Consumer Reports trolls the 88% helmet line...



Sorni wrote:
> jtaylor wrote:
>
> > It is impossible to argue that helemts are a net health benefit
> > without also supporting MHL's.

>
> Well, damn, "********" and "rubbish" have already been taken.
>
> How about...utter ****?!?



Ya gotta be quick on the trigger to get the *choice* expletives! ;-)
 
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > OTOH, whatever degree of protection helmets provide is superior v. a
> > bare head . . . .

>
> . . . particularly if the helmeted rider chooses to take no additional
> risk over riding bareheaded.
>
>


Yep, it's just common sense, which, apparently, ain't so common in some
quarters..... :-(
 
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> jtaylor wrote:
>>
>>> It is impossible to argue that helemts are a net health benefit
>>> without also supporting MHL's.

>>
>> Well, damn, "********" and "rubbish" have already been taken.
>>
>> How about...utter ****?!?

>
>
> Ya gotta be quick on the trigger to get the *choice* expletives! ;-)


I just realized I could have used "Udder ****" to piggy-back yours!

Bill "today's theme: farm animal waste" S.
 
Jay Beattie says...

> There is no evidence that the passage of a MHLs in the United States
> has decreased ridership --


Citation, please?

> and since most MHLs in the United States
> only apply to riders over the age of 16, it certainly would not explain
> the drop in ridership in the above 16 age group. In fact, one would
> expect a spike in that group.


Please, stick to the facts.
 
On Mon, 08 May 2006 16:53:45 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>>Carl,
>>>
>>>Can you really see a police cruiser pulling a cyclist over for not
>>>wearing a helmet? Would they use the lights and sirens? Or only the
>>>bullhorn?
>>>
>>>Would they imprison serial offenders? Or just fine the BeJeezus out of
>>>them? BWH....bicycling without a helmet. A felony?
>>>
>>>Or is it all rather silly?

>>
>> Dear Oz,
>>
>> Whether it's silly or not, yes--in countries and states
>> where helmets are required by law to bicycle, they are
>> enforced.

>
>Carl: This is, unfortunately, not true. *Some* states may enforce such laws,
>but in my area (Redwood City, between San Francisco and San Jose) I doubt
>they write more than 5 helmet citations a year to kids... and that's being
>generous. It could be zero. Enforcement is up to local police departments,
>and many feel they have better things to do with their time than ticket kids
>riding bikes without helmets. Which, in fact, is true. But if the law
>exists, it *SHOULD* be enforced. We're teaching (at least here in Redwood
>City) an entire generation that it's ok to choose which laws to obey and
>which to ignore. That's a very bad thing.
>
>My preference would be elimination of the mandatory helmet law for kids. But
>if we're going to have the law, it should be enforced. If you're not going
>to enforce it, it should be removed from the books.
>
>--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com



Dear Mike,

Have a look at the trend in helmet laws in the U.S. (for
some reason, people decided to add this limit) over the last
two decades:

http://www.helmets.org/mandator.htm

The number of helmet laws has increased wildly:

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=b...as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images

Obviously, many of the 2,790,000 hits for:

bicycles+helmets+ required

are duplicates or pages in which those three words do not
address mandatory helmet laws. But it's a good introduction
to the number of laws that you think should be either
enforced or else removed from the books.

As for how routinely or rigorously they're enforced, it
probably depends on whether you're one against whom the laws
are enforced--just as it is with speeding tickets,
possession of marijuana, dogs without rabies tags, and so
forth.

Be sure to scroll down to the end of the list of states with
mandatory helmet laws. I'm curious to see what our
Washington state posters will be saying soon.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
On Mon, 08 May 2006 16:57:39 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Let's be clear: by "silly laws" that have been removed are you talking
>> about mandatory helmet laws whilst cycling or mandatory helmet laws
>> whilst walking?

>
>I'm all for a mandatory study of this thread as an example of enhanced
>productivity brought on by the Internet. How much of this discussion would
>have taken place (in a different setting)... how much time would people have
>devoted to it... and would the outcome (zero opinions changed?) be any
>different?
>
>--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


Dear Mike,

As some posters (including me) have mentioned, we changed
our minds and became helmet skeptics after looking into
things. I know that I was encouraged by reading threads like
this.

As other posters have mentioned, they changed their minds
after accidents. I expect that threads like this, which
often mention accidents, help them decide to make up their
minds.

It's likely that many silent readers are forming their
opinions when they read such threads.

It's amusing that the FAQ for a bicycle technical group does
not address the question of the technical results of wearing
helmets, which always produce the longest, most popular, and
arguably most interesting threads on the newsgroup.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > >
> > > As someone once said: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies
> > > and statistics".
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > (You snipped this, and other stuff, out last time. Maybe you won't do
> > > so this time? ;-> )

> >
> > The "someone" was Benjamin Disraeli.

>
> Leonard Henry Courtney, 'To My Fellow-Disciples at
> Saratoga Springs,' The National Review [London] 26 (1895)
> 21-26 at page 25.
>
> <http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/lies.htm>


The "wise statesman" he was quoting was Disraeli.

Similarly, the remark is often attributed to Mark Twain (aka Samuel
Clemens). Disraeli originated it.

- Frank Krygowski
 
On 8 May 2006 10:35:39 -0700, "Jay Beattie"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>There is no evidence that the passage of a MHLs in the United States
>has decreased ridership -- and since most MHLs in the United States
>only apply to riders over the age of 16, it certainly would not explain
>the drop in ridership in the above 16 age group. In fact, one would
>expect a spike in that group.


[snip]

Dear Jay,

As far as I can tell, most mandatory helmets in the U.S.
apply to exactly the opposite group--those under 16, not
over 16.

Here's a list of numerous U.S. mandatory helmet laws with
the ages of application:

http://www.helmets.org/mandator.htm

That is, the trend is for helmets to be required for
children under 5, then 9, then 12, then 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
and finally everyone.

In Washington state (where I think you live), helmets are
mandatory in many places for all ages--not just those 16 and
under.

For California, to cite a much more populous state with
better bicycling weather, helmets are required for riders
under 18.

There's obviously room for debating this (total number of
riders affected, 16 versus 18 or 15, and so forth), but I
think that you're pretty much wrong. I'll try to find any
response, but the thread is getting difficult to follow.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 

> On Mon, 08 May 2006 16:53:45 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
> <[email protected]> wrote:

But if the law
>>exists, it *SHOULD* be enforced. We're teaching (at least here in Redwood
>>City) an entire generation that it's ok to choose which laws to obey and
>>which to ignore. That's a very bad thing.
>>



The conscientious objector is a revolutionary. On deciding to disobey
the law he sacrifices his personal interests to the most important cause
of working for the betterment of society. Albert Einstein


If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side
of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse
and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your
neutrality. ~Bishop Desmond Tutu


"Cowardice asks the question: is it safe? Expediency asks the question:
is it politic? Vanity asks the question: is it popular? But conscience
asks the question: is it right? And there comes a time when one must
take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular— but one
must take it because it is right. One has a moral responsibility to
disobey unjust laws— an unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with
the moral law."
Martin Luther King, Jr


It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established
authorities are wrong. ~Voltaire


If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law
respectable. ~Louis D. Brandeis


Wayne
Bicyclist Empowerment Now
 
On Mon, 8 May 2006 09:34:29 -0300, "jtaylor"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> >
>> > But for those who believe in the magic power of helmets, this is not a
>> > problem - well, not _their_ problem, anyway.

>>
>> See? There you go again. TWO SEPARATE ISSUES!!!!!!!!!
>>

>
>No. they are the same.


Related, not identical. Closely related. Sadly, increasingly related.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Mon, 08 May 2006 16:05:03 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:

>If you did not wear a helmet you would have people at your
>LBS telling you to wear a helmet, people on rides telling
>you to wear a helmet, and even people yelling at you from
>inside a car `Get a helmet!'


Two friends of mine ride a lot in a particular bike-unfriendly place
and hear that from time to time from people in cars and on foot (once
even from a cop) -- often in the form of "Where's your helmet?" Their
standard response is "Where's yours?"

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Mon, 08 May 2006 16:45:34 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Poor people, like everyone else, are being told one should never ride a
>> bike without a helmet. But poor people may not be able to afford a
>> helmet.
>>
>> If they believe this nonsense, and if they can't afford a helmet, they
>> will not ride bikes.

>
>Or worse. In general they *will* ride bikes, because that's all that's
>available to them. The extent to which they know they're breaking the law
>further marginalizes them from mainstream society. It increases the chasm
>between the haves and the have-nots... with the haves looking at, in our
>area, predominately Hispanic men riding clunky bikes with low tires and no
>helmet and thinking that's, well, ghetto.


