Raged motorist strikes two cyclists

[[email protected]]

On Aug 23, 3:03 pm, "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 23, 7:52 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > Helmet skeptics
> > do not say that ER statistics should not be believed. In fact, I make
> > use of such statistics regularly in these discussions. What we say is
> > that simple case-control ER studies with self-selected helmeted
> > subjects are fundamentally flawed - and that those are the type of
> > studies that helmet proponents most rely on.
>
> > Think about that. "Self-selected" means the person being studied has
> > personally chosen whether to adopt a certain intervention. And a case-
> > control study with self-selected subjects should not be accepted to
> > determine the effectiveness of any medication or other health-related
> > intervention.
>
> > Why? Because the person choosing the intervention automatically
> > proves himself to be different from those who do not choose it. That
> > person is likely to have other behavioral differences that affect the
> > results.
>
> > The classic example is post-menopausal women who choose hormone
> > replacement therapy. HRT was touted for years as a health benefit,
> > because the first women who chose to take hormones were found to have
> > less heart disease, fewer cancer deaths, etc.
>
> > But when large population, _randomized_ studies were done a few years
> > ago, researchers found that HRT was actually a significant risk,
> > causing _more_ such health problems, not fewer. The explanation?
> > Those women who were early adopters of HRT were very health
> > conscious. Their better health was caused simply by their overall
> > attention to their health - i.e. better diet, more checkups, and more
> > exercise. Probably more bike riding!
>
> WTF made you a doctor AND a shrink?

A person doesn't have to be a doctor to read and understand scientific
papers detailing errors in studies. A person has to understand
mathematics and be reasonably intelligent.

>What does gynecological science have to do with helmets?

Hormone replacement therapy isn't generally considered gynecological.
It's a general health issue for women.

Learn before you post.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S]

On Aug 24, 7:00 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 23, 3:03 pm, "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S"
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 7:52 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > Helmet skeptics
> > > do not say that ER statistics should not be believed. In fact, I make
> > > use of such statistics regularly in these discussions. What we say is
> > > that simple case-control ER studies with self-selected helmeted
> > > subjects are fundamentally flawed - and that those are the type of
> > > studies that helmet proponents most rely on.
>
> > > Think about that. "Self-selected" means the person being studied has
> > > personally chosen whether to adopt a certain intervention. And a case-
> > > control study with self-selected subjects should not be accepted to
> > > determine the effectiveness of any medication or other health-related
> > > intervention.
>
> > > Why? Because the person choosing the intervention automatically
> > > proves himself to be different from those who do not choose it. That
> > > person is likely to have other behavioral differences that affect the
> > > results.
>
> > > The classic example is post-menopausal women who choose hormone
> > > replacement therapy. HRT was touted for years as a health benefit,
> > > because the first women who chose to take hormones were found to have
> > > less heart disease, fewer cancer deaths, etc.
>
> > > But when large population, _randomized_ studies were done a few years
> > > ago, researchers found that HRT was actually a significant risk,
> > > causing _more_ such health problems, not fewer. The explanation?
> > > Those women who were early adopters of HRT were very health
> > > conscious. Their better health was caused simply by their overall
> > > attention to their health - i.e. better diet, more checkups, and more
> > > exercise. Probably more bike riding!
>
> > WTF made you a doctor AND a shrink?
>
> A person doesn't have to be a doctor to read and understand scientific
> papers detailing errors in studies. A person has to understand
> mathematics and be reasonably intelligent.
>
> >What does gynecological science have to do with helmets?
>
> Hormone replacement therapy isn't generally considered gynecological.
> It's a general health issue for women.
>
> Learn before you post.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

I learned long ago that idiots dance instead of peeing. It has nothing
to do with this thread either.

Quit shaming the other cyclists with this troll sex post.

 

[Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S]

>|<

 

[SMS]

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:

> You don't discredit anyone by refusing to confront the argument and
> instead simply sneering at them.

LOL, it's up them to come up with coherent arguments against all the ER
studies, not up to me to respond to incoherent babbling.

You're going to have to accept that there will not be a double-blind
study of injury severity after head-impact accidents, with and without
helmets. Once you understand that, you can move forward and accept the
ER studies even though they are not perfect. But understand that they
are imperfect in a way that actually understates their benefit, because
of all the ER visits that are avoided in the first place.

As others have stated, the number of head-impact accidents where a
helmet would make a difference is very small, simply because the number
of head impact accidents is very small. There is no need for compulsion.
It's a personal freedom issue of how much risk you want to accept. For
some reason, this isn't good enough for some AHZ's, they really want to
convince themselves that the helmet provides no protection at all.

There are some key ways to know whenever someone in the helmet debates
knows not of what they speak:

1. They use the phrase "foam hat" in an effort to make the reader
believe that any protection device which uses foam to absorb shock is
somehow worthless.

2. They make irrelevant comparisons with other activities such as
driving or walking.

3. They mis-use "self-selection" in an attempt to "prove" that the ER
studies must be false because the believe, with no evidence, that a
helmeted cyclist is more likely to visit the ER after a head-impact crash.

4. They demand double-blind surveys and tests, knowing full well that it
isn't possible (or at least not ethical) to perform them.

5. The try to work in cancer, PMS, ED, or other medical conditions.

You need to work against MHLs in a logical, coherent, calm manner, not
by incoherent babbling about how doctors and nurses that actually see
the difference a helmet makes, must be wrong.

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 24, 5:04 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> There are some key ways to know whenever someone in the helmet debates
> knows not of what they speak:

The "key ways" World's Greatest Expert Steven M. Scharf (SMS) mentions
are merely his usual pontificating, based only on his ill-informed
opinions.

The _real_ way to recognize ignorance in _any_ debate is this: The
person never uses data, citations, numbers, references, or anything
other than his own ill-informed opinion.

That ignorance is particularly obnoxious when that person proclaims
everyone else's data, citations, numbers, references, etc. to be
worthless, based only on his ill-informed opinion.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Bill Sornson]

SMS wrote:
> Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>
>> You don't discredit anyone by refusing to confront the argument and
>> instead simply sneering at them.
>
> LOL, it's up them to come up with coherent arguments against all the
> ER studies, not up to me to respond to incoherent babbling.
>
> You're going to have to accept that there will not be a double-blind
> study of injury severity after head-impact accidents, with and without
> helmets. Once you understand that, you can move forward and accept the
> ER studies even though they are not perfect. But understand that they
> are imperfect in a way that actually understates their benefit,
> because of all the ER visits that are avoided in the first place.
>
> As others have stated, the number of head-impact accidents where a
> helmet would make a difference is very small, simply because the
> number of head impact accidents is very small. There is no need for
> compulsion. It's a personal freedom issue of how much risk you want
> to accept. For some reason, this isn't good enough for some AHZ's,
> they really want to convince themselves that the helmet provides no
> protection at all.
> There are some key ways to know whenever someone in the helmet debates
> knows not of what they speak:
>
> 1. They use the phrase "foam hat" in an effort to make the reader
> believe that any protection device which uses foam to absorb shock is
> somehow worthless.
>
> 2. They make irrelevant comparisons with other activities such as
> driving or walking.
>
> 3. They mis-use "self-selection" in an attempt to "prove" that the ER
> studies must be false because the believe, with no evidence, that a
> helmeted cyclist is more likely to visit the ER after a head-impact
> crash.
> 4. They demand double-blind surveys and tests, knowing full well that
> it isn't possible (or at least not ethical) to perform them.
>
> 5. The try to work in cancer, PMS, ED, or other medical conditions.
>
> You need to work against MHLs in a logical, coherent, calm manner, not
> by incoherent babbling about how doctors and nurses that actually see
> the difference a helmet makes, must be wrong.

POTT. (Thread.)

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:04:18 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>There are some key ways to know whenever someone in the helmet debates
>knows not of what they speak:

One of which is that they are Steven M Scharf.

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

 

[SMS]

Bill Sornson wrote:

>> You need to work against MHLs in a logical, coherent, calm manner, not
>> by incoherent babbling about how doctors and nurses that actually see
>> the difference a helmet makes, must be wrong.
>
> POTT. (Thread.)

Huh?

Doesn't appear in the list of Usenet acronyms.

In any case, the chance of getting the AHZ's to actually read all the
studies is about nil. Myself and others have provided endless
references, citations, studies etc., but it always comes down to
half-witted attacks on the studies because they aren't "scientific
enough". This is followed by endless speculation as to what might have
occurred for the study data to have come out as it did. We're not even
talking conclusions drawn from the data, we're talking about specious
speculation about how the data just _can't_ be right, because it doesn't
show what the AHZ's want it to show.

I have to give the AHZ's credit. They keep plugging along even when
people that are far better informed keep posting referenced facts
regarding the subject. They've long since given up on fact-based
argument. They remind me of our precious president, who foolishly let
Karl Rove go, and who now can't lie half as good as he was lying before.

 

[Bill Sornson]

SMS wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>>> You need to work against MHLs in a logical, coherent, calm manner,
>>> not by incoherent babbling about how doctors and nurses that
>>> actually see the difference a helmet makes, must be wrong.
>>
>> POTT. (Thread.)
>
> Huh?
>
> Doesn't appear in the list of Usenet acronyms.

Post Of The Thread. Var. of POTW, POTM, POTY, etc. (I tried to make it
clear with, "Thread.")

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 24, 7:56 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> In any case, the chance of getting the AHZ's to actually read all the
> studies is about nil. Myself and others have provided endless
> references, citations, studies etc.,

That is a bald-faced lie (and a poorly constructed sentence!).

Scroll back in this thread. Check the number of citations,
references, or data that SMS has provided.

In most threads of this type, the count is exactly zero. This time,
he's got one post that cited two studies - a near-record for him.
However, he's not capable of discussing them intelligently, nor
understanding the problems with those studies, nor providing a
realistic defense of them. I think I clearly explained the problem of
self-selection in case-control studies - but he doesn't register any
understanding.

Worse, he repeatedly mistakes the case-control studies as being "all
the ER studies." They are not. Time-series studies also use ER data,
and find no detectable helmet benefit.

Furthermore, he frequently says "all the experts agree" with him (or
something similar) when that too is a bald-faced lie. If all experts
agreed, there wouldn't be the controversy.

My library of data and papers on this issue is probably two feet
thick. Guy Chapman's library puts mine to shame (see
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Cycle_helmet). Steven M. Scharf,
by contrast, has demonstrated very little evidence of reading and very
little technical knowledge of this issue.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Lobby Dosser]

[email protected] wrote:

> On Aug 24, 7:56 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> In any case, the chance of getting the AHZ's to actually read all the
>> studies is about nil. Myself and others have provided endless
>> references, citations, studies etc.,
>
> That is a bald-faced lie (and a poorly constructed sentence!).
>
> Scroll back in this thread. Check the number of citations,
> references, or data that SMS has provided.
>
> In most threads of this type, the count is exactly zero. This time,
> he's got one post that cited two studies - a near-record for him.
> However, he's not capable of discussing them intelligently, nor
> understanding the problems with those studies, nor providing a
> realistic defense of them. I think I clearly explained the problem of
> self-selection in case-control studies - but he doesn't register any
> understanding.
>
> Worse, he repeatedly mistakes the case-control studies as being "all
> the ER studies." They are not. Time-series studies also use ER data,
> and find no detectable helmet benefit.
>
> Furthermore, he frequently says "all the experts agree" with him (or
> something similar) when that too is a bald-faced lie. If all experts
> agreed, there wouldn't be the controversy.
>
> My library of data and papers on this issue is probably two feet
> thick. Guy Chapman's library puts mine to shame (see
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Cycle_helmet). Steven M. Scharf,
> by contrast, has demonstrated very little evidence of reading and very
> little technical knowledge of this issue.

What you clearly do not understand is that it is not a technical issue.
It is a political issue. The people who understand That will prevail.

 

[Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S]

On Aug 24, 6:47 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Aug 24, 7:56 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> In any case, the chance of getting the AHZ's to actually read all the
> >> studies is about nil. Myself and others have provided endless
> >> references, citations, studies etc.,
>
> > That is a bald-faced lie (and a poorly constructed sentence!).
>
> > Scroll back in this thread. Check the number of citations,
> > references, or data that SMS has provided.
>
> > In most threads of this type, the count is exactly zero. This time,
> > he's got one post that cited two studies - a near-record for him.
> > However, he's not capable of discussing them intelligently, nor
> > understanding the problems with those studies, nor providing a
> > realistic defense of them. I think I clearly explained the problem of
> > self-selection in case-control studies - but he doesn't register any
> > understanding.
>
> > Worse, he repeatedly mistakes the case-control studies as being "all
> > the ER studies." They are not. Time-series studies also use ER data,
> > and find no detectable helmet benefit.
>
> > Furthermore, he frequently says "all the experts agree" with him (or
> > something similar) when that too is a bald-faced lie. If all experts
> > agreed, there wouldn't be the controversy.
>
> > My library of data and papers on this issue is probably two feet
> > thick. Guy Chapman's library puts mine to shame (see
> >http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Cycle_helmet). Steven M. Scharf,
> > by contrast, has demonstrated very little evidence of reading and very
> > little technical knowledge of this issue.
>
> What you clearly do not understand is that it is not a technical issue.
> It is a political issue. The people who understand That will prevail.

The people who are annoyed the most with the entire argument will
probably outlive the rest.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:47:40 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> said in
<M_Kzi.39$j23.33@trndny06>:

>What you clearly do not understand is that it is not a technical issue.
>It is a political issue. The people who understand That will prevail.

We understand that just fine. And in Scharf's case it's more of a
religious issue than a political or scientific one, since he eschews
consideration of the evidence - even politicians look at evidence.

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

 

[Matthew T. Russotto]

In article <[email protected]>,
SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>
>> You don't discredit anyone by refusing to confront the argument and
>> instead simply sneering at them.
>
>LOL, it's up them to come up with coherent arguments against all the ER
>studies, not up to me to respond to incoherent babbling.

They already have proposed mechanisms for bias in the ER studies which have
actually been brought up. You may not accept them, but characterizing
them as incoherent babbling does not refute them. Nor does returning
to anecdote or sneering remarks to the effect of "don't wear a helmet
and die, then"

>You're going to have to accept that there will not be a double-blind
>study of injury severity after head-impact accidents, with and without
>helmets. Once you understand that, you can move forward and accept the
>ER studies even though they are not perfect. But understand that they
>are imperfect in a way that actually understates their benefit, because
>of all the ER visits that are avoided in the first place.

That mechanism doesn't cause underestimate by the metrics I've seen
mentioned here.

>As others have stated, the number of head-impact accidents where a
>helmet would make a difference is very small, simply because the number
>of head impact accidents is very small. There is no need for compulsion.
>It's a personal freedom issue of how much risk you want to accept. For
>some reason, this isn't good enough for some AHZ's, they really want to
>convince themselves that the helmet provides no protection at all.

The personal freedom issue is not good enough for control freaks
either. I see no reason to give up on the "helmets are of marginal
benefit" argument if it is true. Furthermore, it makes a difference
to my personal decision. I typically wear one, but I much prefer not
to, particuarly in hot weather.

>There are some key ways to know whenever someone in the helmet debates
>knows not of what they speak:
>
>1. They use the phrase "foam hat" in an effort to make the reader
>believe that any protection device which uses foam to absorb shock is
>somehow worthless.

So they're being derisive as well. That does not indicate a lack of knowledge.

>2. They make irrelevant comparisons with other activities such as
>driving or walking.

Doesn't seem irrelevant to me. If the risk of head injury while
biking is similar to that while walking, there's no real argument for
helmets while biking.

>You need to work against MHLs in a logical, coherent, calm manner, not
>by incoherent babbling about how doctors and nurses that actually see
>the difference a helmet makes, must be wrong.

What doctors, nurses, and EMTs believe is anecdote at best, secondhand
wisdom somewhere in the middle, and a political ploy at worst (the
latter not so much with respect to bicycle helmets, but often with
respect to gun control)
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>> 2. They make irrelevant comparisons with other activities such as
>> driving or walking.

> Doesn't seem irrelevant to me. If the risk of head injury while
> biking is similar to that while walking, there's no real argument for
> helmets while biking.

Yeah, why wear protection while hurtling down a bumpy road at 45 mph with
huge speeding behemoths all around going much faster? (Oh, and you're
perched atop a thin frame with two very skinny wheels and tires, the latter
of which are inflated to sky-high pressures.)

But walking to the mailbox...THAT requires a lid.

You can easily manipulate statistics to back this up, as many do.

HTH

 

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, SMS wrote:

> 1. They use the phrase "foam hat" in an effort to make the reader
> believe that any protection device which uses foam to absorb shock is
> somehow worthless.

Because that is what it is. When I think of helmet, I think of something
like a motorcycle helmet or combat helmet or batting helmet, not a
flimsy foam cap. Calling it a 'helmet' is quite misleading IMO because it
gives people the impression that it is a protective device of much more
capability than it has.

> 2. They make irrelevant comparisons with other activities such as
> driving or walking.

It's a question of risk. Bicycling has a low risk of injury like many
daily activities. If we aren't going to pad ourselves up for daily
activities that actually are just as more risky than bicycling, why
should we do it for bicycling?

> 3. They mis-use "self-selection" in an attempt to "prove" that the ER
> studies must be false because the believe, with no evidence, that a
> helmeted cyclist is more likely to visit the ER after a head-impact crash.

The ER studies that support foam caps have been shown to be rather
flawed. Frank uses better done ER studies that do not have the flaws and
guess what, the benefit for foam hats goes away.

> 4. They demand double-blind surveys and tests, knowing full well that it
> isn't possible (or at least not ethical) to perform them.

See 3.

> 5. The try to work in cancer, PMS, ED, or other medical conditions.

When pro helmet people argue that bicycling without a helmet is a drain
on the resources of society in order to justify their control freakism it
is appropiate to point out that biycling is a net benefit to society
regardless if the person bicycling wears the special attire or not. The
idea that some how un-helmeted (hatted) bicyclists are drain on society's
resources is simply absurd.

Since the control freaks use the 'cost to society' to justify their
control, it makes sense to point out behaviors they may engage in that
have a 'cost to society' as well. If biking without covering the top
of one's head with foam has a cost to society that demands laws and
control so do many of their behaviors from smoking to eating the 'wrong'
foods to engaging in any number of forms of recreation.

> You need to work against MHLs in a logical, coherent, calm manner, not
> by incoherent babbling about how doctors and nurses that actually see
> the difference a helmet makes, must be wrong.

There's no need to babble, ancodotal evidence like that is just plain
weak and distorted by who choses to visit them. The overly concerned are
sure to visit them for much lesser injury, much lesser events than those
who are not. Of course that group of overly concerned people are more
likely to wear the device.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 08:43:59 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>Yeah, why wear protection while hurtling down a bumpy road at 45 mph with
>huge speeding behemoths all around going much faster?

Have you ever looked at the tests to which helmets are subjected
(and routinely fail)? A 45mph crash, or one involving a motor
vehicle, is so far outside these parameters as to make your rhetoric
worse than simply fatuous, and put it into the category of
dangerously misleading.

Incidentally, the leading cause of cyclist deaths in London (a
well-studied city) is crushing by turning goods vehicles. Few if
any of these cyclists die of head injury, but a lot of them are
wearing helmets. The ones that aren't, the press often make a point
of mentioning it. Presumably they believe, as Thompson, Rivara and
Thompson evidently do, that helmets prevent almost all non head
injuries as well...

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

 

[Brent P]

In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson wrote:

> Yeah, why wear protection while hurtling down a bumpy road at 45 mph with
> huge speeding behemoths all around going much faster? (Oh, and you're
> perched atop a thin frame with two very skinny wheels and tires, the latter
> of which are inflated to sky-high pressures.)

And this is why they get called 'magic hats' because people such as
yourself pretend or think that the helmet is useful should one crash at
45mph.

I've learned about the standards to which bicycle 'helmets' are designed.
Since I am taller than 6', if I simply fell over, I've exceeded the
capacity of the helmet. No impact from a car needed, no 45mph velocity,
just falling over.... So, if that's all the protection the bicycle
'helmet' offers me, I don't see why I should wear one while bicycling
but not for any daily activity where I might fall with a similiar or
greater risk.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, why wear protection while hurtling down a bumpy road at 45 mph
>> with huge speeding behemoths all around going much faster? (Oh, and
>> you're perched atop a thin frame with two very skinny wheels and
>> tires, the latter of which are inflated to sky-high pressures.)
>
> And this is why they get called 'magic hats' because people such as
> yourself pretend or think that the helmet is useful should one crash
> at 45mph.

Gosh, everyone knows that every bike crash results in direct impact with
immovable objects the force of which is identical to the speed the cyclist
was travelling. {Sarcams (sic) Mode Off}

> I've learned about the standards to which bicycle 'helmets' are
> designed. Since I am taller than 6', if I simply fell over, I've
> exceeded the capacity of the helmet. No impact from a car needed, no
> 45mph velocity, just falling over.... So, if that's all the
> protection the bicycle 'helmet' offers me, I don't see why I should
> wear one while bicycling
> but not for any daily activity where I might fall with a similiar or
> greater risk.

Helmets, bike lanes... Is there anything of which you're NOT afraid?!? LOL

What a maroon...

 

[Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S]

On Aug 25, 10:20 am, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 08:43:59 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
> said in <[email protected]>:
>
> >Yeah, why wear protection while hurtling down a bumpy road at 45 mph with
> >huge speeding behemoths all around going much faster?
>
> Have you ever looked at the tests to which helmets are subjected
> (and routinely fail)? A 45mph crash, or one involving a motor
> vehicle, is so far outside these parameters as to make your rhetoric
> worse than simply fatuous, and put it into the category of
> dangerously misleading.
>
> Incidentally, the leading cause of cyclist deaths in London (a
> well-studied city) is crushing by turning goods vehicles. Few if
> any of these cyclists die of head injury, but a lot of them are
> wearing helmets. The ones that aren't, the press often make a point
> of mentioning it. Presumably they believe, as Thompson, Rivara and
> Thompson evidently do, that helmets prevent almost all non head
> injuries as well...
>
> 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

It's to reinforce the seat belt usage campaign. If you let up on one
they fear the other will suffer. This way they stay on the good side
of law enforcement.