Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

[Bill Z.]

Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > If there are a lot of complaints from Americans and if those
> > complaints start pissing off the locals, the result will be to
> > discourage protests regarding the law by Canadian citizens. You will
> > have shot yourself in the foot, so to speak.
>
> Well I, for one, am perfectly happy listening to what Americans have to
> say, including both Frank and yourself. Neither you nor Frank can persuade
> me one way or another merely by complaining.

The issue was someone insisting that Steven write letters to the
Ontario government or newspapers, not a general discussion on usenet.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >>Bill Z. wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Bill Z. wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>Nope. I asked for meaningful examples and this mindless filler was
> >>>the best you could manage.
> >>
> >>False! If you had asked for "the best," I'd have given other
> >>examples. However, something with a circulation of 30 million or so
> >>isn't a _bad_ example!
> > More equivocation from Frank: I asked for serious examples and the
> > best you can produce was _Parade_???
>
> Darn. Bill somehow missed reading my previous answer!
>
> I'll try again. I didn't claim the Parade example was "the best."
> But it _is_ a good example.

It was the best you could do, and trying to downgrade that to
"good" doesn't change the fact that you have a really weak
argument.

> Perhaps you could explain why you think their effort _wasn't_ an
> example of helmet promotion? That should be interesting!

Because it is all just mindless filler designed to attract people
to read the ads. The advertisers are what they are promoting.
In fact, that is all they are promoting. As others have pointed
out, they actually have to pay newspapers to carry their stuff.
That says a lot about the quality.

> Can you provide evidence of
> > one editorial by the Parade staff advocating helmet use? They print
> > all sorts of articles, after all, in the hopes of getting people to
> > see the ads (which are the whole purpose of this rag).
>
> Yes, actually I can. In a different issue, their health/exercise
> column also featured an article with the usual helmet promotion
> claims, including the admonition to never ride without a helmet. And
> yes, I've got that on file too.

You keep Parade articles on file??? You can't be serious. Oh,
and so now you are claiming two. Perhaps you can run them through
an OCR and show us some excerpts of what these articles really said.

A single sentence burried in a long list of "brush your teeth"
hints is pretty trivial, and I suspect that is what you really have.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:

>
> I never claimed Parade was "serious reading." I claimed it had a wide
> circulation, and that it contained a serious effort at helmet
> promotion.
>
> Carry on, Bill!

Actually, you claimed it had a wide circulation without mentioning
you meant _Parade_ in one of your frequent attempts to overstate
your case. That sort of behavior is why I don't trust anything you
say. It is all spin.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Steven M. Scharf]

Benjamin Lewis wrote:

> Well I, for one, am perfectly happy listening to what Americans have to
> say, including both Frank and yourself. Neither you nor Frank can
persuade
> me one way or another merely by complaining.

Hopefully my letter to the editor of the Toronto Star will be published
in a few days. We'll see if there are responses to the paper telling the
U.S. to butt out (assuming they publish my letter).

My letter is anti-MHL, but it does accurately point out the
mis-statments by both sides on the helmet debate, because I strongly
believe that any attempt to use side-issues such as pedestrian helmets,
the Netherlands, or to claim that if a law is enacted that cyclists will
suddenly stop riding en-masse, is counter-productive in the effort to
defeat the MHL.

The worst thing that could happen in the effort to defeat the MHL is for
any of the type of incorrect statements such as those posted by Frank
and Guy, to be raised during the public hearings, since mis-statements
of the facts will come back to haunt those that rely on them (just look
at what happened at CBS!). The example to follow is that of bikeToronto
(http://biketoronto.ca/topic/show/414.htm). They are direct and concise,
without bringing up all sorts of side issues and unprovable premises.

Cycling is not an exceptionally dangerous activity, therefore a coercive
law mandating helmet usage is unnecessary.

 

[Steven M. Scharf]

Bill Z. wrote:

> The issue was someone insisting that Steven write letters to the
> Ontario government or newspapers, not a general discussion on usenet.