There are several dozen guys like that living a couple houses over
from me. Lots of bikes locked up outside. No helmets. I think they
ride to work and/or ride for work (delivering stuff). I've never been
inside their place but have heard it's bunkbeds packed in. There guys
do not have money to spare.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On 8 May 2006 10:35:39 -0700, "Jay Beattie"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >There is no evidence that the passage of a MHLs in the United States
> >has decreased ridership -- and since most MHLs in the United States
> >only apply to riders over the age of 16, it certainly would not explain
> >the drop in ridership in the above 16 age group. In fact, one would
> >expect a spike in that group.

>
> [snip]
>
> Dear Jay,
>
> As far as I can tell, most mandatory helmets in the U.S.
> apply to exactly the opposite group--those under 16, not
> over 16.


OOOPS. That's what I meant to say as the next sentence indicates.
Since the laws stop at 16 for many states, and 18 for some, you would
think that if the MHLs were keeping people off their bikes, then you
would see a ridership spike in the "no helme needed age group" -- just
as you would expect a spike in the number of drinkers in the over-21
group.

>Here's a list of numerous U.S. mandatory helmet laws with
> the ages of application:
>
> http://www.helmets.org/mandator.htm
>
> That is, the trend is for helmets to be required for
> children under 5, then 9, then 12, then 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
> and finally everyone.
>
> In Washington state (where I think you live), helmets are
> mandatory in many places for all ages--not just those 16 and
> under.


Oregon. It's under 16, with a lovely provision protecting anyone (any
age) from evidence in a civil trial of non-use of a helmet. I am not
aware of any county or city ordinance requiring helmets for older
riders. Nothing in Portland that I know about.

> For California, to cite a much more populous state with
> better bicycling weather, helmets are required for riders
> under 18.


>There's obviously room for debating this (total number of
> riders affected, 16 versus 18 or 15, and so forth), but I
> think that you're pretty much wrong. I'll try to find any
> response, but the thread is getting difficult to follow.


I mistakenly flip-flopped the age (above/below 16), but I would still
like to see a domestic study which shows in some conclusive way that
MHLs keep Americans off their bikes. I have not seen one study cited in
any of these threads that proves the point. Personally, I don't think
you can draw any conclusions from looking at the MHL effective date and
comparing it to the number of riders going over a bridge or down a
street. I can tell you that ridership over the main Portland bridges
has tripled since the passage of the MHL. See http://tinyurl.com/n4l55
.. And our crash rate has gone down. My God! We are not getting more
risky with our helmets! -- Jay Beattie.
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> My point, Frank, is to be skeptical about claims from either side, be
> they pro or anti- helmet. I sure we could lock you in a room with
> someone from Bell and you two could go at it hammer and tong for weeks
> on end. A regular "statistics fest".


There is no `anti-helmet' side.

--
Michael Press
 
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > My point, Frank, is to be skeptical about claims from either side, be
> > they pro or anti- helmet. I sure we could lock you in a room with
> > someone from Bell and you two could go at it hammer and tong for weeks
> > on end. A regular "statistics fest".

>
> There is no `anti-helmet' side.
>
>


Really? Try reading the thread all the way through and come back and
tell me that.
 
Dans le message de news:[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca,
jtaylor <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
>
>> Will the act of wearing a
>> helmet *increase* your chances of injury? I very much doubt it.
>>

>
> Most recent peer-reviewed study I read on the topic says, yes, it
> does.
>

Which one was that, specifically ? We need to read too. I'm sure you're
not making it up. Really. Really ?
--
Doubting Thomas (no offense to any Thomases out there)

Sandy
 
Jay Beattie wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On 8 May 2006 10:35:39 -0700, "Jay Beattie"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >There is no evidence that the passage of a MHLs in the United States
> > >has decreased ridership -- and since most MHLs in the United States
> > >only apply to riders over the age of 16, it certainly would not explain
> > >the drop in ridership in the above 16 age group. In fact, one would
> > >expect a spike in that group.

> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Dear Jay,
> >
> > As far as I can tell, most mandatory helmets in the U.S.
> > apply to exactly the opposite group--those under 16, not
> > over 16.

