Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

[Bill Z.]

[email protected] (JFJones) writes:

> [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Dragan Cvetkovic <[email protected]> writes:
> > >
> > > 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.

Some of us are ethical enough to report what we see accurately. On
quite a number of occassions around here, I've seen kids riding
without helmets and the police ignoring them, and this is in a state
where we do have a helmet law that applies to anyone 17 (18?) or
under.

That's the reality, moronic self-styled "moralists" who confuse
reporting the facts with a person's own ethical standards
notwithstanding. I might add that many parents probably don't even
know the law exists (it isn't publicized very well), in which case
Jone's "ethical values" / "self-enforcement" claims would be
particularly daft. "Ethical values" do not compel you to obey a
law that you don't know exists.

My guess is that Jones is a Bush supporter---he's sufficiently
out of touch with the real world. Any bets?

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[AustinMN]

Chris Phillipo wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>> Then your location is a fluke. Virtually everywhere else MHL's are put
>> in
>> place, ridership declines.
>>
>> But my suspicion is that your collection methods are more flawed than the
>> one who found ridership is down. You do base your statement on a
>> scientific
>> survey, not your own impression, right?
>>
>> Austin
>> --
>> I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
>> There are no X characters in my address
>>
>>
>
> I base my statement on having sold more bikes in the past 2 years than
> ever before and there being a club with over 100 members vs. 10 from 2
> years ago.

If you sell bicycles, then you really ought to know that ownership does not
equal ridership. Today, probably 95% of all bicycles sold never see 100
miles, ever.

Club ridership is also misleading. There is more club ridership, but not to
many years ago almost nobody rode in clubs.

Austin

 

[AustinMN]

Chris Phillipo wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
> Well not counting you, I haven't met that person.

I've met a dozen. I'm even married to a woman who has said "If they make me
wear a helmet, I'm not riding." I know her well enough that it makes no to
her difference if the law is enforced or not.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Ken [NY] wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:33:04 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <[email protected]> claims:
>
>
>>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!
>
>
> Those "Neanderthal right wingers" just sent a mandate to Mr.
> Bush to continue his policies,

I believe you're oversimplifying - as is Mr. Bush. Not surprising in
either case.

so forgive them (us) their gloating and
> their "simplistic thinking".

I can't believe you're asking for forgiveness!

> It's funny, but the left continues year after year to look
> down their considerable noses at common folk, and through Yankee tight
> lips, regard their every loss to be caused by stupid voters.

Ken, you're a piece of work.

If I look down on anyone, it's not "common folk." I _do_, however, look
down on stupid voters.

FWIW, that includes people who vote for Kerry & Edwards because Edwards
is cute. It includes poor young people who vote for Bush because "He's
for the rich, and I plan to be rich some day." It includes people who
vote for Kerry because he rides a road bike. It includes people who
voted for Bush because they _still_ think we found WMDs in Iraq.

Those are all real examples I heard... and the list goes on. Yes, I
look down on those folks. I can deal with ignorance, but not stupidity.
(There's a saying in education: "Stupidity is forever, but
ignorance we can fix.")


>
>>Ah well. We're off topic, aren't we?
>
>
> Sorry, Sir, but I did not send it off into a political thread,
> I just followed it, due to my simplistic thinking, I guess. We
> commoners are like that.

********, Ken. This thread was about a helmet bill in Canada. You most
certainly did send it off into a political thread. Certainly, you can't
be _ignorant_ of that fact!


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

 

[dgk]

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:32:38 GMT, "Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:33:04 -0500, Frank Krygowski
><[email protected]> claims:
>
>>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!
>
> Those "Neanderthal right wingers" just sent a mandate to Mr.
>Bush to continue his policies, so forgive them (us) their gloating and
>their "simplistic thinking". People in the heartland don't like to
>think in curley-cues, preferring straight thought.


Mandate? 48% of Americans voted against him and many who voted for him
did so inspite of his policies. No mandate there. To me, it is likely
that his victory came from the fact that his team made the voting
machines that left us no paper trail to verify. I think they cheated.

 

[Peter]

Bill Z. wrote:
> [email protected] (JFJones) writes:

>>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.
>
>
> Some of us are ethical enough to report what we see accurately. On
> quite a number of occassions around here, I've seen kids riding
> without helmets and the police ignoring them, and this is in a state
> where we do have a helmet law that applies to anyone 17 (18?) or
> under.

Of course this says nothing to refute the statement by Jones which was
about self-enforcement and parental enforcement and specifically not
about police enforcement.

My commute route goes past an elementary school, an intermediate
school, and a high school. I still see a considerable number of
kids cycling, albeit not nearly as many as before the helmet law
was passed. Almost all have helmets, but only about 20% of those
helmets are on their heads - most of the others are dangling from
the handlebars.

Now maybe there's some new fashion that makes it trendy to have
a helmet hanging from your handlebars, but I think the more likely
explanation is that the helmet law is in fact being enforced, but not
while the kids are enroute. Instead it's enforced at one or
both ends of the trip - at the school and/or at the home. Not by
police, but by parents and/or school personnel.

The other thing I conclude is that most of the kids dislike wearing
the helmet so much that they'd rather take it off once out of sight
of school and/or home and put up with the inconvenience of having it
flop around from their bars than continue wearing it. Given that
degree of dislike it's not surprising that some fraction would
choose not to ride at all once a helmet law is passed.

 

[Michael]

I'm undecided. People who don't wear helmets are stupid plain as day. Maybe
our gene pool need a little weeding, but lemme tell you a small story....

I'm a downhiller the more air the better, I think any drop less than 5 feet
is for sissies. So ya I ride good, Really good. (Lately easing back 'cause
my fiancee worries too much) Usually in the city I don't wear my lid cause
it's a full face. Last spring, normal commute to work, done it 100's of
times. I mean I was a courier dammit. It was particulally cold that day so
I wore my helmet. It keeps my head warm. I got cut off by a cab (What with
those guys?) I fell. I Seperated my AC joint, Sprained my wrist, and my head
bounced off the ground so hard I got whiplash. I was in bed for over a week.


I'm willing to bet I'd either be dead or drooling on myself if I didn't
have that helmet on. since then? I ride to the store 1/2 a block away I'm
wearin it. I don't want my kids to have to change my Diapers When I'm 35.
But hey if your dumb enough to ride with out one Ya kinda deserve it. But I
don't want people hurt. So ya I'm undecided

"Chris B." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The law would apply to people who skateboard, ride scooters or in-line
> skate. Apparently they have decided to leave adult cyclists alone for
> now.
>
> http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20041104-009/page.asp
>
> My favourite part:
>
> "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."
>
> --
> "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

 

[Peter Keller]

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 15:50:26 +1100, RogerDodger wrote:

>
> Peter Keller Wrote:
>> 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

Thanks Roger. I think your comments bolster my position.
Isn't it funny the way people who don't like a position (that mandatory
helmet laws are harmful and counterproductive) but can't find any facts
to back up their position, attack the person (messenger) instead?
Truth is absolute, and does not depend on the personal characteristics of
the person telling the truth. So if a person attacks me personally I
merely take that as evidence that he (no, it usually isn't a she) can't
find anything wrong with my statements.
What little we hear about the MHL here in NZ is usually against the law.
The pro-law people seem to have gone mute.

Peter

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

 

[Rick]

Maggie wrote:
>>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??? ...stuff deleted

There is an overwhelming sense of fear in our society, to the point that
it is laughable. They check your shoes before going into public
buildings because one idiot tried (unsuccessfully, mind you) to do
something bad with shoes on a plane. What's next? Wingtips of mass
destruction?

My brothers and I used to throw knives and screwdrivers in a game
called, "eat the knife" (it was a more innocent time - grin). We
intentionally knocked each other off bikes jousting or dogfighting. The
modern era is so marked by fear that parents won't let their children
play sandlot ball because their future careers could be ruined. It is
insane. Sure, we got hurt and the doctors put us back together so that
we could do it again.

The reality is that children will do dangerous things, learn from their
mistakes, and dust themselves off. Seldom were the injuries serious
enough to warrant medical attention, and even rarer did we go on to do
the really dangerous things that rebelious teens attempt today (such as
kayaking Niagra Falls). Kids learn not to make certain mistakes twice. I
am uncertain whether we are doing them any great favor by trying to
protect them from a natural element of growth.

Rick

 

[VBadJuJu]

[email protected] (Maggie) wrote:

>> 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.

Doctors used to think bleeding a patient to let out the bad humors was
a good idea. People used to take mercury for pain relief. People
used to eat and drink from lead untesils. People used to think
Wal-Mart bikes were a value decision. People used to think the worl
was a flat disk resting on a turtle's back.

Times change and people (most of them) learn things.

 

[Bill Z.]

Peter <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > [email protected] (JFJones) writes:
>
> >>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.
> > Some of us are ethical enough to report what we see accurately. On
> > quite a number of occassions around here, I've seen kids riding
> > without helmets and the police ignoring them, and this is in a state
> > where we do have a helmet law that applies to anyone 17 (18?) or
> > under.
>
> Of course this says nothing to refute the statement by Jones which was
> about self-enforcement and parental enforcement and specifically not
> about police enforcement.

It refutes what he said, which was a baseless personal attack about
my ethics, when I merely reported the behavior I've observed. And
his comments about "self-enforcement and parental enforcement" are
pure BS - he hasn't shown that most people have a clue that a helmet
law exists. It was sort of publicized when the California one was
passed, but that was some 10 years ago and there hasn't been a word
since. If you moved to the state more recently, or weren't interested
in cycling when the law was passed, you wouldn't have a clue that
there was such a law.

> My commute route goes past an elementary school, an intermediate
> school, and a high school. I still see a considerable number of
> kids cycling, albeit not nearly as many as before the helmet law
> was passed. Almost all have helmets, but only about 20% of those
> helmets are on their heads - most of the others are dangling from
> the handlebars.

Which is illegal. Did the police notify their parents?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Peter]

Bill Z. wrote:
> Peter <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] (JFJones) writes:
>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Some of us are ethical enough to report what we see accurately. On
>>>quite a number of occassions around here, I've seen kids riding
>>>without helmets and the police ignoring them, and this is in a state
>>>where we do have a helmet law that applies to anyone 17 (18?) or
>>>under.
>>
>>Of course this says nothing to refute the statement by Jones which was
>>about self-enforcement and parental enforcement and specifically not
>>about police enforcement.
>
>
> It refutes what he said, which was a baseless personal attack about
> my ethics, when I merely reported the behavior I've observed.

You stated (and continue to state) that if a law is not
enforced by the police then it must not have any effect on people.
He was pointing out that that won't be true for people who
choose to obey laws for reasons not directly related to police
enforcement. Repeating your previous observation about lack of
police enforcement is in no way a refutation.

> And
> his comments about "self-enforcement and parental enforcement" are
> pure BS - he hasn't shown that most people have a clue that a helmet
> law exists. It was sort of publicized when the California one was
> passed, but that was some 10 years ago and there hasn't been a word
> since. If you moved to the state more recently, or weren't interested
> in cycling when the law was passed, you wouldn't have a clue that
> there was such a law.

Not true if you have kids who attend school. The helmet law and the
school's policy regarding it were mentioned several times at Back-to-
School events for parents. Notices about the law are also posted in
most state parks that I've visited as well as school bulletin boards.
>
>
>>My commute route goes past an elementary school, an intermediate
>>school, and a high school. I still see a considerable number of
>>kids cycling, albeit not nearly as many as before the helmet law
>>was passed. Almost all have helmets, but only about 20% of those
>>helmets are on their heads - most of the others are dangling from
>>the handlebars.
>
>
> Which is illegal. Did the police notify their parents?

What police? The police presumably have better things to do.
Most of my observations of children riding to school have been
on a bike trail where I've only seen one police officer in the
last ten years. He was hiding behind a bush with his radar gun
on the only downhill in 30 miles of trail steep enough to let
cyclists slightly exceed the 15 mph speed limit by coasting.

But as I said, the presence of helmets shows that the schools,
possibly with help from the parents, are enforcing the rule at
the end of the ride, i.e. upon arrival at the school. The fact
that the helmets are not being worn is a good indication that the
kids dislike the helmet rule and that its existence is likely to
serve as a disincentive to ride for some fraction of them.

 

[Wolfgang Strobl]

[email protected] (Maggie):

>> 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.

Ahem. What business do people like you have with _my_ children? Thanks,
but no thanks. I think parents have the duty to protect their children
against the malicious claptrap of illinformed busybodies selling
harmfull snake-oil products of all sorts. Like bicycle helmets, for
example.

Btw, what do motorcycle helmets have to do with bicycling?

--
Thank you for observing all safety precautions

 

[Wolfgang Strobl]

maxo <[email protected]>:

>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:10:06 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>>>Helmet laws do nothing to stop people from riding like idiots.
>>
>> They do! They do!
>
>I just think this is an absurd way to go about public safety. I'm no more
>against helmets than seatbelts and airbags. [...]

You're of course free to have an opiinion on everything, but this is
somewhat misleading. There is a difference. Seatbelts work. So do
airbags, to a much lesser extend and only when combined with a properly
worn belts. Bicycle helmets, on the other hand, have been shown _not_ to
work.


--
Radhelme sind die Bachblüten des Straßenverkehrs

 

[JFJones]

[email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (JFJones) writes:
>
> > [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > Dragan Cvetkovic <[email protected]> writes:
> > > >
> > > > Are you saying that people should obey the law only if it is actually and
> > > > actively enforced?
> > >
*****Note what Zaumen said here and then read his comment below*****
> > > 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.
>
> Some of us are ethical enough to report what we see accurately. On
> quite a number of occassions around here, I've seen kids riding
> without helmets and the police ignoring them, and this is in a state
> where we do have a helmet law that applies to anyone 17 (18?) or
> under.

Zaumen makes a statement about zero impact of helmet laws and then
posts a non-sequitur about the kids he sees on the street. Wasn't this
about the ones that quit? Idiot.

>
> That's the reality, moronic self-styled "moralists" who confuse
> reporting the facts with a person's own ethical standards
> notwithstanding. I might add that many parents probably don't even
> know the law exists (it isn't publicized very well), in which case
> Jone's "ethical values" / "self-enforcement" claims would be
> particularly daft. "Ethical values" do not compel you to obey a
> law that you don't know exists.
>
> My guess is that Jones is a Bush supporter---he's sufficiently
> out of touch with the real world. Any bets?
>
> Bill

 

[Bill Z.]

Peter <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Peter <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >>Bill Z. wrote:
> >>
> >>>[email protected] (JFJones) writes:
> >>
> You stated (and continue to state) that if a law is not
> enforced by the police then it must not have any effect on people.
> He was pointing out that that won't be true for people who
> choose to obey laws for reasons not directly related to police
> enforcement. Repeating your previous observation about lack of
> police enforcement is in no way a refutation.

Now you are lying. He made a statement about *my* ethics when I
reported the observed behavior, and he made no statement about others.
And he provided no evidence regarding what typical behavior is.

If you think it is to obey the law, I suggest you compare how fast
people drive above the speed limit when the police are present and
when they are not. Or, if you don't want to time that, sit at an
intersection with a traffic light for 10 minutes and count the red
light runners. People run red lights all the time around here - way
too often for it to be by accident, and even though red light running
can get people killed. Oh, and to be conservative, I only count it as
really running the light if the light had turned green in on the cross
street when they enter the intersection, to eliminate confusion over
short yellow phases.