This was Tom Keats. At least Tom can state a position without descending
into the gutter, which is why I took the chance of sending in a letter
to the editor of the main Toronto paper. He is correct about this thread
being like a Punch and Judy show. Unfortunately (or fortunately), in my
effort to avoid the temptation to respond in anger, I miss much of the
show due to my kill-files of many of the cohorts he refers to. When I go
to filterless Google Groups, it's quite amusing to see the **** I've missed!

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

> Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>
>> Well I, for one, am perfectly happy listening to what Americans have to
>> say, including both Frank and yourself. Neither you nor Frank can
>> persuade me one way or another merely by complaining.
>
> Hopefully my letter to the editor of the Toronto Star will be published
> in a few days. We'll see if there are responses to the paper telling the
> U.S. to butt out (assuming they publish my letter).
>
> My letter is anti-MHL, but it does accurately point out the
> mis-statments by both sides on the helmet debate, because I strongly
> believe that any attempt to use side-issues such as pedestrian helmets,
> the Netherlands, or to claim that if a law is enacted that cyclists will
> suddenly stop riding en-masse, is counter-productive in the effort to
> defeat the MHL.
>
> The worst thing that could happen in the effort to defeat the MHL is for
> any of the type of incorrect statements such as those posted by Frank
> and Guy,

To which statements are you referring?

The "pedestrian helmet argument" is merely a rephrasing of the argument
that cycling injuries are infrequent enough not to warrant helmets. I'm
not sure what your problem with it is, or why you think it is a side
issue. No one here is espousing pedestrian helmets.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Luke, I'm yer father, eh. Come over to the dark side, you hoser.
-- Dave Thomas, "Strange Brew"

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Bill Z. wrote:

> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>> Can you provide evidence of
>>
>>>one editorial by the Parade staff advocating helmet use?


>>Yes, actually I can. ... And
>>yes, I've got that on file too.
>
>
> You keep Parade articles on file??? You can't be serious.

Your astonishment is funny!

I do keep a file of helmet promotion articles, Bill, wherever they
appear. I also have extensive files of scholarly articles on this
issue. And, although this may astonish you, I've actually read these
articles.

I know you don't do these things. But I prefer to actually know what
I'm talking about. ;-)


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

 

[[email protected]]

Joe Riel wrote:

> But without some comparison, how can you make a case that cycling is
> safe? Safety is a relative issue. Without a comparison the safety
> issues becomes an all-or-nothing affair---one is quickly trumped by
> the "if even one child is saved" argument. I think the key is to
make
> a comparison without being pedantic.

Good points, but you open a whole can of worms when you do that. Are
you measuring safety in injuries/mile or deaths/mile, where cycling
would appear to be less safe than driving? Many people will try to just
use absolute numbers of vehicle injuries and deaths versus bicycle
injuries and death, and proclaim that cycling is far, far, safer. They
are two fundamentally different activities, so risk comparisons are not
meaningful. Trying to prove that cycling is safe by claiming that
driving is dangerous, is not going to impress the politicians that are
pushing the Ontario MHL.

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

[email protected] wrote:

> Joe Riel wrote:
>
>> But without some comparison, how can you make a case that cycling is
>> safe? Safety is a relative issue. Without a comparison the safety
>> issues becomes an all-or-nothing affair---one is quickly trumped by the
>> "if even one child is saved" argument. I think the key is to make a
>> comparison without being pedantic.
>
> Good points, but you open a whole can of worms when you do that. Are
> you measuring safety in injuries/mile or deaths/mile, where cycling
> would appear to be less safe than driving?

No. Comparative risk assessment is done on a per-hour-of-activity basis.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Luke, I'm yer father, eh. Come over to the dark side, you hoser.
-- Dave Thomas, "Strange Brew"

 

[[email protected]]

Benjamin Lewis wrote:

> Someone telling me that "cycling is not especially risky" is not
enough to
> tell *me* whether I should take additional protective measures or
not. *I*
> need to know how it ranks compared with other activities I'm familiar
with
> in order to be convinced.

In the U.S., the per mile death rate for bicycling is much higher than
the per mile death rate for driving. The per mile death rate for
pedestrians is much higher than the per mile death rate for cycling.

