T
Tony Raven
Guest
SMS wrote:
>
> It's amusing when you see the posts by cyclists in countries with MHLs,
> claiming that they've been riding for 20, 30, 40, 50, years, etc., but
> gave it up when the MHL was enacted. Then they claim that the number of
> cyclists has gone down, solely because of the MHL, yet the
> injury/fatality rate has declined only linearly with the alleged decline
> in the number of riders. There's at least three problems with their
> claims. First, if indeed cycling has declined, it was not due solely to
> the MHL. Second, if it's the long time riders that have given up cycling
> rather than wear a helmet, then the average experience level of the
> remaining cyclists has gone way down, and third, the injury fatality
> rate reduction must be attributed to helmets, since it's now less
> experienced cyclists, which have more accidents, that are comprising a
> larger proportion of the cycling population.
>
> Of course, none of their original claims have been proven, so until a
> real study is done, there is no way of knowing any of this.
Oh, I think we can make a pretty good guess. What do you think are the
chances that the MHL induced experience profile change you claim was
such that it exactly cancelled out in each state and in each country the
reduction in head injuries that you claim the MHL would have prevented?
--
Tony
"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
>
> It's amusing when you see the posts by cyclists in countries with MHLs,
> claiming that they've been riding for 20, 30, 40, 50, years, etc., but
> gave it up when the MHL was enacted. Then they claim that the number of
> cyclists has gone down, solely because of the MHL, yet the
> injury/fatality rate has declined only linearly with the alleged decline
> in the number of riders. There's at least three problems with their
> claims. First, if indeed cycling has declined, it was not due solely to
> the MHL. Second, if it's the long time riders that have given up cycling
> rather than wear a helmet, then the average experience level of the
> remaining cyclists has gone way down, and third, the injury fatality
> rate reduction must be attributed to helmets, since it's now less
> experienced cyclists, which have more accidents, that are comprising a
> larger proportion of the cycling population.
>
> Of course, none of their original claims have been proven, so until a
> real study is done, there is no way of knowing any of this.
Oh, I think we can make a pretty good guess. What do you think are the
chances that the MHL induced experience profile change you claim was
such that it exactly cancelled out in each state and in each country the
reduction in head injuries that you claim the MHL would have prevented?
--
Tony
"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham