Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through



B

Bill Baka

Guest
Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
>
>> I used to be one of them. 9/11 changed all that combined with the kiss
>> Chinas ass that seems to be Bushs agenda.

>
>
> You are attributing too much of the loss of high paying jobs to China.
> For example, auto exports to the U.S. from China are zero, the high to
> low paying job transistion was mainly from the U.S. to Mexico (by the
> big 2.5), and at the same time, there was a high to high transition from
> Japan to the U.S., as the big Japanese manufacturers moved a lot of
> production to the U.S.
>
> India has claimed many of the U.S. jobs from Silicon Valley. Neither
> Mexico nor India are Communist countries. Taiwan was no better than
> China in terms of human rights under Chiang Kai Shek and the Kuomintang,
> it's only in the last twenty years that democracy has taken hold in Taiwan.
>
> It's also the mindset of successful U.S. companies to make massive job
> cuts if profits don't meet expectations, which leaves them vulnerable
> when there is an upturn and they can't meet demand.
>
> And as pointed out earlier, the Bush/Republican policy of not pursuing
> antitrust violations makes it extremely difficult for smaller companies
> to ever get a toehold in certain markets.
>
> I am still one of those Democrats the poster referred to, but maybe not
> for long. It's time to retire anyway!
>

So I go from a 6 figure job as a control systems and test equipment
designer to flipping hamburgers? Are those the new jobs Bush is talking
about? Off shoring has taken away a lot of the telephone support jobs
and programming (India), where manufacturing has gone to China. I guess
Bush doesn't care about child labor as long as it is in China.

My other gripe is the H1-B visas granted to foreigners, thus displacing
citizens like myself. After a few years of soaking up all the technical
data they can then it is back home to help their country compete with
us. There never has been an engineering shortage, just a shortage of
ones who will work 12 hour days at substandard wages.

Side note. I was in Santa Clara a few years back and Taco Bell had a
sign on their door that they were looking for counter people and
offering $12.00/hr. Anywhere else it is strictly minimum wage.
Bill Baka
 
M

Mitch Haley

Guest
Bill Baka wrote:
> ...the kiss Chinas ass that seems to be Bushs agenda.
> Bill Baka


Which is different from the Clinton administration in what way?

Mitch.
 
B

Bill Z.

Guest
Bill Baka <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > [email protected] writes:
> >
> >>In one case local to me (a double fatality, hit by a drunk driver), I
> >>phoned the police department and asked, and was told the cyclists were
> >>indeed wearing helmets. The newspaper did not mention the presence of
> >>helmets. But they have mentioned the lack of helmets in other injuries
> >>and fatalities.

> > What makes you think this information was available when the reporter
> > wrote the article? As usual, you don't know.

>
> The helmet issue does have one flaw. I hat a dog in a rainstorm in
> Illinois about ten years ago. Large dog so I stopped to see and its
> gut were splatted out on the road. Then some asshole honks his horn at
> me for stopping to check and goes around me at about 70 in the
> rain. Serious downpour with very little visibility, maybe safe to
> drive at 45 but not 70.
>
> My point here is that people are no more resilient than large dogs
> when it comes to a serious impact and if you get hit hard enough to
> spill your guts, literally, the helmet is irrelevant.


But that is irrelevant to what Krygowski was saying - he was claiming
some sort of conspiracy(?) where a large number of individual
reporters and newspapers would have a policy of mentioning if a helmet
was used in a fatality only when it wasn't. They all make individual
decisions, so "proof by example" simply has to be suspect.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
S

Steven M. Scharf

Guest
Bill Z. wrote:

> But that is irrelevant to what Krygowski was saying - he was claiming
> some sort of conspiracy(?) where a large number of individual
> reporters and newspapers would have a policy of mentioning if a helmet
> was used in a fatality only when it wasn't. They all make individual
> decisions, so "proof by example" simply has to be suspect.


The reports I've seen on bicycle fatalities usually do mention helmet
use, both ways. But non-helmet use fatalities are not all that common,
because the people that put in a lot of miles, and have a greater chance
to be a victim, almost always are wearing helmets (at least around here).
 
J

Joe Riel

Guest
"Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> writes:

> The reports I've seen on bicycle fatalities usually do mention helmet
> use, both ways. But non-helmet use fatalities are not all that common,
> because the people that put in a lot of miles, and have a greater
> chance to be a victim, almost always are wearing helmets (at least
> around here).