This tells you nothing. The statistics for driving are meaningless
because so much of the distance is accrued on relatively safe freeways,
rather than more dangerous surface roads. Similarly, the absolute
numbers don't tell you anything that would help make a decision as to
helmet versus non-helmet use.

You have two things to go by. First, the total number of cyclist deaths
and injuries is very small (and it is likely that many were caused by
cyclist mis-conduct). Second, you have the facts regarding relative
death and injuries of helmeted versus non-helmeted cyclists, by
emergency rooms.

The decision as to whether or not to take protective measures can be
based on what happens in an accident involving head trauma if you don't
take protective measures (in which case you'd definitely choose to wear
a helmet), or it can be based on the likelihood of being in an bicycle
accident involving head trauma in the first place.

The decision for protective measures in other activities should not
affect your helmet decision, unless you have decided that the level of
risk you will take in your life must be constant.

The schtick about pedestrian helmets was mildly amusing the first time.
See
"http://www.thehammer.ca/content/view.php?news=2004-11-08-ontario-helmets-mandatory"

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

[email protected] wrote:

> Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>
>> Someone telling me that "cycling is not especially risky" is not enough
>> to tell *me* whether I should take additional protective measures or
>> not. *I* need to know how it ranks compared with other activities I'm
>> familiar with in order to be convinced.
>
> In the U.S., the per mile death rate for bicycling is much higher than
> the per mile death rate for driving. The per mile death rate for
> pedestrians is much higher than the per mile death rate for cycling.

I'm not in the slightest bit interested in per mile rates for comparative
purposes, except in that per mile rates can be used to determine per hour
rates.

Otherwise, I'd never dream of leaning against a lamp post by the side of
the road, where the per-mile risk of being hit by a car converges to
infinity.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Luke, I'm yer father, eh. Come over to the dark side, you hoser.
-- Dave Thomas, "Strange Brew"

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

[email protected] wrote:

> Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>
>> Someone telling me that "cycling is not especially risky" is not enough
>> to tell *me* whether I should take additional protective measures or
>> not. *I* need to know how it ranks compared with other activities I'm
>> familiar with in order to be convinced.
>
> In the U.S., the per mile death rate for bicycling is much higher than
> the per mile death rate for driving. The per mile death rate for
> pedestrians is much higher than the per mile death rate for cycling.

I'm not in the slightest bit interested in per mile rates for comparative
purposes, except in that per mile rates can be used to determine per hour
rates.

Otherwise, I'd never dream of leaning against a lamp post by the side of
the road, where the per-mile risk of being hit by a car converges to
infinity.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Luke, I'm yer father, eh. Come over to the dark side, you hoser.
-- Dave Thomas, "Strange Brew"

 

[Frank Krygowski]

[email protected] wrote:

> Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>
>
>>Someone telling me that "cycling is not especially risky" is not
>
> enough to
>
>>tell *me* whether I should take additional protective measures or
>
> not. *I*
>
>>need to know how it ranks compared with other activities I'm familiar
>
> with
>
>>in order to be convinced.
>
>
> In the U.S., the per mile death rate for bicycling is much higher than
> the per mile death rate for driving. The per mile death rate for
> pedestrians is much higher than the per mile death rate for cycling.
>
> This tells you nothing. The statistics for driving are meaningless
> because so much of the distance is accrued on relatively safe freeways,
> rather than more dangerous surface roads.

"This tells you nothing" is a large overstatement. Per mile and per
hour rates of injury or fatality are pieces of data that help us grasp
the overall picture. The more data a person learns, and the better he
understands it, the truer the picture.

Similarly, the absolute
> numbers don't tell you anything that would help make a decision as to
> helmet versus non-helmet use.

It's true that absolute numbers like "700 cyclists are killed each year"
tell us little - until we put them in comparison with other numbers.
This is why we compare.

Many helmet promoters have made an art form out of finding
scary-sounding numbers regarding cycling and posting them out of
context, without comparisons. Giving comparative data for other
activities corrects those misconceptions. For example, saying "Over
500,000 ER visits due to bicycling" sounds scary, until you learn that
basketball has over 600,000. Is bicycling terribly dangerous? Not
unless basketball is!

