Consumer Reports trolls the 88% helmet line...

[[email protected]]

On 7 May 2006 15:57:49 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>jtaylor wrote:
>
><snipped>
>
>-on the continuing fear of a manditory helmey law for bicyclists-
>
>> And in Japan they have helmets for children to wear when walking to school.
>
>
>Good luck trying to equate the actions of a deeply Asian society like
>Japan's to a steadfastly Western one like ours here in the US.

Dear Oz,

To be fair, the Japanese study requiring elementary school
children to wear helmets while walking led to the conclusion
that it had no significant advantage:

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/jpeds.html

(They may still not be allowed to ride dangerous bicycles to
school.)

The attempt to mandate helmets for car passengers was in
Australia:

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/carhelm.html

Despite the kangaroos, Australia is arguably a steadfastly
Western society.

New Zealand pondered the idea of car helmets:

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/nigel.html

So far, the car helmets are not required.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 08 May 2006 00:27:03 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> On Sun, 07 May 2006 18:48:10 GMT, "Sorni"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> [email protected] wrote (and wrote and wrote):
> >>>> Sorni wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How's this for a stalemate: no one can /prove/ a helmet prevented
> >>>>> an injury, and no one can prove that /not/ wearing one caused or
> >>>>> even contributed to an injury. SO MAKE YOUR OWN CHOICE BASED ON
> >>>>> WHAT SEEMS BEST FOR YOU. (Note: MHLs are a completely separate
> >>>>> issue from 95% of the lid wars on here.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Your proposed stalemate has flaws. Specifically, it leaves in place
> >>>> the total unbalance in the information being presented to the
> >>>> public.
> >>>>
> >>>> We have dozens, perhaps hundreds of agencies proclaiming that one
> >>>> must never ride a bike without a helmet.
> >>>
> >>> Where are all these "agencies"??? I'm a cyclist. I ride quite a
> >>> bit. I know quite a lot of other cyclists. I darken the doors of a
> >>> fair number of bike shops. I NEVER HEAR ALL THESE DIRE WARNINGS
> >>> (one way or the other).
> >>
> >> Dear Bill,
> >>
> >> There are a number of places (apparently unknown to you)
> >> where bicycle helmets are required by law.
> >
> >Dear Carl,
> >
> >We're not discussing MHLs.
> >
> >Bill
>
> Dear Bill,
>
> Don't be silly. Read what you wrote above.
>
> Frank wrote:
> >>>> We have dozens, perhaps hundreds of agencies proclaiming that one
> >>>> must never ride a bike without a helmet.
> >>>
>
> You wrote:
> >>> Where are all these "agencies"???
>
> If government agencies enforce mandatory helmet laws, then
> they are proclaiming that one must never ride a bike without
> a helmet.
>
> If you tried to ride a bicycle where helmets are required by
> law, the judge would explain to you that you must never ride
> a bike without a helmet.
>
> To use your often ridiculous phrase, it's that simple.
>

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?

 

[Sorni]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 08 May 2006 00:27:03 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 07 May 2006 18:48:10 GMT, "Sorni"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [email protected] wrote (and wrote and wrote):
>>>>> Sorni wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How's this for a stalemate: no one can /prove/ a helmet
>>>>>> prevented an injury, and no one can prove that /not/ wearing one
>>>>>> caused or even contributed to an injury. SO MAKE YOUR OWN
>>>>>> CHOICE BASED ON WHAT SEEMS BEST FOR YOU. (Note: MHLs are a
>>>>>> completely separate issue from 95% of the lid wars on here.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Your proposed stalemate has flaws. Specifically, it leaves in
>>>>> place the total unbalance in the information being presented to
>>>>> the public.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have dozens, perhaps hundreds of agencies proclaiming that one
>>>>> must never ride a bike without a helmet.
>>>>
>>>> Where are all these "agencies"??? I'm a cyclist. I ride quite a
>>>> bit. I know quite a lot of other cyclists. I darken the doors of
>>>> a fair number of bike shops. I NEVER HEAR ALL THESE DIRE WARNINGS
>>>> (one way or the other).
>>>
>>> Dear Bill,
>>>
>>> There are a number of places (apparently unknown to you)
>>> where bicycle helmets are required by law.
>>
>> Dear Carl,
>>
>> We're not discussing MHLs.
>>
>> Bill
>
> Dear Bill,
>
> Don't be silly. Read what you wrote above.
>
> Frank wrote:
>>>>> We have dozens, perhaps hundreds of agencies proclaiming that one
>>>>> must never ride a bike without a helmet.
>>>>
>
> You wrote:
>>>> Where are all these "agencies"???
>
> If government agencies enforce mandatory helmet laws, then
> they are proclaiming that one must never ride a bike without
> a helmet.
>
> If you tried to ride a bicycle where helmets are required by
> law, the judge would explain to you that you must never ride
> a bike without a helmet.
>
> To use your often ridiculous phrase, it's that simple.

