Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

[Peter Storey]

Chris B. <[email protected]> quoted someone thusly
in message news:<[email protected]>...

> "That includes N.D.P. MPP Michael Prue, who lost his brother to a bike
> accident in 1998. ?There isn't a day goes by that I don't see someone
> on the streets of Toronto, an adult, with no helmet on their head, and
> I want to get out of my car or off the sidewalk and I want to grab
> them and I want to shake them,? he reflects. ?I want to tell them that
> this was an absolutely wrong thing, a bad thing to happen."

Oh dear! Shaking them? MPP Prue really should read up on rotational
injuries that are not prevented --- and may be exacerbated -- by
wearing a helmet.

Peter Storey

 

[Chris B.]

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 14:36:05 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:

>AustinMN wrote:
>
>> Chris Phillipo wrote
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > I'm saying that he constantly posts statistics that claim
>>>> > helmet use is detrimental to the health of the people because it
>>>> deters
>>>> > them from riding, I counter that in Nova Scotia helmet use is not
>>>> > enforced so where exactly is this deterrent for riders?
>>>>
>>>> Chris, these two statements don't oppose and contradict each other.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Come again?
>>
>>
>> Take a deep breath. Just because a law is not enforced, doesn't mean
>> there aren't people who obey it.
>>
>> The existence of the law (whether or not it is enforced) _is_ a deterrent.
>>
>
>More to the point, just because a law is not enforced - or, more likely,
>not _usually_ enforced - doesn't mean that there are people who are put
>off by the _possibility_ of enforcement.
>
>Those who think a MHL has no effect on cycling are being very unrealistic.

Frank, why did you remove the cross post? It is very much on topic
for ont.bicycle.
--

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
robber-barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber-
baron's cruelty may at some point be satiated; but those who
torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they
do so with the approval of their own conscience."

- C.S. Lewis

 

[Mitch Haley]

Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>
> To go even further, the mere existence of a law purported to be for
> "safety" purposes, even if it is *guaranteed* to be unenforced, can
> potentially be a deterrent, since it spreads the idea, sometimes
> unconsciously, that the activity is dangerous.

Not to mention spreading the silly idea that the government is your parent.

 

[Bill Z.]

Dragan Cvetkovic <[email protected]> writes:

> Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, bikerider@-no-
> > spam-thanks-rogers.com says...
> >>
> >> I wonder why. Are you aware that mandatory helmet laws implemented in
> >> Alberta, Nova Scotia, New Zealand and parts of Australia have not only
> >> not shown benefits but have actually had negative effects (decreased
> >> numbers of cyclists in all cases and sometimes an increase in the rate
> >> of head injury after the law is enacted)?
> >>
> >
> > Ho hum, that would be a neat trick considering the helmet laws are not
> > even enforced outside of Halifax in Nova Scotia. Which makes me think
> > the rest of these "statitics" are in quesiton.
>
> Are you saying that people should obey the law only if it is actually and
> actively enforced?


He's saying what I have said for years on this topic: that laws that
are not obeyed or enforced have zero impact on human behavior. People
are not going to stop cycling because of a helmet law that is neither
obeyed nor enforced.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Chris B. wrote:

>
>
> Frank, why did you remove the cross post? It is very much on topic
> for ont.bicycle.

Because my system won't let me post there. When I try, the entire post
hangs. I agree it's very much on topic there. Feel free to copy.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Chris Phillipo wrote:

>
>
> That had nothing to do with the point of my post but I'm sure that this
> bill, like almost all others, has no provision in it for extra law
> enforment spending.

Which means, of course, that any time the cops give to enforcing it is
time taken away from real productive activity.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Ken [NY) wrote:

>
> To the fellow who was thinking about fleeing to Canada from
> the horrors of Bush's low tax rates, you might want to think about
> this proposed law.
>

But then, there's the opportunity to get free of Neanderthal right
wingers and their simplistic "thinking." The choice isn't easy!

