadiancyclist.com/daily...2.39PM17.shtml
it has been sent to committee for study.

It would seem to me that some benefit might be obtained by targeting the
members of this committee. Does anybody know the correct procedure
for such communication.

Another case of politicians making decisions with bad information and
once this happens laws may be modified but never repealed as that would
cause loss of face for the originators of such poorly considered statutes.

Since CPSC bicycle helmets are designed for low speed, low energy
impacts and more head injuries occur from slipping in the bathtub or
shower than bicycling perhaps as an alternative mandating the use in
that environment would make far more sense. ;^)

Marcus Coles

Re: Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

jonesjjff@hotmail.com (JFJones) writes:

> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in message news:<m3fz3nwwze.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
> > Dragan Cvetkovic <me@privacy.net> writes:
> > >
> > > Are you saying that people should obey the law only if it is actually and
> > > actively enforced?
> >
> > He's saying what I have said for years on this topic: that laws that
> > are not obeyed or enforced have zero impact on human behavior. People
> > are not going to stop cycling because of a helmet law that is neither
> > obeyed nor enforced.
> >
> > Bill
>
> Unlike cynical Bill, some people have ethical values that prevent them
> becoming lawbreakers. They quit cycling through self-enforcement or in
> the case of kids parental enforcement.

Some of us are ethical enough to report what we see accurately. On
quite a number of occassions around here, I've seen kids riding
without helmets and the police ignoring them, and this is in a state
where we do have a helmet law that applies to anyone 17 (18?) or
under.

That's the reality, moronic self-styled "moralists" who confuse
reporting the facts with a person's own ethical standards
notwithstanding. I might add that many parents probably don't even
know the law exists (it isn't publicized very well), in which case
Jone's "ethical values" / "self-enforcement" claims would be
particularly daft. "Ethical values" do not compel you to obey a
law that you don't know exists.

My guess is that Jones is a Bush supporter---he's sufficiently
out of touch with the real world. Any bets?

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Re: Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

Chris Phillipo wrote:
> In article <YcKdnbTeDtyBaRbcRVn-sg@comcast.com>, Austin260@comcast.net
> says...
>> Then your location is a fluke. Virtually everywhere else MHL's are put
>> in
>> place, ridership declines.
>>
>> But my suspicion is that your collection methods are more flawed than the
>> one who found ridership is down. You do base your statement on a
>> scientific
>> survey, not your own impression, right?
>>
>> Austin
>> --
>> I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
>> There are no X characters in my address
>>
>>
>
> I base my statement on having sold more bikes in the past 2 years than
> ever before and there being a club with over 100 members vs. 10 from 2
> years ago.

If you sell bicycles, then you really ought to know that ownership does not
equal ridership. Today, probably 95% of all bicycles sold never see 100
miles, ever.

Club ridership is also misleading. There is more club ridership, but not to
many years ago almost nobody rode in clubs.

Austin

Re: Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

Chris Phillipo wrote:
> In article <f4e5620e.0411060652.68428ca9@posting.google.com>,
> jonesjjff@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> Unlike cynical Bill, some people have ethical values that prevent them
>> becoming lawbreakers. They quit cycling through self-enforcement or in
>> the case of kids parental enforcement.
>>
>>
> Well not counting you, I haven't met that person.

I've met a dozen. I'm even married to a woman who has said "If they make me
wear a helmet, I'm not riding." I know her well enough that it makes no to
her difference if the law is enforced or not.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

Re: Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

Ken [NY] wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:33:04 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@mousepotato.com> claims:
>
>
>>Ken [NY) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>To the fellow who was thinking about fleeing to Canada from
>>>the horrors of Bush's low tax rates, you might want to think about
>>>this proposed law.
>>>
>>
>>But then, there's the opportunity to get free of Neanderthal right
>>wingers and their simplistic "thinking." The choice isn't easy!
>
>
> Those "Neanderthal right wingers" just sent a mandate to Mr.
> Bush to continue his policies,

I believe you're oversimplifying - as is Mr. Bush. Not surprising in
either case.

so forgive them (us) their gloating and
> their "simplistic thinking".

:-) I can't believe you're asking for forgiveness!

> It's funny, but the left continues year after year to look
> down their considerable noses at common folk, and through Yankee tight
> lips, regard their every loss to be caused by stupid voters.

Ken, you're a piece of work.

If I look down on anyone, it's not "common folk." I _do_, however, look
down on stupid voters.

FWIW, that includes people who vote for Kerry & Edwards because Edwards
is cute. It includes poor young people who vote for Bush because "He's
for the rich, and I plan to be rich some day." It includes people who
vote for Kerry because he rides a road bike. It includes people who
voted for Bush because they _still_ think we found WMDs in Iraq.

Those are all real examples I heard... and the list goes on. Yes, I
look down on those folks. I can deal with ignorance, but not stupidity.
(There's a saying in education: "Stupidity is forever, but
ignorance we can fix.")


>
>>Ah well. We're off topic, aren't we?
>
>
> Sorry, Sir, but I did not send it off into a political thread,
> I just followed it, due to my simplistic thinking, I guess. We
> commoners are like that.

Bull****, Ken. This thread was about a helmet bill in Canada. You most
certainly did send it off into a political thread. Certainly, you can't
be _ignorant_ of that fact!


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