Consumer Reports trolls the 88% helmet line...



[email protected] wrote:
> 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."


To be conclusive or even pursuasive, it has to be more than an MHL
passage date and raw data showing the number of riders. Otherwise, I
could make the argument that you anticipate -- that the passage of the
MHL in Oregon tripled the number of cyclists crossing the Portland
bridges.


> (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.


Did you get the long link in my subsequent post?

> 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.


Most of the weekday bridge traffic is commuting adults, but the Steel
and Hawthorne are thick with kids during the weekend, particularly the
Steel, which is part of a bicycle/pedestrian path that goes up/down
both banks of the river.

> 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.


I was on the BTA board in 1990. Thank you. And I also voted against
any statment pro or con concerning the MHL when it was proposed in
1993/4. The same polarizing arguments made here were made on our board.
I believe one of our board members testified against it on behalf of
another group.

BTW, in many ways, having a powerful advocacy group has just upped the
tension level with cars -- unintentionally of course (BTA is not
Critical Mass). I have never lived in any other city where there is so
much ink spilled about cars versus bikes. It is really getting
unpleasant now there is such competition for space on the road.

> 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.


I have never met those discouraged kids, but I hope to one day -- maybe
I can get them over their helmet discouragement and on to bikes. I
always loved that statistical truth that crash rates go down when the
numbers go up -- that is why I always try to ride with ten or more
people, beause I will be statistically less likely to crash. :) On the
Portland bridges, another mitigating factor is change in deck surface
-- the Broadway Bridge had a wood deck sidewalk. The pigeons would sit
in the structure and do their thing, and when it rained, it was like
riding on banana peels. I crashed a couple of times on that one. -- Jay
Beattie.
 
>> 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.
>>
>>

>
> Most states have a slew of laws that are not enforced. As an example,
> my old home state of Massachusetts has a law against "lewd and
> lascivious co-habitation". Were it enforeced, about 35% of the couples
> in Cambridge (as one example of many) would be hauled off to court. Do
> situations such as this cultivate a generation of scofflaws in a wider
> sense? I don't think it does.


Actually, I think they do. Perhaps not scofflaws in the sense that people
will pillage, murder & rape, but definitely people who are less-bothered by
"moral" crimes in general, and in that genre I'm including general lack of
accountability at the corporate and political levels.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Mike Jacoubowsky 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.
>>
>>

>
> Most states have a slew of laws that are not enforced. As an example,
> my old home state of Massachusetts has a law against "lewd and
> lascivious co-habitation". Were it enforeced, about 35% of the couples
> in Cambridge (as one example of many) would be hauled off to court. Do
> situations such as this cultivate a generation of scofflaws in a wider
> sense? I don't think it does.
>
 
Wayne Pein wrote:
>> 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


"Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving us
wordy evidence of the fact." -- George Eliot
 
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>

> >
> > Most states have a slew of laws that are not enforced. As an example,
> > my old home state of Massachusetts has a law against "lewd and
> > lascivious co-habitation". Were it enforced, about 35% of the couples
> > in Cambridge (as one example of many) would be hauled off to court. Do
> > situations such as this cultivate a generation of scofflaws in a wider
> > sense? I don't think it does.

>
> Actually, I think they do. Perhaps not scofflaws in the sense that people
> will pillage, murder & rape, but definitely people who are less-bothered by
> "moral" crimes in general, and in that genre I'm including general lack of
> accountability at the corporate and political levels.
>


Ah, an interesting question. Violating the old Massachusetts "lewd and
lascivious co-habitation" statute is a legal violation of law, but is
it a "moral" crime? I guess that depends on how much of a religious
conservative one is, eh?

And does disregarding/violating antiquated/silly/stupid essentially
unenforced statutes create the moral climate that gave us Enron? Or was
it things like Viet Nam and a President who *was* a crook?

Earlier in this thread, someone quoted Brandeis: "If you want people to
respect the law, make the law respectable". Who am I to argue with one
of the great American legal minds?
 
"Sorni" <[email protected]> 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 ****?!?


I got dibs on "balderdash" though I'm not sure about the spelling.

I suppose jtaylor probably thinks it's impossible to be pro-sex and
not support marriage? ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
On 8 May 2006 18:10:03 -0700, "Jay Beattie"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> 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."