You have to look at the total number of cyclists: while one high
mileage cyclist has a greater chance (other things being equal, which
they are not) of being hit than one low mileage cyclist, there are
more low mileage cyclists. I've seen a few reports around here (San
Diego) in the last few years of high mileage cyclists being
killed---I've seen at least as many of low mileage cyclists (usually
kids) getting killed. The latest being a week ago at an apartment
complex where I used to live; kid on a bike run down and left to die
in the parking lot.


Joe
 
B

Bill Z.

Guest
Joe Riel <[email protected]> writes:

> "Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > The reports I've seen on bicycle fatalities usually do mention helmet
> > use, both ways. But non-helmet use fatalities are not all that common,
> > because the people that put in a lot of miles, and have a greater
> > chance to be a victim, almost always are wearing helmets (at least
> > around here).

>
> You have to look at the total number of cyclists: while one high
> mileage cyclist has a greater chance (other things being equal, which
> they are not) of being hit than one low mileage cyclist, there are
> more low mileage cyclists.


Many of my neighbors are low mileage cyclists who put in maybe 10
miles per year, mostly on roads with next to zero traffic. We have
serious cylcists in town who put in over 5000 miles per year (e.g.,
racers.)

I'd agree with Steven based on personal observations. While skill
helps a lot, it only gives you a safety margin of a factor of 5 or
so (see _Effective Cycling_) and a factor of 5 is way less than the
difference in annual mileage.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> Joe Riel <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > "Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > You have to look at the total number of cyclists: while one high
> > mileage cyclist has a greater chance (other things being equal,

which
> > they are not) of being hit than one low mileage cyclist, there are
> > more low mileage cyclists.

>
> Many of my neighbors are low mileage cyclists who put in maybe 10
> miles per year, mostly on roads with next to zero traffic. We have
> serious cylcists in town who put in over 5000 miles per year (e.g.,
> racers.)
>
> I'd agree with Steven based on personal observations. While skill
> helps a lot, it only gives you a safety margin of a factor of 5 or
> so (see _Effective Cycling_) and a factor of 5 is way less than the
> difference in annual mileage.


I agree, there are more low mileage cyclist than high-mileage cycling
enthusiasts.

But if someone is implying that high mileage cycling - however you
define "high mileage" - is likely to cause serious injury, I don't
agree with that.

Check the surveys of League of American Bicyclist riders, or check the
data on CTC riders from Britain. These enthusiastic cyclists do not
seem to be at great risk. As an example, LAB riders go an average of
11 years between accidents causing a mere $50 damage.
Really, folks, cycling is NOT very dangerous!
 
B

Bill Z.

Guest
[email protected] writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Joe Riel <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > > "Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> writes:
> > >
> > > You have to look at the total number of cyclists: while one high
> > > mileage cyclist has a greater chance (other things being equal,

> which
> > > they are not) of being hit than one low mileage cyclist, there are
> > > more low mileage cyclists.

> >
> > Many of my neighbors are low mileage cyclists who put in maybe 10
> > miles per year, mostly on roads with next to zero traffic. We have
> > serious cylcists in town who put in over 5000 miles per year (e.g.,
> > racers.)
> >
> > I'd agree with Steven based on personal observations. While skill
> > helps a lot, it only gives you a safety margin of a factor of 5 or
> > so (see _Effective Cycling_) and a factor of 5 is way less than the
> > difference in annual mileage.

>
> I agree, there are more low mileage cyclist than high-mileage cycling
> enthusiasts.


Try reading it again.

> But if someone is implying that high mileage cycling - however you
> define "high mileage" - is likely to cause serious injury, I don't
> agree with that.


I'm suggesting that, for a given set of road conditions and cyclist
speed, there will be a specific accident rate per hour with the
accidents Poisson distributed.

> Check the surveys of League of American Bicyclist riders, or check the
> data on CTC riders from Britain. These enthusiastic cyclists do not
> seem to be at great risk. As an example, LAB riders go an average of
> 11 years between accidents causing a mere $50 damage.
> Really, folks, cycling is NOT very dangerous!


Who said it was particularly "dangerous"? I simply pointed out that
your chances of an accident grows the longer you do it. The same is
true for driving. You'll find that if you typical LAB rider reduced
his annual mileage by a factor of 2, all else being equal, he'd go 22
years between "accidents causing a mere $50 damage."

Really, Krygowski, this is not a difficult concept. Even you should
be able to grasp it (I suspect you do and simply can't resist spinning
to push your silly agenda.) What Krygowski is doing is putting up one
of his typical smokescreens - the points being made were about the
relative accident rates of two populations, not whether cycling was
particularly dangerous or not. He'd rather not have people realize
that, as it is raises doubts regarding his argument against helmets.

After all, what was said is that riding skill accounts for about a
factor of 5 in the accident rate per mile, and that the distances
people ride vary by way more than a factor of 5.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
B

Benjamin Lewis

Guest
Bill Z. wrote:

> Who said it was particularly "dangerous"? I simply pointed out that
> your chances of an accident grows the longer you do it. The same is
> true for driving. You'll find that if you typical LAB rider reduced
> his annual mileage by a factor of 2, all else being equal, he'd go 22
> years between "accidents causing a mere $50 damage."
>
> Really, Krygowski, this is not a difficult concept. Even you should
> be able to grasp it (I suspect you do and simply can't resist spinning
> to push your silly agenda.) What Krygowski is doing is putting up one
> of his typical smokescreens - the points being made were about the
> relative accident rates of two populations, not whether cycling was
> particularly dangerous or not. He'd rather not have people realize
> that, as it is raises doubts regarding his argument against helmets.
>
> After all, what was said is that riding skill accounts for about a
> factor of 5 in the accident rate per mile, and that the distances
> people ride vary by way more than a factor of 5.


But remember that the greater your mileage, the smaller your likelihood of
having a non-cycling related accident while not on your bike. Whether your
total (yearly) risk goes up or down will depend on the risk per hour of
cycling relative to the risk per hour of your average non-cycling related
activity.

Also, I think it's fair to take into account the risk reduction due to
cycling in terms of health benefits.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Tip the world over on its side and everything loose will land in Los Angeles.
-- Frank Lloyd Wright
 
Benjamin Lewis wrote in part:

> Whether your
> total (yearly) risk goes up or down will depend on the risk per hour

of
> cycling relative to the risk per hour of your average non-cycling

related
> activity.


Importantly, it will actually depend on the risk per hour of
your own personal brand of cycling, not on the average risk
over the whole population of cyclists.

> Also, I think it's fair to take into account the risk reduction due

to
> cycling in terms of health benefits.


Cyclists get injured a lot. But the benefits of cycling are so
great that the risks are far outweighed by the benefits. The
benefits, however, can not lessen the risk, which will include
the possibility of being bludgeoned by a car no matter how
wonderful the benefits are.

> Tip the world over on its side and everything loose will land in Los

Angeles.
> -- Frank Lloyd Wright


I wonder if he said that in his early spread out house mode or in his
later
plastic forms mode. That museum looks like it would roll right past Los
Angeles.

Robert
 
B

Benjamin Lewis

Guest
[email protected] wrote:

> Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>
>> Whether your total (yearly) risk goes up or down will depend on the risk
>> per hour of cycling relative to the risk per hour of your average
>> non-cycling related activity.

>
> Importantly, it will actually depend on the risk per hour of your own
> personal brand of cycling, not on the average risk over the whole
> population of cyclists.


Yes, clearly.

>> Also, I think it's fair to take into account the risk reduction due to
>> cycling in terms of health benefits.

>
> Cyclists get injured a lot. But the benefits of cycling are so great that
> the risks are far outweighed by the benefits. The benefits, however, can
> not lessen the risk, which will include the possibility of being
> bludgeoned by a car no matter how wonderful the benefits are.


I'm talking about the risk of injury/sickness/death per year, due to all
causes. I believe that cycling *does* decrease this risk, even though the
risk of certain types of accidents may be slightly increased. I believe
this is true whether or not you wear a styrofoam helmet.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Tip the world over on its side and everything loose will land in Los Angeles.
-- Frank Lloyd Wright
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:18:19 GMT, [email protected]
(Norman Wilson) wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>>Except that for some reason the helmet often seems to escape mention
>>when the victim was wearing one. It's almost as if the reporters
>>don't want to undermine people's faith in the magic foam hats...


>If the helmet isn't mentioned, how do you know it was there?


From following up on stories of cyclist fatalities and injuries,
including events witnessed by or involving people I know. Sample
sizes are small, of course.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:08:05 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>The reports I've seen on bicycle fatalities usually do mention helmet
>use, both ways. But non-helmet use fatalities are not all that common,
>because the people that put in a lot of miles, and have a greater chance
>to be a victim, almost always are wearing helmets (at least around here).


The opposite is true here: the really high mileage cyclists are old
leathery weatherbeaten tourists, who rarely wear helmets. Helmets are
the armour of choice for mountain bikers and roadies around here, both
of which groups cower indoors when the weather gets bad :)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:16:20 GMT, Joe Riel <[email protected]> wrote
in message <[email protected]>:

>while one high
>mileage cyclist has a greater chance (other things being equal, which
>they are not) of being hit than one low mileage cyclist, there are
>more low mileage cyclists.


And they ride worse...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 08:47:32 -0800, Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote
in message <[email protected]>:

>> Ah, so even the BillWorld version of events portrayed above is no
>> longer current. So helmet promotion is now the sole cycle safety
>> input in your world as well.


>Depends which Bill.


The one with whom the ping-pong has been carrying on for months -
Zaumen. You've got caught that way before, I seem to recall.

>Helmets are not the absolute main concern, but they
>rank in the top.


Really? You have some proof of that? Every objective evaluation I
have seen puts them last out of the possible cycle safety
interventions - even a survey of doctors put them last.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:24:20 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>As I said, due to *budget problems* a desirable program got scaled
>back.


I bet the helmet promotion didn't. Mainly because it's paid for by
SafeKids, funded by Bell. I wonder how much SafeKids spend on
promoting cycle safety measures other than helmets? And who runs the
WHO Cycle Training Initiative, since everybody seems agreed that
training is no. 1 on the list of effective safety interventions?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:30:26 -0800, Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote
in message <[email protected]>:

>We have a slow riding contest to see
>who can go the slowest without falling off.


I've been running slow bicycle races for school kids since I was
twelve years old. My dad was an instructor.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
B

Bill Z.

Guest
Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Who said it was particularly "dangerous"? I simply pointed out that
> > your chances of an accident grows the longer you do it. The same is
> > true for driving. You'll find that if you typical LAB rider reduced
> > his annual mileage by a factor of 2, all else being equal, he'd go 22
> > years between "accidents causing a mere $50 damage."
> >
> > Really, Krygowski, this is not a difficult concept. Even you should
> > be able to grasp it (I suspect you do and simply can't resist spinning
> > to push your silly agenda.) What Krygowski is doing is putting up one
> > of his typical smokescreens - the points being made were about the
> > relative accident rates of two populations, not whether cycling was
> > particularly dangerous or not. He'd rather not have people realize
> > that, as it is raises doubts regarding his argument against helmets.
> >
> > After all, what was said is that riding skill accounts for about a
> > factor of 5 in the accident rate per mile, and that the distances
> > people ride vary by way more than a factor of 5.

>
> But remember that the greater your mileage, the smaller your likelihood of
> having a non-cycling related accident while not on your bike.


Err, Benjamin, the discussion is about helmets and biases you get in
statistics regarding the comparison of different groups of cyclists.

> Also, I think it's fair to take into account the risk reduction due to
> cycling in terms of health benefits.


Not in the current context.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
B

Bill Z.

Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:18:19 GMT, [email protected]
> (Norman Wilson) wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >>Except that for some reason the helmet often seems to escape mention
> >>when the victim was wearing one. It's almost as if the reporters
> >>don't want to undermine people's faith in the magic foam hats...

>
> >If the helmet isn't mentioned, how do you know it was there?

>
> From following up on stories of cyclist fatalities and injuries,
> including events witnessed by or involving people I know. Sample
> sizes are small, of course.


The key is "sample sizes are small" so you are taking a handful
of cases and generalizing to cases you know nothing about. It's
the usual trick - put out noisy data, and then confuse a null
result due to statistical noise with a statement that X doesn't
work.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
B

Bill Z.

Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:16:20 GMT, Joe Riel <[email protected]> wrote
> in message <[email protected]>:
>
> >while one high
> >mileage cyclist has a greater chance (other things being equal, which
> >they are not) of being hit than one low mileage cyclist, there are
> >more low mileage cyclists.

>
> And they ride worse...


Irrelevant. Forester points out in _Effective Cycling_ that skill
buys you a factor of 5 safety margin, whereas high mileage cyclists
ride a lot more than 5 times further per year than low mileage
cyclists.

BTW, while my 10 mile per year neighbors may ride worse, they don't go
very fast, generally manage to stay upright, and ride on streets with
so little traffic that the chances of getting in an accident with a
vehicle are very low (you do need to be in the general vicinity of a
vehicle to get into a crash with one.)

They couldn't ride fast if they wanted to when starting from home, as
they aren't in good enough shape to go fast on flat ground and the
start of any hill worth mentioning is about 5 miles away. If they
managed to reach it, they'd be at the point where they'd want to
turn around and head home anyway, and the mere sight of something
that steep would discourage them in any case.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 

Similar threads