Raged motorist strikes two cyclists



On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:37:32 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>It's impossible to know what exactly they said, and if in fact the laws
>were not implemented because of what they said or in spite of what they
>said.


So you say. As it happens, our law did not pass, and the arguments
I describe were used. You assert that this approach does not work,
but it appears to us that it does. We have no evidence that the
approach you advocate as the only appropriate one has ever been
used, let alone worked. So we'll be sticking with our way.

>The anonymity of Usenet tends to cause people to say things that they
>wouldn't say in person. I would wager that neither Frank nor Guy was at
>these hearings talking about PMS, cancer, driving helmets, walking
>helmets, etc., or engaging in the type of rhetoric that is seen on
>Usenet in the helmet wars.


Your username is "SMS". There is no link to say who you are. My
signature contains details of who I am, Frank posts under his own
name. So much for the anonymity argument.

Frank has testified in person in front of his legislature. I have
not, but I was in correspondence with the Minister of State, and
other members of my group *were* meeting with ministers and other
members of the legislature (and do so fairly regularly).

So your premise is false and you lose your wager.

>It's highly unlikely that they were attacking the validity of ER
>statistics with rationalizations about how income level and social
>status affect ER visits, either one way or another.


Wrong again, bozo.

What on earth would be the reason *not* to point out that the
pro-helmet side are using a weak kind of evidence which does not
match what happens in the real world? Why would you not do that?

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
 
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:32:24 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> said in
<YhIAi.22$J65.18@trndny08>:

>> And then stop asserting that the approach which worked, doesn't
>> work.


>What proof is there that it did work?


No helmet law.

But since you've now decided to go down the "proof" line, how about
you cite the proof that helmet laws reduce head injury rates, or
that helmet wearing has reduced head injury rates in any real
cyclist population?

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
 
On Aug 28, 12:21 am, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Lobby Dosser wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:

>
> >>> On Aug 27, 6:35 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 27, 2:38 am, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> If more than one person is involved, Everything IS a Political
> >>>>>> Issue. Everywhere. Deal with it.
> >>>>> Interesting. Earlier, you said scientific arguments and
> >>>>> presentation of facts won't work regarding mandatory helmet laws.
> >>>>> Why? Because they are a political issue.
> >>>>> Now you're saying if more than one person is involved,
> >>>>> _everything_ is a political issue.
> >>>>> It follows that you believe science and data have no value, except
> >>>>> perhaps to hermits living alone on mountain tops! That's one of
> >>>>> the most anti-intellectual points of view I've ever heard.
> >>>>> How do you make your personal decisions? By examining the
> >>>>> entrails of sacrificed animals?
> >>>> That seems more your line of work.
> >>> Nope. My line of work is engineering and technical education. I'm
> >>> all about learning, calculations, data, intelligence, etc. That's
> >>> how I make most of my important decisions.

>
> >>> How about you? If you have so little regard for facts, science and
> >>> logic, how _do_ you make decisions? Care to answer, instead of
> >>> wise- cracking?

>
> >> Facts.

>
> > Like the fact of how many dead presidents you are offered to argue a
> > position?

>
> Cute. But content free.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


I need Maalox after that cracker.
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2007 17:18:35 GMT, Jim Yanik <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>> just pass a law allowing insurance companies an exemption that
>> people who fail to take reasonable precautions(seatbelt or helmet
>> for cycles) cannot make a claim against their insurance.

>
> For some values of reasonable. According to the largest ever study,
> encompassing over a million bike accidents, wearing a helmet is
> associated with a small but significant increase in risk of death
> and a small but statistically insignificant increase in risk of
> injury.
>
> Yes, I did type that correctly, it is *increase* not decrease. So
> arguably insurance companies should be telling people not to wear
> them.


What was the methodology of that study? How were accidents
discovered? Did they perform a survey of all bicyclists or of a
randomly selected sample of same or did they rely on police reports or
emergency room reports or what?

> Actually, of course, it's nothing like that simple. Which is
> probably why the insurers of large cycling bodies like CTC and LAB
> do not make any stipulation in regard to helmets on their group
> rides.
>
> Guy


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 
On Aug 27, 6:30 am, [email protected] (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Woody Brison wrote:
> > This is persuasive on the one hand, yet walking goes maybe
> > 5 mph and cycling goes around 15 to 20, more for serious
> > riders. The energy goes up with the square of the velocity
> > so an increase from 5 to 25 is an increase in kinetic
> > energy of 25X. That's why. You're about as likely to hit
> > a post riding as walking. Yet, I've seen people do it
> > walking.