Ah well. We're off topic, aren't we?


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Peter Keller]

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:08:50 +0000, Chris Phillipo wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, bikerider@-no-
> spam-thanks-rogers.com says...
>>
>> I wonder why. Are you aware that mandatory helmet laws implemented in
>> Alberta, Nova Scotia, New Zealand and parts of Australia have not only
>> not shown benefits but have actually had negative effects (decreased
>> numbers of cyclists in all cases and sometimes an increase in the rate
>> of head injury after the law is enacted)?
>>
>
> Ho hum, that would be a neat trick considering the helmet laws are not
> even enforced outside of Halifax in Nova Scotia. Which makes me think
> the rest of these "statitics" are in quesiton.


In New Zealand the law is savagely and ferociously enforced.
Between 1994 (law begin) and now:
Reduction in numbers of bicyclists 34%
Reduction in numbers of children bicycling 80%
Reduction in numbers of women bicycling 90%
Reduction in head injuries, deaths 19%

Peter


--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

 

[RogerDodger]

...
I always wear a helmet. I destroyed one a month ago in a crash- and walked
away. it will not prevent all injuries, but it improves your odds of
walking away. That said, not sure I want a law mandating helmets. Here in
PA they just repealed the motorcycle helmet law.

--
Bob Burns
Mill Hall PA
[email protected]

So Bob, it improves your odds of walking away huh? Well I have a question for you (actually it more of a challenge than a question - an epistemological challenge).
How would you know that? That's the crux question, Bob.

See you don't know that wearing a helmet improves you odds of walking away. Indeed you're not alone in believing it, but just cause a lot of people all believe something doesn't make it true. The evidence suggests that the belief that a helmet will improve your odds of walking away is an illusion, an enticing illusion that a lot of people willingly buy into and, even worse tend to become advocates for and expouse fervently. There's the problem - people erroneously believe that helmets make a substantial and worthwile difference when they in fact don't and then the emphasis that is given to wearing helmets takes priority and the place of other *real* safety initiatives and improvements that could be made for us cyclists. The bottom line is that those cyclists among us who bang on about the "vital need" for helmets are doing Cycling a grave disservice. Something like sucking a dummy, but worse. It's hard enough trying to get respect, care and consideration from motorists as it is without some of our number bleating on about our need to wear poly-bonnets which which aren't worth a pinch of s_ _ t.

Roger

 

[Chris B.]

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:25:14 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Chris B. wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Frank, why did you remove the cross post? It is very much on topic
>> for ont.bicycle.
>
>Because my system won't let me post there. When I try, the entire post
>hangs. I agree it's very much on topic there. Feel free to copy.

I hadn't even considered that, sorry.

I must say, I'm not usually so provincial.
--

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
robber-barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber-
baron's cruelty may at some point be satiated; but those who
torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they
do so with the approval of their own conscience."

- C.S. Lewis

 

[RogerDodger]

In New Zealand the law is savagely and ferociously enforced.
Between 1994 (law begin) and now:
Reduction in numbers of bicyclists 34%
Reduction in numbers of children bicycling 80%
Reduction in numbers of women bicycling 90%
Reduction in head injuries, deaths 19%

Peter

While not disputing what Peter is getting at, the last figure
--Reduction in head injuries, deaths 19%-- has been shown to be flawed [1], it is procured by means of the ubiquitous "fudge factor method". It comes from a report published in Accident Analysis & Prevention by Scuffham P, Alsop J, Cryer C, Langley JD.
(AAP, 2000;32, p565-573) which dispensed with the inclusion of a downward trend variable from the data analysis because when it was included (as it should have been) it swamped the "helmet effect" to such an extent that there was no significant helmet effect! (Omit the downward trend variable and hey presto we get a helmet effect appearing in its place - statistical abra cadabra!)

