Raged motorist strikes two cyclists

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:32:24 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email hidden]> said in
<YhIAi.22$J65.18@trndny08>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And then stop asserting that the approach which worked, doesn't
work.

Quoted message said:

What proof is there that it did work?

No helmet law.

But since you've now decided to go down the "proof" line, how about
you cite the proof that helmet laws reduce head injury rates, or
that helmet wearing has reduced head injury rates in any real
cyclist population?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Aug 28, 12:21 am, Lobby Dosser <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Tom \'Johnny Sunset\' Sherman said:

Lobby Dosser said:

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> On Aug 27, 6:35 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email hidden]>
> wrote:
>> [email hidden] wrote:
>>> On Aug 27, 2:38 am, Lobby Dosser <[email hidden]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> If more than one person is involved, Everything IS a Political
>>>> Issue. Everywhere. Deal with it.
>>> Interesting. Earlier, you said scientific arguments and
>>> presentation of facts won't work regarding mandatory helmet laws.
>>> Why? Because they are a political issue.
>>> Now you're saying if more than one person is involved,
>>> _everything_ is a political issue.
>>> It follows that you believe science and data have no value, except
>>> perhaps to hermits living alone on mountain tops! That's one of
>>> the most anti-intellectual points of view I've ever heard.
>>> How do you make your personal decisions? By examining the
>>> entrails of sacrificed animals?
>> That seems more your line of work.
> Nope. My line of work is engineering and technical education. I'm
> all about learning, calculations, data, intelligence, etc. That's
> how I make most of my important decisions.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> How about you? If you have so little regard for facts, science and
> logic, how _do_ you make decisions? Care to answer, instead of
> wise- cracking?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Facts.

Quoted message said:

Like the fact of how many dead presidents you are offered to argue a
position?

Cute. But content free.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I need Maalox after that cracker.

Just zis Guy said:

On 27 Aug 2007 17:18:35 GMT, Jim Yanik <[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

just pass a law allowing insurance companies an exemption that
people who fail to take reasonable precautions(seatbelt or helmet
for cycles) cannot make a claim against their insurance.

For some values of reasonable. According to the largest ever study,
encompassing over a million bike accidents, wearing a helmet is
associated with a small but significant increase in risk of death
and a small but statistically insignificant increase in risk of
injury.

Yes, I did type that correctly, it is *increase* not decrease. So
arguably insurance companies should be telling people not to wear
them.

What was the methodology of that study? How were accidents
discovered? Did they perform a survey of all bicyclists or of a
randomly selected sample of same or did they rely on police reports or
emergency room reports or what?

Quoted message said:

Actually, of course, it's nothing like that simple. Which is
probably why the insurers of large cycling bodies like CTC and LAB
do not make any stipulation in regard to helmets on their group
rides.

Guy

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Aug 27, 6:30 am, [email hidden] (Brent P)

Quoted message said:

In article said:

This is persuasive on the one hand, yet walking goes maybe
5 mph and cycling goes around 15 to 20, more for serious
riders. The energy goes up with the square of the velocity
so an increase from 5 to 25 is an increase in kinetic
energy of 25X. That's why. You're about as likely to hit
a post riding as walking. Yet, I've seen people do it
walking.

Here's my advice to you for that: STOP RIDING ON THE SIDWALK.

OK, I'll bite. How does riding on the sidewalk relate to
bicycle velocity, energy, and impact injury?

In article said:

On Aug 27, 6:30 am, [email hidden] (Brent P)

Quoted message said:

In article said:

This is persuasive on the one hand, yet walking goes maybe
5 mph and cycling goes around 15 to 20, more for serious
riders. The energy goes up with the square of the velocity
so an increase from 5 to 25 is an increase in kinetic
energy of 25X. That's why. You're about as likely to hit
a post riding as walking. Yet, I've seen people do it
walking.

Here's my advice to you for that: STOP RIDING ON THE SIDWALK.

OK, I'll bite. How does riding on the sidewalk relate to
bicycle velocity, energy, and impact injury?

When was the last time you saw a post on the roadway (definition as per
IL vehicle code)? The posts are on the sidewalk.