Dear Verbose Carl,

Frank talked about "information being presented to the public" and then
mentioned "hundreds if not thousands of agencies" as if the two were
related. (If he meant MHLs then why didn't he say so?)

I'll say it one more time. MOST of these discussions in the last few days
were solely about the merits or lack thereof of helmets. Many people seem
unduly emotionally invested in bashing (so to speak) their use. The
SEPARATE issue of MHLs only appeared late in the day.

I am pro helmet use. I think it's a smart thing to do. I am anti MHLs. I
think they're unduly restrictive and Big Brother-esque. 95% of the threads
(in their entirety) have NOT been about MHLs.

And my ridiculous phrase, Dr. Egghead, is "It's really not that
complicated" -- not "it's that simple".

Wear a lid if you choose to; don't if you don't. You /should/ always have
that choice, IMO (excepting certain organized events that MAY require
helmets -- up to the organizers/sponsors/insurers/etc. CHOICE.).

Bill S.

 

[[email protected]]

On 7 May 2006 19:26:59 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 May 2006 00:27:03 GMT, "Sorni"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 07 May 2006 18:48:10 GMT, "Sorni"
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> [email protected] wrote (and wrote and wrote):
>> >>>> Sorni wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> How's this for a stalemate: no one can /prove/ a helmet prevented
>> >>>>> an injury, and no one can prove that /not/ wearing one caused or
>> >>>>> even contributed to an injury. SO MAKE YOUR OWN CHOICE BASED ON
>> >>>>> WHAT SEEMS BEST FOR YOU. (Note: MHLs are a completely separate
>> >>>>> issue from 95% of the lid wars on here.)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Your proposed stalemate has flaws. Specifically, it leaves in place
>> >>>> the total unbalance in the information being presented to the
>> >>>> public.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We have dozens, perhaps hundreds of agencies proclaiming that one
>> >>>> must never ride a bike without a helmet.
>> >>>
>> >>> Where are all these "agencies"??? I'm a cyclist. I ride quite a
>> >>> bit. I know quite a lot of other cyclists. I darken the doors of a
>> >>> fair number of bike shops. I NEVER HEAR ALL THESE DIRE WARNINGS
>> >>> (one way or the other).
>> >>
>> >> Dear Bill,
>> >>
>> >> There are a number of places (apparently unknown to you)
>> >> where bicycle helmets are required by law.
>> >
>> >Dear Carl,
>> >
>> >We're not discussing MHLs.
>> >
>> >Bill
>>
>> Dear Bill,
>>
>> Don't be silly. Read what you wrote above.
>>
>> Frank wrote:
>> >>>> We have dozens, perhaps hundreds of agencies proclaiming that one
>> >>>> must never ride a bike without a helmet.
>> >>>
>>
>> You wrote:
>> >>> Where are all these "agencies"???
>>
>> If government agencies enforce mandatory helmet laws, then
>> they are proclaiming that one must never ride a bike without
>> a helmet.
>>
>> If you tried to ride a bicycle where helmets are required by
>> law, the judge would explain to you that you must never ride
>> a bike without a helmet.
>>
>> To use your often ridiculous phrase, it's that simple.
>>
>