>
>To be conclusive or even pursuasive, it has to be more than an MHL
>passage date and raw data showing the number of riders. Otherwise, I
>could make the argument that you anticipate -- that the passage of the
>MHL in Oregon tripled the number of cyclists crossing the Portland
>bridges.
>
>
>> (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.

>
>Did you get the long link in my subsequent post?
>
>> 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.

>
>Most of the weekday bridge traffic is commuting adults, but the Steel
>and Hawthorne are thick with kids during the weekend, particularly the
>Steel, which is part of a bicycle/pedestrian path that goes up/down
>both banks of the river.
>
>> 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.

>
>I was on the BTA board in 1990. Thank you. And I also voted against
>any statment pro or con concerning the MHL when it was proposed in
>1993/4. The same polarizing arguments made here were made on our board.
>I believe one of our board members testified against it on behalf of
>another group.
>
>BTW, in many ways, having a powerful advocacy group has just upped the
>tension level with cars -- unintentionally of course (BTA is not
>Critical Mass). I have never lived in any other city where there is so
>much ink spilled about cars versus bikes. It is really getting
>unpleasant now there is such competition for space on the road.
>
>> 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.

>
>I have never met those discouraged kids, but I hope to one day -- maybe
>I can get them over their helmet discouragement and on to bikes. I
>always loved that statistical truth that crash rates go down when the
>numbers go up -- that is why I always try to ride with ten or more
>people, beause I will be statistically less likely to crash. :) On the
>Portland bridges, another mitigating factor is change in deck surface
>-- the Broadway Bridge had a wood deck sidewalk. The pigeons would sit
>in the structure and do their thing, and when it rained, it was like
>riding on banana peels. I crashed a couple of times on that one. -- Jay
>Beattie.


Dear Jay,

Both the tinyurl and the long link worked for me, bringing
up a graph of "indexed bicycle crash rate (trend line)"
dropping over 50% from 1991 to 2002, while bridge bicycle
traffic rose just under 300%.

The crash rate appears to be the crashes reported on these
bridges.

If so, it's not much of a statistic, since a bridge with
thousands of bicycles crossing per day is darned safe.

There's no side traffic, you get on, pedal across, and get
off. The bridges are probably even safer than a controlled
access interstate highway in that most bridges are straight,
with no curves. World-wide, heavier bike traffic leads to
fewer crashes, not more.

To see what the effect of helmets is in Portland (not just
its bridges), we need a study of fatal and severe injuries
(24 hours or more in a hospital) for Portland bicyclists.

The fourth line of the text table illustrates the
problem--it shows that Portland bicycle fatalities varied
from 0 to 5 per year over the years, far too low for any
statistical significance.

The 50% reduction in "reported crashes" on the bridges is
probably a tribute to the effect of heavier traffic on a
very unusual stretch of road. I don't think that the rest of
the U.S. reported a 50% drop in "bicycles crashes" over the
same period. When small special cases predict results wildly
at odds with much larger studies, we need to take a very
close look at the small special cases--say 85% of them.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Sorni" <[email protected]> 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 ****?!?

>
> I got dibs on "balderdash" though I'm not sure about the spelling.
>
> I suppose jtaylor probably thinks it's impossible to be pro-sex and
> not support marriage? ;-)
>


"Thinks"? What is this "thinks"? jtaylor don't need no stinkin'
"thinks".

(Well, "balderdash" is gone, yet "horseshit" lies unclaimed. Anyone?)
 
On Mon, 08 May 2006 23:43:01 GMT, Michael Press
<[email protected]> 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.


Dear Michael,

There are people who want mandatory helmet laws because they
believe that helmets will prevent serious injuries and
deaths. (The existence of such laws should be evidence
enough.)

There are people who advocate using helmets, but don't
believe (for moral and practical reasons) that helmets
should be required. (Plenty of folks around here fit this
description.)

There are God's chosen people, who are skeptical if helmets
protect against serious injury and death, but wear them
anyway because they're cowards, they hope that helmets might
help with minor injuries, they think that bicycling is
actually so safe that the risk one way or the other is
negligible, and they pray that a great big yellow hat will
help morons notice them in broad daylight. Besides, a helmet
makes them look taller and more dashing to the ladies, but
only Sheldon can wear a near-Roman helmet with aplomb.
(Modest cough.)