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:33:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email hidden]> said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

What was the methodology of that study? How were accidents
discovered? Did they perform a survey of all bicyclists or of a
randomly selected sample of same or did they rely on police reports or
emergency room reports or what?

"Reducing Bicycle Accidents: A Reevaluation of the Impacts of the
CPSC Bicycle Standard and Helmet Use, Rodgers GB. 1988. Journal of
Products Liability: 1988,11:307-317"

Injury figures from NEISS (i.e. CPSC) and other figures form CPSC,
Bell Sports and other sources.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy said:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:33:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email hidden]> said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

What was the methodology of that study? How were accidents
discovered? Did they perform a survey of all bicyclists or of a
randomly selected sample of same or did they rely on police reports
or emergency room reports or what?

"Reducing Bicycle Accidents: A Reevaluation of the Impacts of the
CPSC Bicycle Standard and Helmet Use, Rodgers GB. 1988. Journal of
Products Liability: 1988,11:307-317"

Injury figures from NEISS (i.e. CPSC) and other figures form CPSC,
Bell Sports and other sources.

NEISS collects data from 100 emergency rooms. That means that they
only have data from accidents that resulted in injuries severe enough
to require a hospital visit.

That being the case, one can't say with any certainty that they say
anything about the probability of being injured in an accident, only
about what happens if that accident produces an injury of sufficient
severity to result in a visit to the ER.

Since there's little question that protective equipment prevents
_minor_ injuries, and since the majority of accidents come in that
category, one suspects that the real difference is not in probability
of death following an accident but in the percentage of accidents that
result in a visit to the ER and thus get reported under that
methodology.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:55:27 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email hidden]> said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

NEISS collects data from 100 emergency rooms. That means that they
only have data from accidents that resulted in injuries severe enough
to require a hospital visit.

Yes.

I never said it was a *great* study, only the biggest :-)

Note that the prospective pro-helmet studies use much the same data
sources. It's all weak evidence, compared with time-series.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

J. Clarke said:

Since there's little question that protective equipment prevents
_minor_ injuries, and since the majority of accidents come in that
category, one suspects that the real difference is not in probability
of death following an accident but in the percentage of accidents that
result in a visit to the ER and thus get reported under that
methodology.

Yes, historically that's been the problem with measuring the
effectiveness of protective gear, the very usage of the gear reduces the
number of emergency room (or other medical office) visits. Unfortunately
you can't tell someone that avoided a concussion because they were
wearing a helmet, "would you please go to the hospital anyway so the ER
statistics include your accident in the statistics?"

In article said:

J. Clarke said:

Since there's little question that protective equipment prevents
_minor_ injuries, and since the majority of accidents come in that
category, one suspects that the real difference is not in probability
of death following an accident but in the percentage of accidents that
result in a visit to the ER and thus get reported under that
methodology.

Yes, historically that's been the problem with measuring the
effectiveness of protective gear, the very usage of the gear reduces the
number of emergency room (or other medical office) visits. Unfortunately
you can't tell someone that avoided a concussion because they were
wearing a helmet, "would you please go to the hospital anyway so the ER
statistics include your accident in the statistics?"

On the other hand you can't make the guy who goes 'it's just a flesh
wound' and doesn't go to the ER go. Also you can't make the person who
goes for every little thing not go for a small scrape. On top of that
there is the variable of how likely these personality types are to use
or not use protective gear.

Brent P said:

In article said:

J. Clarke said:

Since there's little question that protective equipment prevents
_minor_ injuries, and since the majority of accidents come in that
category, one suspects that the real difference is not in
probability of death following an accident but in the percentage of
accidents that result in a visit to the ER and thus get reported
under that methodology.

Yes, historically that's been the problem with measuring the
effectiveness of protective gear, the very usage of the gear reduces
the number of emergency room (or other medical office) visits.
Unfortunately you can't tell someone that avoided a concussion
because they were wearing a helmet, "would you please go to the
hospital anyway so the ER statistics include your accident in the
statistics?"

On the other hand you can't make the guy who goes 'it's just a flesh
wound' and doesn't go to the ER go. Also you can't make the person who
goes for every little thing not go for a small scrape. On top of that
there is the variable of how likely these personality types are to use
or not use protective gear.

ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross statistics to
support their every view.