>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.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 7 May 2006 19:26:59 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> On Mon, 08 May 2006 00:27:03 GMT, "Sorni"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 07 May 2006 18:48:10 GMT, "Sorni"
> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> [email protected] wrote (and wrote and wrote):
> >> >>>> Sorni wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> How's this for a stalemate: no one can /prove/ a helmet prevented
> >> >>>>> an injury, and no one can prove that /not/ wearing one caused or
> >> >>>>> even contributed to an injury. SO MAKE YOUR OWN CHOICE BASED ON
> >> >>>>> WHAT SEEMS BEST FOR YOU. (Note: MHLs are a completely separate
> >> >>>>> issue from 95% of the lid wars on here.)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Your proposed stalemate has flaws. Specifically, it leaves in place
> >> >>>> the total unbalance in the information being presented to the
> >> >>>> public.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> We have dozens, perhaps hundreds of agencies proclaiming that one
> >> >>>> must never ride a bike without a helmet.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Where are all these "agencies"??? I'm a cyclist. I ride quite a
> >> >>> bit. I know quite a lot of other cyclists. I darken the doors of a
> >> >>> fair number of bike shops. I NEVER HEAR ALL THESE DIRE WARNINGS
> >> >>> (one way or the other).
> >> >>
> >> >> Dear Bill,
> >> >>
> >> >> There are a number of places (apparently unknown to you)
> >> >> where bicycle helmets are required by law.
> >> >
> >> >Dear Carl,
> >> >
> >> >We're not discussing MHLs.
> >> >
> >> >Bill
> >>
> >> Dear Bill,
> >>
> >> Don't be silly. Read what you wrote above.
> >>
> >> Frank wrote:
> >> >>>> We have dozens, perhaps hundreds of agencies proclaiming that one
> >> >>>> must never ride a bike without a helmet.
> >> >>>
> >>
> >> You wrote:
> >> >>> Where are all these "agencies"???
> >>
> >> If government agencies enforce mandatory helmet laws, then
> >> they are proclaiming that one must never ride a bike without
> >> a helmet.
> >>
> >> If you tried to ride a bicycle where helmets are required by
> >> law, the judge would explain to you that you must never ride
> >> a bike without a helmet.
> >>
> >> To use your often ridiculous phrase, it's that simple.
> >>
> >
> >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.
>
>

Can you give examples of regular, routine enforcement here in the US?

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Sorni wrote:

<snipped for clarity>

-on using a helmet whilst bicycling-

>
> I am pro helmet use. I think it's a smart thing to do. I am anti MHLs. I
> think they're unduly restrictive and Big Brother-esque. 95% of the threads
> (in their entirety) have NOT been about MHLs.
>

<snipped for brevity>

> Wear a lid if you choose to; don't if you don't. You /should/ always have
> that choice, IMO (excepting certain organized events that MAY require
> helmets -- up to the organizers/sponsors/insurers/etc. CHOICE.).
>


Very well said!

Shall we lay this thread to rest?

 

[[email protected]]

On 7 May 2006 19:51:06 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On 7 May 2006 19:26:59 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 08 May 2006 00:27:03 GMT, "Sorni"
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 07 May 2006 18:48:10 GMT, "Sorni"
>> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> [email protected] wrote (and wrote and wrote):
>> >> >>>> Sorni wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> How's this for a stalemate: no one can /prove/ a helmet prevented
>> >> >>>>> an injury, and no one can prove that /not/ wearing one caused or
>> >> >>>>> even contributed to an injury. SO MAKE YOUR OWN CHOICE BASED ON
>> >> >>>>> WHAT SEEMS BEST FOR YOU. (Note: MHLs are a completely separate
>> >> >>>>> issue from 95% of the lid wars on here.)
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Your proposed stalemate has flaws. Specifically, it leaves in place
>> >> >>>> the total unbalance in the information being presented to the
>> >> >>>> public.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> We have dozens, perhaps hundreds of agencies proclaiming that one
>> >> >>>> must never ride a bike without a helmet.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Where are all these "agencies"??? I'm a cyclist. I ride quite a
>> >> >>> bit. I know quite a lot of other cyclists. I darken the doors of a
>> >> >>> fair number of bike shops. I NEVER HEAR ALL THESE DIRE WARNINGS
>> >> >>> (one way or the other).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dear Bill,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There are a number of places (apparently unknown to you)
>> >> >> where bicycle helmets are required by law.
>> >> >
>> >> >Dear Carl,
>> >> >
>> >> >We're not discussing MHLs.
>> >> >
>> >> >Bill
>> >>
>> >> Dear Bill,
>> >>
>> >> Don't be silly. Read what you wrote above.
>> >>
>> >> Frank wrote:
>> >> >>>> We have dozens, perhaps hundreds of agencies proclaiming that one
>> >> >>>> must never ride a bike without a helmet.
>> >> >>>
>> >>
>> >> You wrote:
>> >> >>> Where are all these "agencies"???
>> >>
>> >> If government agencies enforce mandatory helmet laws, then
>> >> they are proclaiming that one must never ride a bike without
>> >> a helmet.
>> >>
>> >> If you tried to ride a bicycle where helmets are required by
>> >> law, the judge would explain to you that you must never ride
>> >> a bike without a helmet.
>> >>
>> >> To use your often ridiculous phrase, it's that simple.
>> >>
>> >
>> >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.
>>
>>
>
>Can you give examples of regular, routine enforcement here in the US?

Dear Oz,

Oh, now we're limiting the question to the United States?

Fine, take about 60 seconds and google.

Or rely on me:

"Law enforcement throughout King County including Seattle
has been trained on the benefits of bike helmet use and the
law requiring bike riders of all ages to wear helmets. From
now through approximately June 15, Seattle Police and other
law enforcement will begin issuing warnings to riders not
wearing helmets. Starting mid-June riders could be cited for
not wearing helmets."

http://www.metrokc.gov/health/news/04051501.htm

If you read the whole 2004 article, you'll find the familiar
discredited 88% injury reduction figure, alive and well.

Feel free to argue that the cops will disobey public
announcements and fail to issue easy tickets to anyone they
see riding without a helmet.

I believe that many smokers used to think that no one would
actually enforce the no-smoking laws.

Last spring, I was stopped and ordered to leash my dog in
the state park, ten miles down a dirt road, half mile past
the gate stopping vehicles, in an area thick with duck
blinds and retrievers. The nearest other living things were
coyotes.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Jeff Starr]

On Sun, 7 May 2006 20:56:43 -0300, "jtaylor"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Jeff Starr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 7 May 2006 17:36:10 -0300, "jtaylor"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Jeff Starr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >>
>> >> Not at all. My Grandma cracked her egg, losing her balance in her
>> >> basement. They had to do surgery, to relieve pressure on the brain.
>> >> Now, rather than focus on the absurd notion that therefore old people
>> >> should wear helmets at all times, let's consider that they are more
>> >> apt to fall off a bicycle than trip in their basement.
>> >
>> >Ooops.
>> >
>> >Someone's spouting opinion as fact; not the best course when the facts
>> >disagree with opinion...
>> >
>> Ooops.
>>
>> Someone is snipping to change what I said. Now, let's look at that
>> paragraph in its entirety:
>>
>> "Not at all. My Grandma cracked her egg, losing her balance in her
>> basement. They had to do surgery, to relieve pressure on the brain.
>> Now, rather than focus on the absurd notion that therefore old people
>> should wear helmets at all times, let's consider that they are more
>> apt to fall off a bicycle than trip in their basement. My point is
>> old people's heads may be more suspectable to injury, from what to a
>> younger person might be a glancing blow. [No Frank, I don't have a
>> stats or studies, for this.]"
>>
>> "May be more suspectable" although spelled wrong I meant susceptible,
>> but either way, it is a long way from stating fact.
>>
>> So where is the fact? It's kind of sad when you have to be using
>> weasel tactics like the above, to try to discredit those who may
>> disagree with you.
>>
>
>It's here - this part is completely wrong:
>
>"...they are more apt to fall off a bicycle than trip in their basement."
>
>That's why the rest of your post was snipped (the bit where you were
>spouting opinion which even though you told us you had no "...stats or
>studies..." to back it up - most people could easily see this as probable
>codswallop).
>
You really are a weasel. you snip the "let's consider". It's my
OPINION! It is also my opinion that you are an asshole.