But yes, Virginia, there really are other skeptics who are
on the "anti-helmet side." They don't wear helmets because
they think that helmets increase your chances of being
killed, and they think that you're mistaken and foolish to
wear a helmet and shouldn't do it.

Here's a post outlining the explicit "anti-helmet side":

http://groups.google.com/group/rec....f?q="stats+show+that"&rnum=3#59f910092bcd055f

The recent spate of well-mannered cross-posts from the UK
contains other examples of people who believe that studies
show that helmets are not merely useless, but are actually
a slight danger, and should therefore not be used.

I don't think that any of them have proposed banning
helmets, but they can pinch-hit for the "anti-helmet side"
until a truly courageous poster can be found.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> The recent spate of well-mannered cross-posts from the UK
> contains other examples of people who believe that studies
> show that helmets are not merely useless, but are actually
> a slight danger, and should therefore not be used.
>

And these are exactly the people we could protect with mandatory helmet
laws. They'd slow down to risk compensate. ;-)

Rick
 
[email protected] wrote:
>
> There are people who want mandatory helmet laws ...
>
> There are people who advocate using helmets, but don't
> believe (for moral and practical reasons) that helmets
> should be required....
>
> There are God's chosen people, who are skeptical if helmets
> protect against serious injury and death, but wear them
> anyway ...
>
> But yes, Virginia, there really are other skeptics who are
> on the "anti-helmet side." They don't wear helmets because
> they think that helmets increase your chances of being
> killed...


What we _don't_ have is people that believe riding with a helmet should
be illegal.

That means, at least, that the compulsion brigade is totally skewed
toward the pro-helmet side. The helmet skeptics seem to stop at
stating their views and backing them up with evidence, not compelling
others to adhere to them.

Of course, I realize that by golly, nobody here and no reasonable
person anywhere would ever be in favor of a mandatory helmet law, no
siree, no matter how many people argue in favor of helmets!

That's why there are so many of those laws.

- Frank Krygowski
 
> That means, at least, that the compulsion brigade is totally skewed
> toward the pro-helmet side. The helmet skeptics seem to stop at
> stating their views and backing them up with evidence, not compelling
> others to adhere to them.
>
> Of course, I realize that by golly, nobody here and no reasonable
> person anywhere would ever be in favor of a mandatory helmet law, no
> siree, no matter how many people argue in favor of helmets!
>
> That's why there are so many of those laws.
>
> - Frank Krygowski


Frank: I think you're overlooking one other "force" in the madatory helmet
law craze. Parents/PTA members. Parents who either can't get their kids to
do as they would like, or don't want to bother trying... why not legislate a
solution? If kids are out of hand, bring in the cops!

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> There are people who want mandatory helmet laws ...
>>
>> There are people who advocate using helmets, but don't
>> believe (for moral and practical reasons) that helmets
>> should be required....
>>
>> There are God's chosen people, who are skeptical if helmets
>> protect against serious injury and death, but wear them
>> anyway ...
>>
>> But yes, Virginia, there really are other skeptics who are
>> on the "anti-helmet side." They don't wear helmets because
>> they think that helmets increase your chances of being
>> killed...

>
> What we _don't_ have is people that believe riding with a helmet should
> be illegal.
>
> That means, at least, that the compulsion brigade is totally skewed
> toward the pro-helmet side. The helmet skeptics seem to stop at
> stating their views and backing them up with evidence, not compelling
> others to adhere to them.
>
> Of course, I realize that by golly, nobody here and no reasonable
> person anywhere would ever be in favor of a mandatory helmet law, no
> siree, no matter how many people argue in favor of helmets!
>
> That's why there are so many of those laws.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
 
[email protected] wrote:
> 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


Dear Frank,

Sometimes the comic strips eerily anticipate our most minor squabbles.
Here's today's Disraeli and Twain comment from a bicycle-riding school
janitor:

http://www.comics.com/comics/frazz/archive/frazz-20060508.html

Nice joke about 9 out of 10 people attributing the anti-statistic line
to the wrong person.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
In article <[email protected]>, Simon
Brooke ([email protected]) wrote:

> If a thing does not work, making it free does not make it work. If a
> thing increases danger, making it free still increases danger. Of
> course, none of us really know under what circumstances helmets increase
> risk, but we do know that overall they increase risk, so we know that in
> the bulk of circumstances in which helmets are deployed, they increase
> risk. Obviously, there are probably some - perhaps many - circumstances
> in which helmets decrease risk, but we don't know what they are.
>
> I wouldn't like to be the person who had handed out free helmets that
> killed people.