>
>
> The schtick about pedestrian helmets was mildly amusing the first time.
> See
> "http://www.thehammer.ca/content/view.php?news=2004-11-08-ontario-helmets-mandatory"

It can be used as schtick, but it can be used as comparative risk. If
the serious HI per hour is worse for peds than cyclists (which is true
according to one serious research paper) how _do_ you argue for bike
helmets, but not ped helmets?


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

 

[[email protected]]

Benjamin Lewis wrote:

> No. Comparative risk assessment is done on a per-hour-of-activity
basis.
>
That makes no sense when comparing commuting by bicycle versus
commuting by private vehicle. If I drive 10 miles to work, versus
cycle 10 miles, versus walk 10 miles to work, the risk should be based
on the distance, not the time.

In fact, comparative risk assessment is done by time, distance, and by
trip.

Look at the Australian data from 1985-86 in Appendix A of the URL
below. It is 4x as dangerous, per mile to bicycle than to drive, and 4x
as dangerous to walk than to bicycle. When you look at the per hour
rates, it's just about equivalent for bicycling and driving.

Neither of these statistics are meaningful, since if you're looking at
commuting, it's distance that is relevant, but the table includes all
driving, not just commuting, including a lot of very safe freeway miles
that may not be part of a typical vehicle commute.

The hourly rate is more usable. Using myself as an example, it takes me
20 minutes to drive 9 miles to work, versus 40 minutes to ride nine
miles to work, so cycling is two times as dangerous, per mile. But
again, many hours of very safe freeway driving are unfairly skewing the
data in favor of driving.

It would be ludicrous to base your decision of whether or not to wear a
helmet on statistics like these, since there are so many factors that
are not taken into account, and so many unknowns. If you're looking for
absolute data to base your decision on, you're going to be
disappointed.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/research/cross_modal.cfm

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

[email protected] wrote:

> Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>
>> No. Comparative risk assessment is done on a per-hour-of-activity
> basis.
>>
> That makes no sense when comparing commuting by bicycle versus
> commuting by private vehicle. If I drive 10 miles to work, versus
> cycle 10 miles, versus walk 10 miles to work, the risk should be based
> on the distance, not the time.

That will give you the absolute level of risk for that particular commute,
but I don't think that is what is important in that case. If I learn that
the per hour risk for a pedestrian is X, and that the per hour risk for
cycling is similar to X, then I will happily cycle for arbitrary amounts of
time, knowing that I would also happily walk all day without worrying about
the risk.

If I have two different bicycle rides to consider, one twice as long as the
other one, the fact that it is "twice as dangerous" would never affect my
decision. As long as the hourly risk is below some threshold, I will
happily engage in the activity for an arbitrary amount of time. I believe
that the risk for cycling is well below this threshold.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Luke, I'm yer father, eh. Come over to the dark side, you hoser.
-- Dave Thomas, "Strange Brew"

 

[R15757]

Benjamin Lewis wrote in part:

>Comparative risk assessment is done on a per-hour-
> of-activity basis.

I agree. Unfortunately for those who would like
to make such comparisons, no real data exists.

Which puts us...right back at Square One.

Robert

 

[[email protected]]

Benjamin Lewis wrote:

> If I have two different bicycle rides to consider, one twice as long
as the
> other one, the fact that it is "twice as dangerous" would never
affect my
> decision. As long as the hourly risk is below some threshold, I will
> happily engage in the activity for an arbitrary amount of time. I
believe
> that the risk for cycling is well below this threshold.

Yes, and it is below the threshhold with or without a helmet, and
irrespective of what the risk is of other modes of transport, or other
activities.

Even though the risk of a particular trip made on a bicycle versus
vehicle would have much higher risk on a bicycle (if you take the
Australian data at face value), this would not be sufficient data on
which to base the use of a helmet or not. That is why bringing up risks
of other activities in an attempt to justify not wearing a helmet does
not make sense--such a decision is unrelated to the risk levels of the
other activities.