These helmet debates truly do bring out the worst in people. Of course
it does help us identify the weasels.

Jeff

 

[Jeff Starr]

On 7 May 2006 20:07:56 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Sorni wrote:
>
><snipped for clarity>
>
>-on using a helmet whilst bicycling-
>
>>
>> I am pro helmet use. I think it's a smart thing to do. I am anti MHLs. I
>> think they're unduly restrictive and Big Brother-esque. 95% of the threads
>> (in their entirety) have NOT been about MHLs.
>>
>
><snipped for brevity>
>
>> Wear a lid if you choose to; don't if you don't. You /should/ always have
>> that choice, IMO (excepting certain organized events that MAY require
>> helmets -- up to the organizers/sponsors/insurers/etc. CHOICE.).
>>
>
>
>Very well said!
>
>Shall we lay this thread to rest?

Yeah, good luck with that.


It's a strange week when I agree with, and believe that two of the
more rational people, are you and Sorni.


Life is Good!
Jeff

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 7 May 2006 19:51:06 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> On 7 May 2006 19:26:59 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 08 May 2006 00:27:03 GMT, "Sorni"
> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sun, 07 May 2006 18:48:10 GMT, "Sorni"
> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> [email protected] wrote (and wrote and wrote):
> >> >> >>>> Sorni wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> How's this for a stalemate: no one can /prove/ a helmet prevented
> >> >> >>>>> an injury, and no one can prove that /not/ wearing one caused or
> >> >> >>>>> even contributed to an injury. SO MAKE YOUR OWN CHOICE BASED ON
> >> >> >>>>> WHAT SEEMS BEST FOR YOU. (Note: MHLs are a completely separate
> >> >> >>>>> issue from 95% of the lid wars on here.)
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Your proposed stalemate has flaws. Specifically, it leaves in place
> >> >> >>>> the total unbalance in the information being presented to the
> >> >> >>>> public.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> We have dozens, perhaps hundreds of agencies proclaiming that one
> >> >> >>>> must never ride a bike without a helmet.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Where are all these "agencies"??? I'm a cyclist. I ride quite a
> >> >> >>> bit. I know quite a lot of other cyclists. I darken the doors of a
> >> >> >>> fair number of bike shops. I NEVER HEAR ALL THESE DIRE WARNINGS
> >> >> >>> (one way or the other).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Dear Bill,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> There are a number of places (apparently unknown to you)
> >> >> >> where bicycle helmets are required by law.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Dear Carl,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >We're not discussing MHLs.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Bill
> >> >>
> >> >> Dear Bill,
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't be silly. Read what you wrote above.
> >> >>
> >> >> Frank wrote:
> >> >> >>>> We have dozens, perhaps hundreds of agencies proclaiming that one
> >> >> >>>> must never ride a bike without a helmet.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> You wrote:
> >> >> >>> Where are all these "agencies"???
> >> >>
> >> >> If government agencies enforce mandatory helmet laws, then
> >> >> they are proclaiming that one must never ride a bike without
> >> >> a helmet.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you tried to ride a bicycle where helmets are required by
> >> >> law, the judge would explain to you that you must never ride
> >> >> a bike without a helmet.
> >> >>
> >> >> To use your often ridiculous phrase, it's that simple.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >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.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Can you give examples of regular, routine enforcement here in the US?
>
> Dear Oz,
>
> Oh, now we're limiting the question to the United States?
>
> Fine, take about 60 seconds and google.
>
> Or rely on me:
>
> "Law enforcement throughout King County including Seattle
> has been trained on the benefits of bike helmet use and the
> law requiring bike riders of all ages to wear helmets. From
> now through approximately June 15, Seattle Police and other
> law enforcement will begin issuing warnings to riders not
> wearing helmets. Starting mid-June riders could be cited for
> not wearing helmets."
>
> http://www.metrokc.gov/health/news/04051501.htm
>
> If you read the whole 2004 article, you'll find the familiar
> discredited 88% injury reduction figure, alive and well.
>
> Feel free to argue that the cops will disobey public
> announcements and fail to issue easy tickets to anyone they
> see riding without a helmet.
>

