On 08/16/2005 06:43 AM, in article
[email protected], "RonSonic"
<
[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:50:43 GMT, "Steven L. Sheffield"
> <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/bike/BikeHelmetUseLawsWeb/pag
>> es/index.htm
>>
>> Discuss.
>
> Nothing to discuss.
>
> First; This document simply presumes that helmet laws are good and discusses
> the
> lobbying effort needed to enact them.
>
> Second; It complete ignores effectiveness and the authors do not seem to
> consider such an evaluation important.
>
> This is a religious text, not a public policy document. This is the
> proselytizing plan of some cargo cult like movement that has fetishized
> various
> plastic products that promise enhanced safety for the adherent. They want us
> all
> to join in their celebration of cabinet latches, baby seats, condoms, bike
> helmets, 5mph bumpers, air bags and rubber baby buggy bumpers.
The US Department of Transportation is a cargo cult?
I actually found the document to be interesting because it does NOT ignore
effectiveness (as you assert above), and discusses the difficulty of
measuring the effectiveness of MHLs, for a multitude of reasons, including
a) what is the definition of "effective" (is it increased helmet usage, or
decreased injury), b) did effectiveness studies include potential decreases
in overall bicycle usage (they did not).
It does not conclude that MHLs are a bad thing, nor does it conclude that
they are a good thing.
Which means that BOTH sides will find plenty to argue about in the document.
--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash
