Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through



B

Bill Z.

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

> 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.


He didn't get caught, and the "ping-pong" is kind of a lie since
I've been ignoring a good fraction of your posts. It was more a
continual rant on your part.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
B

Bill Z.

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

> 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.


Nonsense - it got scaled back by having city employees handle it and
taking out some or all of the on-road classes. It still covers accident
avoidance.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> ... 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...


:) They sound like me! I don't go very fast (any more), and I, too,
generally manage to stay upright. Except, of course, I ride
considerably more than ten miles per year.

Let's recall the crash data for enthusiastic cyclists - that is, League
of American Bicyclist members. They average about 2500 miles per year,
IIRC. And they go an average of 11 years between falls that do $50
damage. This in an era when bending a derailleur or tearing a cycling
jacket can easily cost $50.

This data comes from a survey of thousands of those riders. They're
not at any great risk. Their cycling is not very dangerous.
 
B

Bill Z.

Guest
[email protected] writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > ... 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...

>
> :) They sound like me! I don't go very fast (any more), and I, too,
> generally manage to stay upright. Except, of course, I ride
> considerably more than ten miles per year.
>
> Let's recall the crash data for enthusiastic cyclists <snip>


Krygowski is simply trying to paper over a poor argument by changing
the topic. The issue was *not* how risky cycling is, but that mileage
changes your yearly risk far more than competence (which buys you
about a factor of 5, as Forester points out, whereas annual mileage
varies by far more than that.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
E

Erik Freitag

Guest
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:26:52 +0000, Bill Z. wrote:

> 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.)


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.
 
B

Benjamin Lewis

Guest
Bill Z. wrote:

> [email protected] writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>> ... 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...

>>
>> :) They sound like me! I don't go very fast (any more), and I, too,
>> generally manage to stay upright. Except, of course, I ride
>> considerably more than ten miles per year.
>>
>> Let's recall the crash data for enthusiastic cyclists <snip>

>
> Krygowski is simply trying to paper over a poor argument by changing
> the topic. The issue was *not* how risky cycling is, but that mileage
> changes your yearly risk far more than competence (which buys you
> about a factor of 5, as Forester points out, whereas annual mileage
> varies by far more than that.)


I'm at a loss why anyone should care that if you cycle more, you're at a greater
yearly risk of sustaining a cycling related injury. Not only is this
completely obvious, it's not interesting or useful for anything.

--
Benjamin Lewis

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

Bill Z.

Guest
Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> writes:
> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > [email protected] writes:
> >
> >> Let's recall the crash data for enthusiastic cyclists <snip>

> >
> > Krygowski is simply trying to paper over a poor argument by changing
> > the topic. The issue was *not* how risky cycling is, but that mileage
> > changes your yearly risk far more than competence (which buys you
> > about a factor of 5, as Forester points out, whereas annual mileage
> > varies by far more than that.)

>
> I'm at a loss why anyone should care that if you cycle more, you're
> at a greater yearly risk of sustaining a cycling related injury.
> Not only is this completely obvious, it's not interesting or useful
> for anything.


The issue was that expert-level skills for bike handling and riding in
traffic buy you about a factor of 5 in safety over a casual cyclist,
but you can ride a lot more than 5 times further per year than that
group. Given that "serious" cyclists are more likely to use helmets,
that creates a bias in statistics regarding injuries, and confuses
the picture when you try to use statistical data to measure helmet
effectiveness.

Krygowski is simply trying to paper over the issue to push his
anti-helmet arguments so he can pretend that a null result due to
small samples and various other factors imply something about
helmets. That's all that is going on - game playing on the part
of the anti-helmet crew.

I'd agree that on a personal level it is not particularly interesting
or useful, but that is not what the discussion was about.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote in part:

> The issue was that expert-level skills for bike handling and riding

in
> traffic buy you about a factor of 5 in safety over a casual

cyclist....,

To clarify, the 5 times better accident rate refers to cyclists with
just 10 years of experience. An "expert-level" rider would have an
accident rate that is still lower than that with respect to beginning
riders, although the curve is much steeper in the early years.

Robert
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:15:20 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

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


On which subject I recommend the 1989 Seattle study, a very good
example of these biases in action.

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 Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:26:52 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
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.


So you say. I am still waiting for any kind of evidence to back up
your arm-waving, though.

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 Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:25:44 -0800, Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>I'm at a loss why anyone should care that if you cycle more, you're at a greater
>yearly risk of sustaining a cycling related injury. Not only is this
>completely obvious, it's not interesting or useful for anything.


Obvious? You think?

Risk per what? per mile? I'd be amazed if that was not substantially
lower for a high-mileage cyclist. Ditto per hour. Per year? It
would depend on how many miles of low risk-per-mile cycling the high
mileage cyclist does compared to the low-mileage cyclist and their
higher risk-per-mile cycling. Last time I checked there was no binary
split between high and low mileage cyclists, so it would depend very
much on where exactly you draw the line between low and high mileage.

And this entire discussion is pure speculation anyway. We have only
Bill's word for it that high mileage cyclists are more likely to wear
helmets, and he has made assertions before which turn out to be
contradicted even by the evidence he claims supports them; certainly
in my club the converse appears to be true, with the highest mileage
cyclists being in general less likely to wear helmets. No doubt Bill
will be prepared to post some credible evidence to support his
argument.

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 Thu, 27 Jan 2005 06:14:15 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>Are you really so daft, immature, and dishonest as to not know
>what plagerism is and why respectable people don't do it?

^^^^^^^^^

I suspect he can even spell it. I can.

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 Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:17:31 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>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.