The salient issue is this: have cyclists been "pulled over" and cited,
or not?

A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice.


> I believe that many smokers used to think that no one would
> actually enforce the no-smoking laws.
>
> Last spring, I was stopped and ordered to leash my dog in
> the state park, ten miles down a dirt road, half mile past
> the gate stopping vehicles, in an area thick with duck
> blinds and retrievers. The nearest other living things were
> coyotes.
>

I'm as big a civil liberties advocate as anyone. But, in this case, I
first want to know if any extant bicycle MHLs are being regularly and
routinely enforced.

Are they?

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Jeff Starr wrote:
> On 7 May 2006 20:07:56 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Sorni wrote:
> >
> ><snipped for clarity>
> >
> >-on using a helmet whilst bicycling-
> >
> >>
> >> I am pro helmet use. I think it's a smart thing to do. I am anti MHLs. I
> >> think they're unduly restrictive and Big Brother-esque. 95% of the threads
> >> (in their entirety) have NOT been about MHLs.
> >>
> >
> ><snipped for brevity>
> >
> >> Wear a lid if you choose to; don't if you don't. You /should/ always have
> >> that choice, IMO (excepting certain organized events that MAY require
> >> helmets -- up to the organizers/sponsors/insurers/etc. CHOICE.).
> >>
> >
> >
> >Very well said!
> >
> >Shall we lay this thread to rest?
>
> Yeah, good luck with that.
>
>
> It's a strange week when I agree with, and believe that two of the
> more rational people, are you and Sorni.
>
>
>

Well, ya just never know, eh?

 

[Sorni]

Jeff Starr wrote:
> On 7 May 2006 20:07:56 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Sorni wrote:
>>
>> <snipped for clarity>
>>
>> -on using a helmet whilst bicycling-
>>
>>>
>>> I am pro helmet use. I think it's a smart thing to do. I am anti
>>> MHLs. I think they're unduly restrictive and Big Brother-esque.
>>> 95% of the threads (in their entirety) have NOT been about MHLs.
>>>
>>
>> <snipped for brevity>
>>
>>> Wear a lid if you choose to; don't if you don't. You /should/
>>> always have that choice, IMO (excepting certain organized events
>>> that MAY require helmets -- up to the
>>> organizers/sponsors/insurers/etc. CHOICE.).
>>>
>>
>>
>> Very well said!
>>
>> Shall we lay this thread to rest?
>
> Yeah, good luck with that.
>
>
> It's a strange week when I agree with, and believe that two of the
> more rational people, are you and Sorni.

Don't get used to it! (Election season is only months away ;-) )

 

[[email protected]]

Sorni wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> >> I see that you snipped my suggestion that your club might take up a
> >> collection to supply those inexpensive (under $10) helmets to the
> >> indigent families *free of charge*. Even if you thought this was a
> >> poor idea, at least acknowledge that it was put forth.
>
> > OK. It was put forth. It's silly. They don't need helmets. Cycling
> > is safe without them, and they don't add appreciably to the safety of
> > cycling.
>
> So what the hell are you sniveling about then?!?

You are obviously mis-reading. There's no sniveling in my manner.
It's not my style, any more than rational discussion is yours.

> Since this thread ain't
> about MHLs, the entire exchange was pointless.

Please re-read. You are apparently confused. I did not mention MHLs
in the paragraph I wrote. It's quoted above, for your convenience.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
>
>
> Frank wrote:
> >>>> We have dozens, perhaps hundreds of agencies proclaiming that one
> >>>> must never ride a bike without a helmet.
> >>>
>
> You wrote:
> >>> Where are all these "agencies"???
>
> If government agencies enforce mandatory helmet laws, then
> they are proclaiming that one must never ride a bike without
> a helmet.

And it's not merely law enforcement. It's not merely government
agencies. There are groups like Safe Kids Inc. saying kids and adults
must never bike without helmets. There are pro-MHL agencies like the
so-called Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute. There are regular
communications from the World Health Organization - or at least, from
one physician using it's authority, who seems to feel bike helmets are
as important as basic nutrition. There is, of course, Snell Memorial
Foundation. There are physicians groups...

In fact, listing the organizations is silly. Any eighth grader with an
internet connection and ten spare minutes should be able to find 20
different agencies telling people to never ride a bike without a helmet
(and in almost all cases, quoting the "85%" garbage.)

If anyone (Sorni? Ozark?) claims they don't realize this, it's an
incredible admission of ignorance.

Really, you guys should study for a while before doing any more
posting.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Sorni]

[email protected] wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>
>>>> I see that you snipped my suggestion that your club might take up a
>>>> collection to supply those inexpensive (under $10) helmets to the
>>>> indigent families *free of charge*. Even if you thought this was a
>>>> poor idea, at least acknowledge that it was put forth.

>>> OK. It was put forth. It's silly. They don't need helmets.
>>> Cycling is safe without them, and they don't add appreciably to the
>>> safety of cycling.

>> So what the hell are you sniveling about then?!?

> You are obviously mis-reading. There's no sniveling in my manner.
> It's not my style, any more than rational discussion is yours.

The /poor families/ can't afford helmets. You...decry (is that a better
word for you?) this "fact", while also arguing that they don't need 'em and
shouldn't want 'em. You really can't spot the flaw in that, Mr. Rational?!?

>> Since this thread ain't
>> about MHLs, the entire exchange was pointless.
>
> Please re-read. You are apparently confused. I did not mention MHLs
> in the paragraph I wrote. It's quoted above, for your convenience.

That's exactly the point. (SIGH!) The "poor people" aren't REQUIRED to
wear helmets, so why do you care if they can't afford them? (In fact, given
your emotional investment in this whole issue, you should be GLAD that there
will be more people -- albeit /poor unfortunate/ ones -- out there riding
hatless!)

JFC, maybe it IS this complicated...

BS

 

[[email protected]]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> 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?

Once again, posting from ignorance.

Yes, "Ozark," cruisers have pulled cyclists over for not wearing
helmets.

A few years ago, there was the well-publicized case of a Florida cop
handcuffing a little kid (about 10 years old) for not wearing a bike
helmet. It got national attention and generated considerable outrage,
partly because the images of the manhandling of the little kid were
recorded.

There was a paper published a few years ago touting the effectiveness
of immediate bike confiscations in enforcing helmet laws. This was in
a small Georgia town, IIRC. Sure, there are detail problems with their
tactic, in that they were confiscating property without due process,
but that fine point didn't deter the cops and other pro-helmet people
who wrote the paper.

Enforcement in Australian states and in New Zealand is reported to be
very enthusiastic - which is one reason they have wearing rates of over
80%. They take it seriously - despite the lack of apparent benefit.
In fact, there were a couple well-publicized cases where people were
actually jailed for repeated offenses. Ride a bike bareheaded, go to
jail.

By the way, the kids in the Florida and Georgia examples were black, as
was at least one girl in Australia who was jailed. I'm not sure if
that's pertinent.

Not that all MHLs are rigidly enforced. I've certainly seen the kids
in Pennsylvania ignoring the MHL, and I've seen cops ignore the
violation. Which is a marvelous way of teaching kids that they can
ignore society's laws.