However, it has been shewn that a "dangerous" activity can be cheaply
and simply rendered "safe" by the application of some ordinary white
paint. Thus the simple act of painting a white stripe down the centre
of the free MartleHat will render the user invulnerable.

Problem solved.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Never tie your shoelaces in a revolving door.
 
[email protected] wrote:

<snipped>

-one POV on helmets-

> They don't wear helmets because
> they think that helmets increase your chances of being
> killed, and they think that you're mistaken and foolish to
> wear a helmet and shouldn't do it.




Our group is seeking investors in a privately funded manned mission to
the moon. The investors will profit handsomely from the sales of the
rare lunar green cheese the mission will return to the earth.

Your post indicates that you fit the profile of an ideal investor in
this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, shall we send you a prospectus?

Green Cheese Opportunities, LLC
 
Quoting Ozark Bicycle <[email protected]>:
>[email protected] wrote:
><snipped>
>>And the icing on the cake is, helmeted cyclists are _not_ well
>>protected. The actual standards used for certification are very, very
>>low.

>OTOH, whatever degree of protection helmets provide is superior v. a
>bare head (and, no, let's not get into the 'additional risk taking' red
>herring here).
>Why does this subject generate so much bile?


Perhaps because of the tendency of helmet advocates to start by pretending
the entire debate to date hasn't happened and say something like "let's
ignore risk compensation".
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is Second Monday, May.
 
Quoting Jeff Starr <[email protected]>:
>If you don't want to wear a helmet, it's ok with me. I think these
>semi annual helmet threads are silly, but I still end up reading some
>of it. In this thread, it seems the anti-helmet group is taking it
>more personally.


There's an anti-helmet group? Who's in it?

[Of course, as a member of the anti-compulsion group and the group that is
opposed to bogus claims about helmets' value, I _do_ take it personally
when people lie about my beliefs by claiming there's an anti-helmet group
when they know there is no such thing.]

>I'm a liberal, but I was bothered by the post that
>attacked beliefs, based on their conservatism.


I hardly think that's specific to this debate. r.b.tech constantly
descends into US politics drivel.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is Second Monday, May.
 
Quoting Ozark Bicycle <[email protected]>:
>Do helmets eliminate "88% of injuries"? Of course not. Will they save
>your bacon if you get hit hard by a motorized vehicle? Probably not.
>Will the act of wearing a helmet *increase* your chances of injury?
>Common sense says it will not.


Common sense also says the world is flat and that the Sun goes around it.
Big deal.

[Indeed, common sense _might_ say that something that makes your head
bigger might very well increase the chances of a head impact...]

>>If you do not, we will
>>get more MHLs, and the choice you say we should have will be taken away.

>***ALERT***Do not use or promote the use of (choose one)
>condoms/contraceptives/home fire extinguishers. We will get mandatory
>condom/contraceptive/home fire extinguisher laws and the choice will be
>taken away!!!


Well, we might well say that when other apparently sane Western
democracies have passed mandatory condom laws, yes.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is Second Monday, May.
 
On 09 May 2006 13:20:20 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Quoting Jeff Starr <[email protected]>:
>>If you don't want to wear a helmet, it's ok with me. I think these
>>semi annual helmet threads are silly, but I still end up reading some
>>of it. In this thread, it seems the anti-helmet group is taking it
>>more personally.

>
>There's an anti-helmet group? Who's in it?


[snip]

Dear David,

Yes, Virginia, there really are other skeptics who are on
the "anti-helmet side."

They don't wear helmets because they think that helmets
increase your chances of being killed, and they think that
you're mistaken and foolish to wear a helmet and shouldn't
do it.

Here's a post outlining the explicit "anti-helmet side":

http://groups.google.com/group/rec....f?q="stats+show+that"&rnum=3#59f910092bcd055f

The recent spate of well-mannered cross-posts from the UK
contains other examples of people who believe that studies
show that helmets are not merely useless, but are actually
a slight danger, and should therefore not be used.

I don't think that any of them have proposed banning
helmets, but they can pinch-hit for the "anti-helmet side"
until a truly courageous poster can be found.

(Sorry for quoting myself from a similar reply, but this
thread is huge.)

Cheers,

Carl Fogel