I thought that was required in any study of helmets, my mistake, I
obviously mistook correlation for a hard-and-fast rule. And I had
forgotten that the minimum acceptable sample size is the population of
the Bay Area - which leaves us rather short of evidence in any
direction, 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 Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:27:59 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>> >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.


>He didn't get caught, and the "ping-pong" is kind of a lie since
>I've been ignoring a good fraction of your posts. It was more a
>continual rant on your part.


My word - Zaumen distorting the facts. Who could possibly have
predicted that?

Of course you evade a lot of what is said - especially where it
includes evidence or (worse still) calls for you to cite evidence.
But ping-pong it is; I am as determined to challenge your ******** as
you are to repeat it, regardless of how often your "facts" turn out to
be fantasy. But you are an moderately good comedy helmet troll, and
so provide a valuable service to your own ego. Er, I mean society.

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 Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:29:42 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.


>Nonsense - it got scaled back by having city employees handle it and
>taking out some or all of the on-road classes. It still covers accident
>avoidance.


You really are determined to miss the point, aren't you? So, who is
running the WHO Cycle Training Imitative? Who is pressing for
mandatory cycle training laws? How many schools forbid children to
cycle to school unless they have passed Effective Cycling? How many
general cycle safety posters do you see posted in schools and youth
clubs?

I am a school governor, and all cycling matters at the school pass in
front of me. In the last year we've had six sets of helmet promotion
literature and not one promoting general cycle safety. A woman is
coming to the Spring Fair to train children on how to wear helmets;
there will be no maintenance or skills training provided.

And yet every evaluation I have seen of the merits of various cycle
safety measures puts helmets 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
 
B

Benjamin Lewis

Guest
Just zis Guy wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:25:44 -0800, Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]>
> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>
>> I'm at a loss why anyone should care that if you cycle more, you're at a
>> greater yearly risk of sustaining a cycling related injury. Not only is
>> this completely obvious, it's not interesting or useful for anything.

>
> Obvious? You think?
>
> Risk per what? per mile?


Yearly risk is what I said.

> I'd be amazed if that was not substantially lower for a high-mileage
> cyclist. Ditto per hour. Per year? It would depend on how many miles
> of low risk-per-mile cycling the high mileage cyclist does compared to
> the low-mileage cyclist and their higher risk-per-mile cycling. Last
> time I checked there was no binary split between high and low mileage
> cyclists, so it would depend very much on where exactly you draw the line
> between low and high mileage.


I'm still reasonable certain that if you plotted yearly risk against yearly
mileage for the "average cyclist", the graph would be monotonically
increasing, although with a slope of less than one. I agree that the
hourly or per mile risk would go down.

--
Benjamin Lewis

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

Benjamin Lewis

Guest
Just zis Guy wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:25:44 -0800, Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]>
> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>
>> I'm at a loss why anyone should care that if you cycle more, you're at a
>> greater yearly risk of sustaining a cycling related injury. Not only is
>> this completely obvious, it's not interesting or useful for anything.

>
> Obvious? You think?
>
> Risk per what? per mile?


Yearly risk is what I said.

> I'd be amazed if that was not substantially lower for a high-mileage
> cyclist. Ditto per hour. Per year? It would depend on how many miles
> of low risk-per-mile cycling the high mileage cyclist does compared to
> the low-mileage cyclist and their higher risk-per-mile cycling. Last
> time I checked there was no binary split between high and low mileage
> cyclists, so it would depend very much on where exactly you draw the line
> between low and high mileage.


I'm still reasonable certain that if you plotted yearly risk against yearly
mileage for the "average cyclist", the graph would be monotonically
increasing, although with a slope of less than one. I agree that the
hourly or per mile risk would go down.

--
Benjamin Lewis

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

Bill Z.

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

> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:15:20 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>
> >Err, Benjamin, the discussion is about helmets and biases you get in
> >statistics regarding the comparison of different groups of cyclists.

>
> On which subject I recommend the 1989 Seattle study, a very good
> example of these biases in action.


You recommend that one? Good for you.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
B

Bill Z.

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

> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:26:52 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> 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.

>
> So you say. I am still waiting for any kind of evidence to back up
> your arm-waving, though.


The text you snipped immediately after "Irrelevant" was, "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."

I'll skip the rest of your garbage today. You've just proven yourself
to be incapable of a serious dicussion. By snipping that and pretending
I didn't say it, you've proven yourself to be as dishonest as usual.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>
> I'm still reasonable certain that if you plotted yearly risk against

yearly
> mileage for the "average cyclist", the graph would be monotonically
> increasing, although with a slope of less than one. I agree that the
> hourly or per mile risk would go down.


And speaking of _relative_ risk, I happened across another paper
comparing risk of various activities. This one is "Injury Rates from
Walking, Gardening, Weightlifting, Outdoor Bicycling, and Aerobics" by
Powell et. al., in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 1998, vol
30, pp 1246-9.

This paper reported the results of a very simple poll. They called
some 5000 people, asking questions regarding their participation in the
activities listed in the title. They asked which of those activities
they had participated in during the past 30 days, and whether they had
been injured doing the activity in the past 30 days.

Results? First, 20% of those polled at random had ridden a bike in the
past 30 days. And, believe it or not, a lower percentage of cyclists
had injured themselves than any other group.

Here's a little more detail:

% participating % of participants
injured
Aerobics or aerobic dance 14.5 1.4

Gardening or yard work 70.6 1.6

Outdoor bicycle riding 20.2 0.9

Walking for exercise 73.0 1.4

Weightlifting 20.9 2.4


Read that again. By this measure, bicycling is safer than gardening!
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
 

Similar threads