In any case, this information is available on the web. It's time to
stop posting out of ignorance, and to learn something about this
subject. Try www.cyclehelmets.org

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

Jeff Starr wrote:
> >
> You really are a weasel. you snip the "let's consider". It's my
> OPINION! It is also my opinion that you are an asshole.
>
> These helmet debates truly do bring out the worst in people. Of course
> it does help us identify the weasels.

It helps us identify the people who lose control and descend into
juvenile namecalling!

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> The salient issue is this: have cyclists been "pulled over" and cited,
> or not?
>
> A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice.

Yes.

But why not read about the issues before you post?

Try http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Sorni]

[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>> We have dozens, perhaps hundreds of agencies proclaiming that one
>>>>>> must never ride a bike without a helmet.
>>>>>
>>
>> You wrote:
>>>>> Where are all these "agencies"???
>>
>> If government agencies enforce mandatory helmet laws, then
>> they are proclaiming that one must never ride a bike without
>> a helmet.
>
> And it's not merely law enforcement. It's not merely government
> agencies. There are groups like Safe Kids Inc. saying kids and adults
> must never bike without helmets. There are pro-MHL agencies like the
> so-called Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute. There are regular
> communications from the World Health Organization - or at least, from
> one physician using it's authority, who seems to feel bike helmets are
> as important as basic nutrition. There is, of course, Snell Memorial
> Foundation. There are physicians groups...
>
> In fact, listing the organizations is silly. Any eighth grader with
> an internet connection and ten spare minutes should be able to find 20
> different agencies telling people to never ride a bike without a
> helmet (and in almost all cases, quoting the "85%" garbage.)
>
> If anyone (Sorni? Ozark?) claims they don't realize this, it's an
> incredible admission of ignorance.
>
> Really, you guys should study for a while before doing any more
> posting.

You pompous gasbag. (Expletives deleted.) Just because YOU blow
chunks...of time..."researching" every little obscure group that promotes
helmet safety, that doesn't mean that the average person -- much less
cyclist -- is exposed to this /litttany/ of horrible material you imagine
floods his or her senses. Or would want to be. Or would have ANY interest
in being.

I ride bikes. I buy bikes (and bike-related accessories.) I shop at bike
stores. I see other people (casual and "serious" cyclists) in stores and on
roads and trails. I've never been inundated with "propaganda" re. helmets.
I made what for me was a common-sense CHOICE many years ago; and strangely
enough, every single person I ride with has done likewise. To blame it on
"agencies" is just a bunch of steaming horseshit.

Note to all the intellectual eggheads out there: not everyone has to agree
with you on everything. (Applies to politics, too.) Moreover, your
unrestrained /arrogance/ makes it rather enjoyable to reject your
conclusions. Especially when, ironically, they're more emotion-based than
you'll ever dare admit.

Gee, I guess I'll have to DAGS now to make sure it's OK to think that.

I'll get back to ya...

 

[[email protected]]

Sorni wrote:
>
>
> The /poor families/ can't afford helmets. You...decry (is that a better
> word for you?) this "fact", while also arguing that they don't need 'em and
> shouldn't want 'em. You really can't spot the flaw in that, Mr. Rational?!?
>
> >> [BS:] Since this thread ain't
> >> about MHLs, the entire exchange was pointless.
> >
> > [fk:] Please re-read. You are apparently confused. I did not mention MHLs
> > in the paragraph I wrote. It's quoted above, for your convenience.
>
> That's exactly the point. (SIGH!) The "poor people" aren't REQUIRED to
> wear helmets, so why do you care if they can't afford them?

I think most people followed me, but I'll explain in detail for you.

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.

Personally, I think this is bad. Bicycling can be economical
transportation to a paying job, to libraries, to less expensive stores,
etc. I believe bicycling should be promoted, not discouraged.

I recognize that there are many pro-helmet people who disagree - who
are willing to discourage cycling in their zeal to promote helmets.
Perhaps you're one of those people.

- Frank Krygowski