Go figger!

I'm almost embarassed with this guy!

This IS America!

If he had gone for it he could've been

A BONA-FIDE CRAZED MASS MURDERING PSYCHOPATH

There is no spirit left in this country anymore,

only slackers

Aren't you mortified by this?

Bill Sornson said:

ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross statistics to
support their every view.

They do the only thing they can do. Facts, science, and logic have no
place in the world of the AHZ's.

In article said:

Brent P said:

In article said:

J. Clarke wrote:

> Since there's little question that protective equipment prevents
> _minor_ injuries, and since the majority of accidents come in that
> category, one suspects that the real difference is not in
> probability of death following an accident but in the percentage of
> accidents that result in a visit to the ER and thus get reported
> under that methodology.

Yes, historically that's been the problem with measuring the
effectiveness of protective gear, the very usage of the gear reduces
the number of emergency room (or other medical office) visits.
Unfortunately you can't tell someone that avoided a concussion
because they were wearing a helmet, "would you please go to the
hospital anyway so the ER statistics include your accident in the
statistics?"

On the other hand you can't make the guy who goes 'it's just a flesh
wound' and doesn't go to the ER go. Also you can't make the person who
goes for every little thing not go for a small scrape. On top of that
there is the variable of how likely these personality types are to use
or not use protective gear.

ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross statistics to
support their every view.

Clue time: a zealot tries to force other people to do as he does. There
is nobody trying to force you or anyone not to wear a foam hat. You're the
one with the apparent agenda (despite your denials) of forcing everyone
to wear the foam hats.

In article said:

Bill Sornson said:

ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross statistics to
support their every view.

They do the only thing they can do. Facts, science, and logic have no
place in the world of the AHZ's.

Really? It's only those opposed to being -forced- to wear these damn
things that bothers with facts, science, logic, and engineering while
those wanting to do the forcing resort to being clever with statistics,
emotional stories, appeals that something is better than nothing, and
insults and belittling to anyone who doesn't want to wear bicycle
helmets/

I made my decision regarding helmets as an observer to the helmet wars in
the bicycling newsgroups over a decade ago, I see nothing has changed.

Bill Sornson said:

Brent P said:

In article said:

J. Clarke wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Since there's little question that protective equipment prevents
> _minor_ injuries, and since the majority of accidents come in that
> category, one suspects that the real difference is not in
> probability of death following an accident but in the percentage of
> accidents that result in a visit to the ER and thus get reported
> under that methodology.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, historically that's been the problem with measuring the
effectiveness of protective gear, the very usage of the gear reduces
the number of emergency room (or other medical office) visits.
Unfortunately you can't tell someone that avoided a concussion
because they were wearing a helmet, "would you please go to the
hospital anyway so the ER statistics include your accident in the
statistics?"

Quoted message said:

On the other hand you can't make the guy who goes 'it's just a flesh
wound' and doesn't go to the ER go. Also you can't make the person who
goes for every little thing not go for a small scrape. On top of that
there is the variable of how likely these personality types are to use
or not use protective gear.

ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross statistics to
support their every view.

Go figger!

Bill, if you can't find the benefit of widespread helmet use by
studying the entire population of cyclists, where would you find it?

Helmet proponents routinely claim that widespread use of helmets will
cause tremendous reductions in injuries and/or fatalities. In many
places, helmet use has become widespread precisely because of such
claims - up to 90%, in some cases. Despite that, the promise of
tremendous injury reduction has proven false, except when caused by
tremendous reductions in bicycling itself.

When the promises didn't come true, I stopped believing in them. Why
do you persist?

- Frank Krygowski

aka Frank Krygowski said:

Bill Sornson said:

Brent P said:

In article <[email hidden]>, SMS wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Since there's little question that protective equipment prevents
>> _minor_ injuries, and since the majority of accidents come in that
>> category, one suspects that the real difference is not in
>> probability of death following an accident but in the percentage of
>> accidents that result in a visit to the ER and thus get reported
>> under that methodology.
> Yes, historically that's been the problem with measuring the
> effectiveness of protective gear, the very usage of the gear reduces
> the number of emergency room (or other medical office) visits.
> Unfortunately you can't tell someone that avoided a concussion
> because they were wearing a helmet, "would you please go to the
> hospital anyway so the ER statistics include your accident in the
> statistics?"
On the other hand you can't make the guy who goes 'it's just a flesh
wound' and doesn't go to the ER go. Also you can't make the person who
goes for every little thing not go for a small scrape. On top of that
there is the variable of how likely these personality types are to use
or not use protective gear.

ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross statistics to
support their every view.

Go figger!

Bill, if you can't find the benefit of widespread helmet use by
studying the entire population of cyclists, where would you find it?

Helmet proponents routinely claim that widespread use of helmets will
cause tremendous reductions in injuries and/or fatalities. In many
places, helmet use has become widespread precisely because of such
claims - up to 90%, in some cases. Despite that, the promise of
tremendous injury reduction has proven false, except when caused by
tremendous reductions in bicycling itself.

When the promises didn't come true, I stopped believing in them. Why
do you persist?

Maybe Bill has attended faith based helmet education. 😉

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Brent P said:

In article said:

Bill Sornson said:

ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross
statistics to support their every view.

They do the only thing they can do. Facts, science, and logic have no
place in the world of the AHZ's.

Really? It's only those opposed to being -forced- to wear these damn
things that bothers with facts, science, logic, and engineering while
those wanting to do the forcing

BBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT. Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
People who are "pro lid" -- that is, believe that they're a good idea and
effective in preventing or diminishing injury -- are NOT therefore in favor
of mandatory helmet laws. STOP THIS DISINGENUOUS [censored].

If you want to flame those who DO promote MHLs, then by all means do so.
But this fallacious [censored] of lumping people who CHOOSE to wear a helmet in
with those who would mandate it has got to stop.

Otherwise, you're no better than Feckless Frank, Flailor, Flogger and the
other F-heads.

HTH.

Bill "stop being a clueless lying moron dammit" S.

In article said:

Brent P said:

In article said:

Bill Sornson wrote:

> ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross
> statistics to support their every view.

They do the only thing they can do. Facts, science, and logic have no
place in the world of the AHZ's.

Really? It's only those opposed to being -forced- to wear these damn
things that bothers with facts, science, logic, and engineering while
those wanting to do the forcing

BBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT. Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
People who are "pro lid" -- that is, believe that they're a good idea and
effective in preventing or diminishing injury -- are NOT therefore in favor
of mandatory helmet laws. STOP THIS DISINGENUOUS [censored].

That's quite [censored]. I've had your kind yell at me, pull along side me,
etc telling me how I need to wear the foam hat. I've had more
interactions with bicycle helmet zealots 'preaching' to me in the last
decade than I've had from all other religions combined.

Quoted message said:

If you want to flame those who DO promote MHLs, then by all means do so.

Funny, you make your case the same the MHL types do, right down to the
insults.

Quoted message said:

But this fallacious [censored] of lumping people who CHOOSE to wear a helmet in
with those who would mandate it has got to stop.

You don't just choose to wear one, you clearly seek to expand the
religion and insult anyone who chooses not to.

Quoted message said:

Otherwise, you're no better than Feckless Frank, Flailor, Flogger and the
other F-heads.

When it comes to the foam hats, Frank makes the sound arguments. Of
course your pro-helmet arguments are about on par with Frank's
pro-speed-hump arguments.

Brent P said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Bill Sornson

Quoted message said:

Brent P said:

In article <[email hidden]>, SMS wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross
>> statistics to support their every view.
>
> They do the only thing they can do. Facts, science, and logic have
> no place in the world of the AHZ's.

Really? It's only those opposed to being -forced- to wear these damn
things that bothers with facts, science, logic, and engineering
while those wanting to do the forcing

BBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT. Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong
wrong wrong. People who are "pro lid" -- that is, believe that
they're a good idea and effective in preventing or diminishing
injury -- are NOT therefore in favor of mandatory helmet laws. STOP
THIS DISINGENUOUS [censored].

That's quite [censored]. I've had your kind yell at me, pull along side
me, etc telling me how I need to wear the foam hat. I've had more
interactions with bicycle helmet zealots 'preaching' to me in the last
decade than I've had from all other religions combined.

You're a weak-minded liar.

PLONK