So it is more accurate to say that Scuffhams previous research finding of no significant helmet effect (AAP 1997) is the safer and more reliable finding. Incidentally what Scuffham found in the earlier research (Accid.Anal and Prev.,1997, Vol.29 pp1-9.) was that while there wasn't a detectable significant association between increased helmet wearing and head injuries there was a significand downward trend in head injuries due to other unidentified factors (this downward trend is not atypical, it seems to be a worldwide phenomenon) and this downward trend was apparent in the period 1980 - 1986 when helmet wearing was basically zilch (less than 1% nationwide) futhermore this this downward trend continued at the same rate from 1987 1990-92 despite the helmet wearing rate rocketing up past 50%.

[1]Note Dorothy Robinson has a piece published in AAP (2001) demonstrating the flaw in Scuffham et al's research.

Roger

 

[Bill Z.]

Chris B. <[email protected]> writes:

> On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:25:14 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Chris B. wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Frank, why did you remove the cross post? It is very much on topic
> >> for ont.bicycle.
> >
> >Because my system won't let me post there. When I try, the entire post
> >hangs. I agree it's very much on topic there. Feel free to copy.
>
> I hadn't even considered that, sorry.
>

Krygoswki's claim doesn't make much sense - normally you get an
error if you can't post and the newsreader just reports it. If
he really can't post, then he should first try a different newsreader
to rule out a bug in the version of Mozilla he uses (5.0) and
then report the problem to his employer (he seems to be posting
from work.)

 

[RogerDodger]

> Does cycling without a helmet really need to be be criminal?

Who are you hurting beside yourself if you choose not to wear a
helmet? What is the crime? I think children should wear helmets, but
adults should make their own choice. I rode on the back of a
motorcycle without a helmet. The laws were not enforced back then, but
I am glad my son wears one when he goes out on his motorcycle. It was
a choice. Stupid or not, it was our choice not to wear helmets. My son
must have one on or he will be pulled over. I am glad its not a choice
for him.

No Maggie, you are not hurting even yourself if you don't wear a helmet and that's because helmets don't and can't do anything like what all the hyperbolic hoopla says they can do. It's utter drivel. Even the manufacturers pay attention to this fact in the disclaimer that accompanies the helmet - if they didn't they'd lay themselves wide open to claims. I'll tell you who is stupid - its the peabrains who have this peculiar need to make these off the planet exaggerations about what helmets are capable of (sfa) and go overboard trying to persuade us that we're the stupid ones (yeah perverse that - they've got that back to front). Talking about perverse and back to front have you heard about a Zilly yob by the name of Zau?

Roger

 

[RogerDodger]

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:26:31 GMT, Chris Phillipo
<[email protected]> wrote:

>When I see soemone without a helmet I an urked by it but when I see
>soemone riding towards me on the wrong side of the road I can only think
>that Darwinism sure takes a long time to kick in.

Whenever I see someone writing that they get irked at the sight of someone riding not wearing a poly bonnet, well, by gee, does that get me irked -irretrievably irked. Irked beyond compare.
I get irked that someone else gets irked? Watchout for that loop!

Tennis with C.S.Lewis => how about this from Henry David Thoreau "If someone should come to my house with the conscious design of doing me some good, I should run for my life"

DodgerRoger

 

[RogerDodger]

Bill Z ALERT! Bill Z ALERT! Bill Z ALERT! Bill Z

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

Any time soon, for those not au fait with this naught little boy (yob) Zilly Billy Z will undoubtedly start up here with his stock in trade gratuitous character assinations.

 

[RogerDodger]

Bill Z ALERT! Bill Z ALERT! Bill Z ALERT! Bill Z

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

Any time soon, for those not au fait with this naught little boy (yob) Zilly Billy Z will undoubtedly start up here with his stock in trade gratuitous character assinations.

PS "assinations" was an unintended spelling mistake, but it adds an interisting twist so I'll let it stand?