>
> OOOPS. That's what I meant to say as the next sentence indicates.
> Since the laws stop at 16 for many states, and 18 for some, you would
> think that if the MHLs were keeping people off their bikes, then you
> would see a ridership spike in the "no helme needed age group" -- just
> as you would expect a spike in the number of drinkers in the over-21
> group.
>
> >Here's a list of numerous U.S. mandatory helmet laws with
> > the ages of application:
> >
> > http://www.helmets.org/mandator.htm
> >
> > That is, the trend is for helmets to be required for
> > children under 5, then 9, then 12, then 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
> > and finally everyone.
> >
> > In Washington state (where I think you live), helmets are
> > mandatory in many places for all ages--not just those 16 and
> > under.

>
> Oregon. It's under 16, with a lovely provision protecting anyone (any
> age) from evidence in a civil trial of non-use of a helmet. I am not
> aware of any county or city ordinance requiring helmets for older
> riders. Nothing in Portland that I know about.
>
> > For California, to cite a much more populous state with
> > better bicycling weather, helmets are required for riders
> > under 18.

>
> >There's obviously room for debating this (total number of
> > riders affected, 16 versus 18 or 15, and so forth), but I
> > think that you're pretty much wrong. I'll try to find any
> > response, but the thread is getting difficult to follow.

>
> I mistakenly flip-flopped the age (above/below 16), but I would still
> like to see a domestic study which shows in some conclusive way that
> MHLs keep Americans off their bikes. I have not seen one study cited in
> any of these threads that proves the point. Personally, I don't think
> you can draw any conclusions from looking at the MHL effective date and
> comparing it to the number of riders going over a bridge or down a
> street. I can tell you that ridership over the main Portland bridges
> has tripled since the passage of the MHL. See http://tinyurl.com/n4l55
> . And our crash rate has gone down. My God! We are not getting more
> risky with our helmets! -- Jay Beattie.


Tiny URL is doing weird things. Here is the long url.
http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/images/crashrate2004.pdf#search='portland%20bridges%20bicycle%20crash%20rate%5C'
 
Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
Michael Press <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>
>>> As someone once said: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned
>>> lies and statistics".
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> (You snipped this, and other stuff, out last time. Maybe you won't
>>> do so this time? ;-> )

>>
>> The "someone" was Benjamin Disraeli.

>
> Leonard Henry Courtney, 'To My Fellow-Disciples at
> Saratoga Springs,' The National Review [London] 26 (1895)
> 21-26 at page 25.
>
> <http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/lies.htm>


You mean he made the other attribution up !! Wow. I can't imagine that
happening here.
--
Buckle up ! (vague, prescriptive, usually loud, from those who know better
?)

Sandy
 
On 8 May 2006 16:38:34 -0700, "Jay Beattie"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On 8 May 2006 10:35:39 -0700, "Jay Beattie"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >There is no evidence that the passage of a MHLs in the United States
>> >has decreased ridership -- and since most MHLs in the United States
>> >only apply to riders over the age of 16, it certainly would not explain
>> >the drop in ridership in the above 16 age group. In fact, one would
>> >expect a spike in that group.

>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Dear Jay,
>>
>> As far as I can tell, most mandatory helmets in the U.S.
>> apply to exactly the opposite group--those under 16, not
>> over 16.

>
>OOOPS. That's what I meant to say as the next sentence indicates.
>Since the laws stop at 16 for many states, and 18 for some, you would
>think that if the MHLs were keeping people off their bikes, then you
>would see a ridership spike in the "no helme needed age group" -- just
>as you would expect a spike in the number of drinkers in the over-21
>group.
>
>>Here's a list of numerous U.S. mandatory helmet laws with
>> the ages of application:
>>
>> http://www.helmets.org/mandator.htm
>>
>> That is, the trend is for helmets to be required for
>> children under 5, then 9, then 12, then 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
>> and finally everyone.
>>
>> In Washington state (where I think you live), helmets are
>> mandatory in many places for all ages--not just those 16 and
>> under.

>
>Oregon. It's under 16, with a lovely provision protecting anyone (any
>age) from evidence in a civil trial of non-use of a helmet. I am not
>aware of any county or city ordinance requiring helmets for older
>riders. Nothing in Portland that I know about.
>
>> For California, to cite a much more populous state with
>> better bicycling weather, helmets are required for riders
>> under 18.

>
>>There's obviously room for debating this (total number of
>> riders affected, 16 versus 18 or 15, and so forth), but I
>> think that you're pretty much wrong. I'll try to find any
>> response, but the thread is getting difficult to follow.