The bottom line is that trying to justify not wearing a helmet while
cycling because activities other than cycling could be equally or more
dangerous, is, in my opinion, totally the wrong approach in the fight
against MHLs, because it wouldn't hold up as a valid argument in a
debate. You have to look at the big picture.

 

[Riley Geary]

"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
....
> > In the U.S., the per mile death rate for bicycling is much higher than
> > the per mile death rate for driving. The per mile death rate for
> > pedestrians is much higher than the per mile death rate for cycling.
> >
> > This tells you nothing. The statistics for driving are meaningless
> > because so much of the distance is accrued on relatively safe freeways,
> > rather than more dangerous surface roads.
>
> "This tells you nothing" is a large overstatement. Per mile and per
> hour rates of injury or fatality are pieces of data that help us grasp
> the overall picture. The more data a person learns, and the better he
> understands it, the truer the picture.
>
> Similarly, the absolute
> > numbers don't tell you anything that would help make a decision as to
> > helmet versus non-helmet use.
>
> It's true that absolute numbers like "700 cyclists are killed each year"
> tell us little - until we put them in comparison with other numbers.
> This is why we compare.
>
> Many helmet promoters have made an art form out of finding
> scary-sounding numbers regarding cycling and posting them out of
> context, without comparisons. Giving comparative data for other
> activities corrects those misconceptions. For example, saying "Over
> 500,000 ER visits due to bicycling" sounds scary, until you learn that
> basketball has over 600,000. Is bicycling terribly dangerous? Not
> unless basketball is!

A few more points of reference from the CDC at
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/ that others may find useful:
Of the roughly 500,000 annual bicycle-related ER visits, just 18-21,000
result in hospitalization;
Bicycle-related ER visits account for about 1/60 of all US injury-related
trips to the ER;
Bicycle-related hospitalizations account for about 1/70 of all US
injury-related hospitalizations;
Bicycle-related fatalities account for about 1/200 of all US injury-related
fatalities;
While juveniles under the age of 16 account for just 20% of US
bicycle-related fatalities, they account for nearly 45% of bicycle-related
hospitalizations, and fully 60% of all bicycle-related ER trips.

So while bicycle-related injuries are definitely over-represented relative
to fatalities, this appears to be a result of the disproportionate number of
relatively minor scrapes and falls that juvenile cyclists manage to get
themselves into as part of the process of growing up. Unfortunately, the
CDC data does not provide any sort of breakdown between head injuries and
non-head injuries.

Riley Geary

 

[Bill Z.]

Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >>Bill Z. wrote:
> >>
> >> Can you provide evidence of
> >>
> >>> one editorial by the Parade staff advocating helmet use?
>
>
> >>Yes, actually I can. ... And
> >>yes, I've got that on file too.
> > You keep Parade articles on file??? You can't be serious.
>
> Your astonishment is funny!
>
> I do keep a file of helmet promotion articles, Bill, wherever they
> appear. I also have extensive files of scholarly articles on this
> issue. And, although this may astonish you, I've actually read these
> articles.
>
> I know you don't do these things. But I prefer to actually know what
> I'm talking about. ;-)

You keep a file of articles from mindless rags like _Parade_????
Do you look through Mad Magazine in case something about helmets
might appear there as well?


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[[email protected]]

Riley Geary wrote:

> So while bicycle-related injuries are definitely over-represented
relative
> to fatalities, this appears to be a result of the disproportionate
number of
> relatively minor scrapes and falls that juvenile cyclists manage to
get
> themselves into as part of the process of growing up. Unfortunately,
the
> CDC data does not provide any sort of breakdown between head injuries
and
> non-head injuries.

The problem is that you don't know how many ER visits were avoided
because of protective devices. You don't go to the ER for a scrape, the
high ER deductibles make you think twice about going there unless it
appears to be serious. You go there for broken bones, concussions, etc.

The bottom line is that the number of injuries and fatalities don't
warrant a coercive law, despite the ER data, and the higher injury and
fatality data of bicycling versus driving.