> > And his comments about "self-enforcement and parental enforcement"
> > are pure BS - he hasn't shown that most people have a clue that a
> > helmet law exists. It was sort of publicized when the California
> > one was passed, but that was some 10 years ago and there hasn't
> > been a word since. If you moved to the state more recently, or
> > weren't interested in cycling when the law was passed, you
> > wouldn't have a clue that there was such a law.
>
> Not true if you have kids who attend school. The helmet law and the
> school's policy regarding it were mentioned several times at Back-to-
> School events for parents. Notices about the law are also posted in
> most state parks that I've visited as well as school bulletin boards.

Your school's policies have nothing to do with wearing a helmet on a city
street. At most they can require a helmet while on school property,
and any flyers and other such information will be widely ignored. I
get all sorts of information in utility fliers, for example, and that
goes directly into the trash - it resembles advertising and if it looks
like advertising, it gets treated as advertising.

Also, in poorer communities (where the level of helmet use seems to be
far lower than in the more affluent communities), chances are that any
such law is not mentioned at all. They have more important issues to
handle and very limited resources.

> > Which is illegal. Did the police notify their parents?
>
> What police? The police presumably have better things to do.

Oh, so you admit the law isn't being enforced and people are breaking
it.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Wolfgang Strobl <[email protected]> writes:

> maxo <[email protected]>:
>
> >On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:10:06 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> >
> >>>Helmet laws do nothing to stop people from riding like idiots.
> >>
> >> They do! They do!
> >
> >I just think this is an absurd way to go about public safety. I'm no more
> >against helmets than seatbelts and airbags. [...]
>
> You're of course free to have an opiinion on everything, but this is
> somewhat misleading. There is a difference. Seatbelts work. So do
> airbags, to a much lesser extend and only when combined with a properly
> worn belts. Bicycle helmets, on the other hand, have been shown _not_ to
> work.

Wolfgang is back, repeating the same things he's said for years.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Michael wrote:

>
> I'm willing to bet I'd either be dead or drooling on myself if I didn't
> have that helmet on.

And I'm willing to bet you wouldn't. Why? Because the absolutely
_tremendous_ rise in bike helmet use hasn't caused a significant change
in serious head injuries per cyclist. In fact, if anything, there are
more head injuries per cyclist than before.

If all these helmets are really doing what you believe, the benefits
should be detectable.

Much more likely, IMO: all these helmets are producing stories that go
like this: "Wow, dude, my helmet touched the ground!!! It must have
saved my life!!!"

And 20 years ago, that story would have been "Darn, I _almost_ bumped my
head a little."

since then? I ride to the store 1/2 a block away I'm
> wearin it.

Hey, don't stop there. You do lots of other things with more risk of
head injury. Walking down stairs? Climbing a ladder? Walking across
the street? Strap that baby on!


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

 

[Frank Krygowski]

VBadJuJu wrote:

>
>
> Doctors used to think bleeding a patient to let out the bad humors was
> a good idea. People used to take mercury for pain relief. People
> used to eat and drink from lead untesils. People used to think
> Wal-Mart bikes were a value decision. People used to think the worl
> was a flat disk resting on a turtle's back.
>
> Times change and people (most of them) learn things.

But for every mistaken myth corrected, there seems to be a replacement
myth that's just about as silly.

Some people now believe that drinking water with an absolutely
undetectable trace of a substance vaguely related to a disease will cure
that disease. (Look up "homeopathy.")

Some people believe that hanging crystals from their rear view mirrors
will prevent car crashes.

Some people believe keeping kids indoors, never letting them cross a
street, never letting them play out of the sight of an adult, never
letting them climb trees or wrestle or tumble, will still allow them to
grow to be normal adults.

And some people believe a thin styrofoam hat, specified and tested to
protect only a body-less head against a less-than-15mph impact, will
somehow save a life when a person is hit by a 35mph car. They believe
this despite all the evidence that it's not working.

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

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Bill Z. wrote:

>
>
> Wolfgang is back, repeating the same things he's said for years.
>



Can you believe it's Bill Zaumen saying that?


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