>
> Here's my advice to you for that: STOP RIDING ON THE SIDWALK.


OK, I'll bite. How does riding on the sidewalk relate to
bicycle velocity, energy, and impact injury?
 
In article <[email protected]>, Woody Brison wrote:
> On Aug 27, 6:30 am, [email protected] (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Woody Brison wrote:
>> > This is persuasive on the one hand, yet walking goes maybe
>> > 5 mph and cycling goes around 15 to 20, more for serious
>> > riders. The energy goes up with the square of the velocity
>> > so an increase from 5 to 25 is an increase in kinetic
>> > energy of 25X. That's why. You're about as likely to hit
>> > a post riding as walking. Yet, I've seen people do it
>> > walking.

>>
>> Here's my advice to you for that: STOP RIDING ON THE SIDWALK.

>
> OK, I'll bite. How does riding on the sidewalk relate to
> bicycle velocity, energy, and impact injury?


When was the last time you saw a post on the roadway (definition as per
IL vehicle code)? The posts are on the sidewalk.
 
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:33:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> said in <[email protected]>:

>What was the methodology of that study? How were accidents
>discovered? Did they perform a survey of all bicyclists or of a
>randomly selected sample of same or did they rely on police reports or
>emergency room reports or what?


"Reducing Bicycle Accidents: A Reevaluation of the Impacts of the
CPSC Bicycle Standard and Helmet Use, Rodgers GB. 1988. Journal of
Products Liability: 1988,11:307-317"

Injury figures from NEISS (i.e. CPSC) and other figures form CPSC,
Bell Sports and other sources.

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
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:33:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> said in <[email protected]>:
>
>> What was the methodology of that study? How were accidents
>> discovered? Did they perform a survey of all bicyclists or of a
>> randomly selected sample of same or did they rely on police reports
>> or emergency room reports or what?

>
> "Reducing Bicycle Accidents: A Reevaluation of the Impacts of the
> CPSC Bicycle Standard and Helmet Use, Rodgers GB. 1988. Journal of
> Products Liability: 1988,11:307-317"
>
> Injury figures from NEISS (i.e. CPSC) and other figures form CPSC,
> Bell Sports and other sources.


NEISS collects data from 100 emergency rooms. That means that they
only have data from accidents that resulted in injuries severe enough
to require a hospital visit.

That being the case, one can't say with any certainty that they say
anything about the probability of being injured in an accident, only
about what happens if that accident produces an injury of sufficient
severity to result in a visit to the ER.

Since there's little question that protective equipment prevents
_minor_ injuries, and since the majority of accidents come in that
category, one suspects that the real difference is not in probability
of death following an accident but in the percentage of accidents that
result in a visit to the ER and thus get reported under that
methodology.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:55:27 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> said in <[email protected]>:

>NEISS collects data from 100 emergency rooms. That means that they
>only have data from accidents that resulted in injuries severe enough
>to require a hospital visit.


Yes.

I never said it was a *great* study, only the biggest :)

Note that the prospective pro-helmet studies use much the same data
sources. It's all weak evidence, compared with time-series.

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. Clarke wrote:

> Since there's little question that protective equipment prevents
> _minor_ injuries, and since the majority of accidents come in that
> category, one suspects that the real difference is not in probability
> of death following an accident but in the percentage of accidents that
> result in a visit to the ER and thus get reported under that
> methodology.


Yes, historically that's been the problem with measuring the
effectiveness of protective gear, the very usage of the gear reduces the
number of emergency room (or other medical office) visits. Unfortunately
you can't tell someone that avoided a concussion because they were
wearing a helmet, "would you please go to the hospital anyway so the ER
statistics include your accident in the statistics?"
 
In article <[email protected]>, SMS wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Since there's little question that protective equipment prevents
>> _minor_ injuries, and since the majority of accidents come in that
>> category, one suspects that the real difference is not in probability
>> of death following an accident but in the percentage of accidents that
>> result in a visit to the ER and thus get reported under that
>> methodology.

>
> Yes, historically that's been the problem with measuring the
> effectiveness of protective gear, the very usage of the gear reduces the
> number of emergency room (or other medical office) visits. Unfortunately
> you can't tell someone that avoided a concussion because they were
> wearing a helmet, "would you please go to the hospital anyway so the ER
> statistics include your accident in the statistics?"


On the other hand you can't make the guy who goes 'it's just a flesh
wound' and doesn't go to the ER go. Also you can't make the person who
goes for every little thing not go for a small scrape. On top of that
there is the variable of how likely these personality types are to use
or not use protective gear.
 
Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, SMS wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> Since there's little question that protective equipment prevents
>>> _minor_ injuries, and since the majority of accidents come in that
>>> category, one suspects that the real difference is not in
>>> probability of death following an accident but in the percentage of
>>> accidents that result in a visit to the ER and thus get reported
>>> under that methodology.

>>
>> Yes, historically that's been the problem with measuring the
>> effectiveness of protective gear, the very usage of the gear reduces
>> the number of emergency room (or other medical office) visits.
>> Unfortunately you can't tell someone that avoided a concussion
>> because they were wearing a helmet, "would you please go to the
>> hospital anyway so the ER statistics include your accident in the
>> statistics?"

>
> On the other hand you can't make the guy who goes 'it's just a flesh
> wound' and doesn't go to the ER go. Also you can't make the person who
> goes for every little thing not go for a small scrape. On top of that
> there is the variable of how likely these personality types are to use
> or not use protective gear.


ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross statistics to
support their every view.

Go figger!
 
I'm almost embarassed with this guy!

This IS America!

If he had gone for it he could've been

A BONA-FIDE CRAZED MASS MURDERING PSYCHOPATH

There is no spirit left in this country anymore,

only slackers

Aren't you mortified by this?
 
Bill Sornson wrote:

> ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross statistics to
> support their every view.


They do the only thing they can do. Facts, science, and logic have no
place in the world of the AHZ's.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, SMS wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since there's little question that protective equipment prevents
>>>> _minor_ injuries, and since the majority of accidents come in that
>>>> category, one suspects that the real difference is not in
>>>> probability of death following an accident but in the percentage of
>>>> accidents that result in a visit to the ER and thus get reported
>>>> under that methodology.
>>>
>>> Yes, historically that's been the problem with measuring the
>>> effectiveness of protective gear, the very usage of the gear reduces
>>> the number of emergency room (or other medical office) visits.
>>> Unfortunately you can't tell someone that avoided a concussion
>>> because they were wearing a helmet, "would you please go to the
>>> hospital anyway so the ER statistics include your accident in the
>>> statistics?"

>>
>> On the other hand you can't make the guy who goes 'it's just a flesh
>> wound' and doesn't go to the ER go. Also you can't make the person who
>> goes for every little thing not go for a small scrape. On top of that
>> there is the variable of how likely these personality types are to use
>> or not use protective gear.

>
> ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross statistics to
> support their every view.


Clue time: a zealot tries to force other people to do as he does. There
is nobody trying to force you or anyone not to wear a foam hat. You're the
one with the apparent agenda (despite your denials) of forcing everyone
to wear the foam hats.
 
In article <[email protected]>, SMS wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross statistics to
>> support their every view.

>
> They do the only thing they can do. Facts, science, and logic have no
> place in the world of the AHZ's.


Really? It's only those opposed to being -forced- to wear these damn
things that bothers with facts, science, logic, and engineering while
those wanting to do the forcing resort to being clever with statistics,
emotional stories, appeals that something is better than nothing, and
insults and belittling to anyone who doesn't want to wear bicycle
helmets/

I made my decision regarding helmets as an observer to the helmet wars in
the bicycling newsgroups over a decade ago, I see nothing has changed.
 
On Aug 28, 8:36 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, SMS wrote:
> >> J. Clarke wrote:

>
> >>> Since there's little question that protective equipment prevents
> >>> _minor_ injuries, and since the majority of accidents come in that
> >>> category, one suspects that the real difference is not in
> >>> probability of death following an accident but in the percentage of
> >>> accidents that result in a visit to the ER and thus get reported
> >>> under that methodology.

>
> >> Yes, historically that's been the problem with measuring the
> >> effectiveness of protective gear, the very usage of the gear reduces
> >> the number of emergency room (or other medical office) visits.
> >> Unfortunately you can't tell someone that avoided a concussion
> >> because they were wearing a helmet, "would you please go to the
> >> hospital anyway so the ER statistics include your accident in the
> >> statistics?"

>
> > On the other hand you can't make the guy who goes 'it's just a flesh
> > wound' and doesn't go to the ER go. Also you can't make the person who
> > goes for every little thing not go for a small scrape. On top of that
> > there is the variable of how likely these personality types are to use
> > or not use protective gear.

>
> ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross statistics to
> support their every view.
>
> Go figger!