>
>I mistakenly flip-flopped the age (above/below 16), but I would still
>like to see a domestic study which shows in some conclusive way that
>MHLs keep Americans off their bikes. I have not seen one study cited in
>any of these threads that proves the point. Personally, I don't think
>you can draw any conclusions from looking at the MHL effective date and
>comparing it to the number of riders going over a bridge or down a
>street. I can tell you that ridership over the main Portland bridges
>has tripled since the passage of the MHL. See http://tinyurl.com/n4l55
>. And our crash rate has gone down. My God! We are not getting more
>risky with our helmets! -- Jay Beattie.


Dear Jay,

I wondered if it was just an oops, but the "under 16" was
repeated in a later paragraph.

Fortunately, I never make such mistakes--Oregon, Washington,
whatever. (You're lucky I didn't send you to Alaska.)

As for whether adding a cost in time and money decreases the
likelihood of an activity, I think that the economists have
generallly held that it reduces it.

If people were required to put on a pair of handsome but
inexpensive quick-attach knee guards in order to ride a
bicycle, would this make them more or less likely to ride?

My elementary school phys-ed teacher didn't have us play
softball because that required nine mitts for the team in
the field. It was much cheaper to hand out a single
basketball. (This is undoubtedly why I don't play shortstop
for the Yankees, no matter what Derek Jeter claims.)

As for the Portland study that you mention, it's
interesting.

I wonder, however, whether it's reflecting the well-known
trend toward increased bicycle traffic lowering accident
rates. That is, the countries with the lowest accident and
injury rates are those like the Netherlands that a) do not
require helmets, and b) have much heavier bicycle traffic.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
Jay Beattie wrote:
> I would still
> like to see a domestic study which shows in some conclusive way that
> MHLs keep Americans off their bikes. I have not seen one study cited in
> any of these threads that proves the point.


Well, since we're not dealing in theoretical mathematics or symbolic
logic, "proof" is a subjective term. Some people think there's no
proof we landed on the moon, or that Clinton misbehaved with Monica, or
that G.W.Bush is ... well, you get my point.

> Personally, I don't think
> you can draw any conclusions from looking at the MHL effective date and
> comparing it to the number of riders going over a bridge or down a
> street.


For those who don't understand Jay's point, I believe this is what he's
referring to: After MHLs were passed in Western Australia, cycling
immediately dropped by a large amount. This was confirmed by trained
observers counting passing cyclists on the streets, at identical times
of year and weather. It was also confirmed by automatic bike counters
on bridges that cyclists had to cross to travel certain areas of the
city. And the reasons for the drop were confirmed by telephone
interviews, when the majority said they were riding less (or not at
all) because of the MHL.

But of course, that's not "proof."

(BTW, helmet advocates learned an important lesson. Be sure MHLs are
written so there is no chance to do "before" counts. That's been true
ever since.)

> I can tell you that ridership over the main Portland bridges
> has tripled since the passage of the MHL. See http://tinyurl.com/n4l55


I tried. Didn't work.

But are you claiming a cause and effect relationship between a MHL and
an increase in ridership? Did the riding triple immediately after that
MHL? Did surveys show that many people were taking up cycling - when
they would't before - because now they were being forced to wear a
helmet? Doubtful.

Several pertinent points: Oregon's MHL applies to those under 16, I
believe. If you're talking about bridges over the Willamette River, in
my experience very few of those riders are kids. The kids MHL would
probably have little effect on adult cyclists, at least in the short
term.

Also, Portland really is unique. They've got about the strongest bike
advocacy organization in the country. They've very energetically
promoted cycling since at least 1990, in many ways. A rise in cycling
in that environment is not representative of most MHL areas.

Finally, don't make the mistake Australian officials are now making,
saying "See? Cycling in 2006 is greater than it was in 1992 when the
law is passed! The law had no bad effect!" Obviously, rising
population (if nothing else) contributed to the eventual recovery of
bicyclist counts - although not cyclists per 100,000 population. The
question is, what would be the effect if there had been no MHL?

ISTM the absence of a helmet law would definitely increase cycling. We
know there are people who don't like helmets and won't ride (or won't
ride as much) if forced into styrofoam. There cannot be many people
who would say "Wow, I'm now forbidden to bike without a funny looking
hat. That's convinced me to start cycling!"

> . And our crash rate has gone down.


Crash rates always go down when the number of cyclists go up. It's
well documented. By rights, it seems your crash rate would be even
lower if the kids discouraged by the MHL were out riding.

- Frank Krygowski