 

[Maggie]

> My kids are grown, but they _certainly_ did a lot of riding without bike
> helmets. In fact, I assume _all_ of us did. A parent is allowed to
let his kid climb a tree without a helmet. He's allowed to let his
kid play pickup baseball without a helmet. He's allowed to let his
kid ride his pony without a helmet. In each of these, and many other
situations, the choice is reasonably left up to the parent. What in
the world is so dangerous about cycling that justifies overpowering
parental judgement?


This makes sense to me. There were certainly no helmet laws when I was
a child and there were none for my children. I sometimes wonder how I
survived childhood and also how my children survived. I rode in the
back of my fathers pickup truck with my brother all through my
childhood. If you put your kid in the back of a pick up in the NY/NJ
area today, you would be arrested for child abuse or neglect. We
didn't have car seats, seat belts, helmets, and our cribs had slats we
could stick our heads through,and wooden high chairs we could climb
out of very easily. HOW DID WE SURVIVE??? When I had my first child
there were no still no car seat laws. Some of my greatest memories of
childhood were building cars out of wood crates and roller skate
wheels and flying down the steepest hills we could find with no
brakes. How the heck did we survive? My brother and I still laugh
about those days. We fell out of our treehouse when it collapsed and
survived and in the process learned to build a better tree house. To
ride our bikes, we just hopped on and rode. We never went to a LBS for
anything. If the bike broke we found a way to put it back together.
When the chain fell off we stopped and fixed it until it fell off
again. When the brakes broke we used our feet. It is funny to think
about that is this age of hi tech and safety laws. I must admit I had
a few black eyes and battle scars from hanging around with an older
brother but.... Maybe there are just too many laws protecting our
safety now. I would not trade those old stories of childhood for
anything. Even with the black eyes. When do laws become a hindrence
rather than a help?
Peace and stuff
http://hometown.aol.com/lbuset/

 

[JFJones]

Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Chris B. wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Frank, why did you remove the cross post? It is very much on topic
> > for ont.bicycle.
>
> Because my system won't let me post there. When I try, the entire post
> hangs. I agree it's very much on topic there. Feel free to copy.

You can post via Google. It can be accessed via the three newsgroups, eg
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&safe=off&group=ont.bicycle

 

[JFJones]

[email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Dragan Cvetkovic <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > > In article <[email protected]>, bikerider@-no-
> > > spam-thanks-rogers.com says...
> > >>
> > >> I wonder why. Are you aware that mandatory helmet laws implemented in
> > >> Alberta, Nova Scotia, New Zealand and parts of Australia have not only
> > >> not shown benefits but have actually had negative effects (decreased
> > >> numbers of cyclists in all cases and sometimes an increase in the rate
> > >> of head injury after the law is enacted)?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Ho hum, that would be a neat trick considering the helmet laws are not
> > > even enforced outside of Halifax in Nova Scotia. Which makes me think
> > > the rest of these "statitics" are in quesiton.
> >
> > Are you saying that people should obey the law only if it is actually and
> > actively enforced?
>
>
> He's saying what I have said for years on this topic: that laws that
> are not obeyed or enforced have zero impact on human behavior. People
> are not going to stop cycling because of a helmet law that is neither
> obeyed nor enforced.
>
> Bill

Unlike cynical Bill, some people have ethical values that prevent them
becoming lawbreakers. They quit cycling through self-enforcement or in
the case of kids parental enforcement.

 

[Marcus Coles]

According to Canadian Cyclist
http://www.canadiancyclist.com/dailynews/November/11.4.0412.39PM17.shtml
it has been sent to committee for study.

It would seem to me that some benefit might be obtained by targeting the
members of this committee. Does anybody know the correct procedure
for such communication.

Another case of politicians making decisions with bad information and
once this happens laws may be modified but never repealed as that would
cause loss of face for the originators of such poorly considered statutes.

Since CPSC bicycle helmets are designed for low speed, low energy
impacts and more head injuries occur from slipping in the bathtub or
shower than bicycling perhaps as an alternative mandating the use in
that environment would make far more sense. ;^)

Marcus Coles