Bill, if you can't find the benefit of widespread helmet use by
studying the entire population of cyclists, where would you find it?

Helmet proponents routinely claim that widespread use of helmets will
cause tremendous reductions in injuries and/or fatalities. In many
places, helmet use has become widespread precisely because of such
claims - up to 90%, in some cases. Despite that, the promise of
tremendous injury reduction has proven false, except when caused by
tremendous reductions in bicycling itself.

When the promises didn't come true, I stopped believing in them. Why
do you persist?

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Aug 28, 8:36 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, SMS wrote:
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> Since there's little question that protective equipment prevents
>>>>> _minor_ injuries, and since the majority of accidents come in that
>>>>> category, one suspects that the real difference is not in
>>>>> probability of death following an accident but in the percentage of
>>>>> accidents that result in a visit to the ER and thus get reported
>>>>> under that methodology.
>>>> Yes, historically that's been the problem with measuring the
>>>> effectiveness of protective gear, the very usage of the gear reduces
>>>> the number of emergency room (or other medical office) visits.
>>>> Unfortunately you can't tell someone that avoided a concussion
>>>> because they were wearing a helmet, "would you please go to the
>>>> hospital anyway so the ER statistics include your accident in the
>>>> statistics?"
>>> On the other hand you can't make the guy who goes 'it's just a flesh
>>> wound' and doesn't go to the ER go. Also you can't make the person who
>>> goes for every little thing not go for a small scrape. On top of that
>>> there is the variable of how likely these personality types are to use
>>> or not use protective gear.

>> ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross statistics to
>> support their every view.
>>
>> Go figger!

>
> Bill, if you can't find the benefit of widespread helmet use by
> studying the entire population of cyclists, where would you find it?
>
> Helmet proponents routinely claim that widespread use of helmets will
> cause tremendous reductions in injuries and/or fatalities. In many
> places, helmet use has become widespread precisely because of such
> claims - up to 90%, in some cases. Despite that, the promise of
> tremendous injury reduction has proven false, except when caused by
> tremendous reductions in bicycling itself.
>
> When the promises didn't come true, I stopped believing in them. Why
> do you persist?


Maybe Bill has attended faith based helmet education. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, SMS wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>>> ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross
>>> statistics to support their every view.

>>
>> They do the only thing they can do. Facts, science, and logic have no
>> place in the world of the AHZ's.

>
> Really? It's only those opposed to being -forced- to wear these damn
> things that bothers with facts, science, logic, and engineering while
> those wanting to do the forcing


BBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT. Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
People who are "pro lid" -- that is, believe that they're a good idea and
effective in preventing or diminishing injury -- are NOT therefore in favor
of mandatory helmet laws. STOP THIS DISINGENUOUS ********.

If you want to flame those who DO promote MHLs, then by all means do so.
But this fallacious **** of lumping people who CHOOSE to wear a helmet in
with those who would mandate it has got to stop.

Otherwise, you're no better than Feckless Frank, Flailor, Flogger and the
other F-heads.

HTH.

Bill "stop being a clueless lying moron dammit" S.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Sornson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, SMS wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>
>>>> ANd yet the AHZs try to use whole population studies and gross
>>>> statistics to support their every view.
>>>
>>> They do the only thing they can do. Facts, science, and logic have no
>>> place in the world of the AHZ's.

>>
>> Really? It's only those opposed to being -forced- to wear these damn
>> things that bothers with facts, science, logic, and engineering while
>> those wanting to do the forcing

>
> BBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT. Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
> People who are "pro lid" -- that is, believe that they're a good idea and
> effective in preventing or diminishing injury -- are NOT therefore in favor
> of mandatory helmet laws. STOP THIS DISINGENUOUS ********.


That's quite ********. I've had your kind yell at me, pull along side me,
etc telling me how I need to wear the foam hat. I've had more
interactions with bicycle helmet zealots 'preaching' to me in the last
decade than I've had from all other religions combined.

> If you want to flame those who DO promote MHLs, then by all means do so.


Funny, you make your case the same the MHL types do, right down to the
insults.

> But this fallacious **** of lumping people who CHOOSE to wear a helmet in
> with those who would mandate it has got to stop.


You don't just choose to wear one, you clearly seek to expand the
religion and insult anyone who chooses not to.

> Otherwise, you're no better than Feckless Frank, Flailor, Flogger and the
> other F-heads.


When it comes to the foam hats, Frank makes the sound arguments. Of
course your pro-helmet arguments are about on par with Frank's
pro-speed-hump arguments.
 

Similar threads