Re: Anyone know what's happening re: Helmet laws?

[R15757]

Frank wrote:

>For those just entering the discussion, NEISS claims bikes cause about
>586,000 ER visits per year. (It varies year to year, of course.)
>That's less than basketball (692,400). It's more than beds, but not by
>much (beds caused 466,500 in 2003, apparently by people falling out of
>them).
>
>IOW, I admit that bikes are more dangerous by this measure than beds.
>But if you compare bikes to the soft furniture in your house, the total
>ER visits are less for cycling. With "sofas, couches, davenports, etc."
>coming in at 130,000 ER visits per year, it takes only beds plus sofas
>to beat bikes - and we don't even need to add chairs (299,000), tables
>(311,000), bathtubs, etc, etc.
>
>
>Again, Steven, you mock the information you don't like. But you
>apparently don't trouble yourself to read the sources of the
>information. You certainly offer no substantive rebuttal for the
>numbers I've given.


Excellent numbers, Frank!

Using Frank's numbers we can see that cycling
is something like 1000 times more likely to cause
injury per hour than sofas, beds, chairs, etc.
Thank you, Frank, that's very helpful.

Now back to our regularly scheduled retardation.

 

[R15757]

Steven Scharf wrote in part:

>The
>politicians pushing these laws are not going to fall for the
>simple-minded anecdotes and incorrect statistics that people like Frank
>
>promulgate.

I wish that were true, but I fear that
the politicians are exactly the kind of tards
who would fall for Frank's brand of
deliberate obfuscation and meaningless
soundbites.

He must have had some success with it
in the past or he wouldn't be repeating it
again and again and again and again.

The sound and the fury.

Robert
not a big helmet guy BTW

 

[[email protected]]

R15757 wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>
> >For those just entering the discussion, NEISS claims bikes cause
about
> >586,000 ER visits per year. (It varies year to year, of course.)
> >That's less than basketball (692,400). It's more than beds, but not
by
> >much (beds caused 466,500 in 2003, apparently by people falling out
of
> >them).
> >
> >IOW, I admit that bikes are more dangerous by this measure than
beds.
> >But if you compare bikes to the soft furniture in your house, the
total
> >ER visits are less for cycling. With "sofas, couches, davenports,
etc."
> >coming in at 130,000 ER visits per year, it takes only beds plus
sofas
> >to beat bikes - and we don't even need to add chairs (299,000),
tables
> >(311,000), bathtubs, etc, etc.
> >
>
> Excellent numbers, Frank!
>
> Using Frank's numbers we can see that cycling
> is something like 1000 times more likely to cause
> injury per hour than sofas, beds, chairs, etc.
> Thank you, Frank, that's very helpful.

I always figured that the "bed" injuries involved people getting
into and out of bed. You know, roughly 20 seconds per day. Based on
that, your wild-guess "1000 times more per hour" is likely to be wrong.

But, since you're such a stickler for precision in statistics, I'm sure
you'll be explaining your math in detail, and correcting any errors.
Right? ;-)

Anyway, I'm not too disturbed if bicycling ends up looking more
dangerous than lying in bed. Especially if it's safer than basketball.

 

[b_baka]

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> b_baka wrote:
>
>> As for myself and not wearing a helmet, I can only say that by
>> cycling, I am not likely to drop dead of a heart attack, so I am ahead
>> of the game. If I had to wear a helmet, it would diminish my desire to
>> ride and increase my chances of getting lazy and having a heart
>> attack. Let the fearmongers worry about something else and leave us
>> alone to do our thing.
>
>
> I agree that we should be left alone. But I am a realist. The
> politicians pushing these laws are not going to fall for the
> simple-minded anecdotes and incorrect statistics that people like Frank
> promulgate.

I also doubt that the politicians ride bicycles much, and it is hard to
relate to us from the back seat of a limo.
>
> I hate what's happened in the U.S., where politics has become one
> sound-bite after another, intended to mislead naive voters. We are
> seeing it yet again with Bush's Social Security proposals. Yet it only
> works in one direction, because the Karl Rove types are smart enough to
> recognize when someone tries to throw the same kind of **** back at them.

No argument here.
>
> Stories about the dangers of gardening and sofa-sitting may make a few
> lame-brained people laugh, but they have no effect on the decision
> makers.

My grandmother did live to 100 mostly by gardening and almost never sat
in one place for more than a few minutes. Gardening seems OK to me for
the older set (over 70), but sofa-sitting has no place in my life. How
many people will waste the day watching the Super Bowl and how many will
go out and do something? I rode 5 miles and walked another 5 with my
granddaughter and could care less about watching sports. Sports should
be played, not watched.

If anything they will be used to try and show that the people
> against the MHLs are lunatics. Politicians are skilled at choosing their
> opponent. They are not going to choose people that put forth logical
> arguments as to why MHLs are a bad idea. They will choose people that
> put forward the lamest form of opposition.

We went through pretty much the same thing here in California about
1975(?) and wound up with a motorcycle helmet law. The Harley riders
wear a plastic cap that barely passes for a helmet, while the Ninja
crowd wears the race type helmet, neither of which I like. That is a
major reason why I don't have a motorcycle at the moment, helmets.
>
> "If I have to wear a helmet so I won't ride and I will let my health
> deteriorate, and I'll have a heart attack," may be true, but it isn't an
> impressive argument.
>
Not impressive, but somebody would need to take literally days, if not
weeks to put together something wordy enough to be considered by
politicians. Statistics and big words seem to get their attention and it
may be only that at that point it surpasses the intellectual capacity of
the politician to question it and verify the facts (statistics) being
put forth.

This is getting wordy enough that to continue would require going off
line and putting together a document, but that would overextend my welcome.
Anyway, time will tell.
Bill Baka

 

[b_baka]

[email protected] wrote:
> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>
> <big snip>
> IOW, I admit that bikes are more dangerous by this measure than beds.
> But if you compare bikes to the soft furniture in your house, the total
> ER visits are less for cycling. With "sofas, couches, davenports, etc."
> coming in at 130,000 ER visits per year, it takes only beds plus sofas
> to beat bikes - and we don't even need to add chairs (299,000), tables
> (311,000), bathtubs, etc, etc.
>< another snip.>

A point that is being totally disregarded is how many visits to an early
grave could be avoided by using bicycles instead of beds, couches, etc.
If after work, for instance, a person would grab a bike and ride even 5
miles rather than grab a beer and plop on the couch to watch television,
how many years could they add to their lives?
I will leave the extrapolation of that to the readers.
Bill Baka

 

[[email protected]]

b_baka wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> A point that is being totally disregarded is how many visits to an
early
> grave could be avoided by using bicycles instead of beds, couches,
etc.
> If after work, for instance, a person would grab a bike and ride even
5
> miles rather than grab a beer and plop on the couch to watch
television,
> how many years could they add to their lives?
> I will leave the extrapolation of that to the readers.
>

Well, a rather famous British researcher named Mayer Hillman concluded
that the years of life gained through even helmetless cycling
outweighed the years of life lost by a 20 to 1 ratio. That was in his
publication "Cycle Helmets: The Case For and Against", Policy Studies
Institute, London, 1993.

Of course, I'm sure such information will soon be ridiculed by other
posters! For some, no good news can be tolerated! ;-)

 

[R15757]

Frank wrote:

> I always figured that the "bed" injuries involved people getting
>into and out of bed. You know, roughly 20 seconds per day. Based on
>that, your wild-guess "1000 times more per hour" is likely to be wrong.

No, your "bed injuries" probably include all sorts of
things, mainly fires, smotherings, all manner
of things that occur while a person (or infant)
happens to be in bed. Likewise with the chair
and sofa injuries. Using your own numbers, and
common sense projections about the use of beds,
sofas, and chairs by 300 million Americans, we
conclude that riding a bicycle is something like 1000
times more likely to result in injury on a per hour basis
than the combined risk from beds, sofas, chairs...
So thank you for all your information about
these injuries, they really help put things into
perspective.

>Anyway, I'm not too disturbed if bicycling ends up looking more
>dangerous than lying in bed. Especially if it's safer than basketball.

Only an idiot would claim that cycling
is "safer than basketball."

Can't remember the last time somebody
got smacked by a car playing basketball.
Anyone?

Robert

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 6 Feb 2005 19:48:51 -0800, [email protected] wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>a rather famous British researcher named Mayer Hillman concluded
>that the years of life gained through even helmetless cycling
>outweighed the years of life lost by a 20 to 1 ratio. That was in his
>publication "Cycle Helmets: The Case For and Against", Policy Studies
>Institute, London, 1993.

The BMA applied the most sceptical view it could to Prof. Hillman's
work and still concluded that regular cyclists are likely to enjoy a
lifespan at least two years longer than average, even after traffic
danger is taken into account.

And let's not lose sight of the source of the danger here. Cycling is
not, in and of itself, dangerous. The major predictor of serious and
fatal injury remains the involvement not of a bicycle, but of a motor
vehicle. Compared with fatalities caused by negligent use of motor
vehicles, cycle fatalities are statistically insignificant.

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

 

[[email protected]]

R15757 wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>
> > I always figured that the "bed" injuries involved people
getting
> >into and out of bed. You know, roughly 20 seconds per day. Based
on
> >that, your wild-guess "1000 times more per hour" is likely to be
wrong.
>
> No, your "bed injuries" probably include all sorts of
> things, mainly fires, smotherings, all manner
> of things that occur while a person (or infant)
> happens to be in bed.

Hmm. I didn't see that in the sources I used. I'd have guessed that
if a person died in bed from, say, smoke inhalation from a house fire,
they wouldn't attribute the injury to the bed! (And just how many bed
smotherings are treated in ERs per year, anyway?)

But perhaps I'm wrong. Why not post the source of your info, so we can
see for sure how correct you are?

Likewise with the chair
> and sofa injuries. Using your own numbers, and
> common sense projections about the use of beds,
> sofas, and chairs by 300 million Americans, we
> conclude that riding a bicycle is something like 1000
> times...

"Something like 1000 times"?

First clear up the above point, then explain where you get the 1000.


"more likely to result in injury on a per hour basis ..."

After that, we can look at the per mile basis for bed injuries, as
well! ;-)


> >Anyway, I'm not too disturbed if bicycling ends up looking more
> >dangerous than lying in bed. Especially if it's safer than
basketball.
>
> Only an idiot would claim that cycling
> is "safer than basketball."

Despite what the official data say, eh?


> Can't remember the last time somebody
> got smacked by a car playing basketball.
> Anyone?

As if getting smacked by a car was the only danger in this world! But
remember, far more pedestrians than bicyclists get smacked - fatally
smacked - by cars. Will your shifting standards allow you to admit
that cycling is safer than walking?

>From what I've seen, when someone has claimed cycling is safer per hour
than another activity, you've claimed per mile data is what's
important. When someone notes a comparison where cycling is safer per
mile (like, walking) you want to talk per hour. When counts of ER
visits show cycling to be comparatively safe, you want to talk about
either minor injuries or fatalities. When fatalities are mentioned,
you want to return to per mile figures.

It seems more and more obvious that your ultimate standard is this:
Does the data make cycling look dangerous? Then it's good data. Does
the data make cycling look safe? Then only an idiot would believe it.

IOW, your prejudice against cycling is extremely strong.

 

[b_baka]

[email protected] wrote:
> Well, a rather famous British researcher named Mayer Hillman concluded
> that the years of life gained through even helmetless cycling
> outweighed the years of life lost by a 20 to 1 ratio. That was in his
> publication "Cycle Helmets: The Case For and Against", Policy Studies
> Institute, London, 1993.
>
> Of course, I'm sure such information will soon be ridiculed by other
> posters! For some, no good news can be tolerated! ;-)
>
At least there is one reasonable study out there. I think the only part
of the head that a bicycle helmet protects is the back side where the
brains autonomous control section is. I could almost start a case for
helmets that resemble Jewish skull caps to protect the most critical
region of the brain. Not too many people crash on the direct top of
their heads and the helmets don't protect the forehead, so....
Juat a thought.
Bill Baka

 

[R15757]

Frank wrote:

>> Only an idiot would claim that cycling
>> is "safer than basketball."
>
>Despite what the official data say, eh?

Please tell us what the official data has to
say about basketball fatalities. And serious
inuries and hospitalizations of basketball
players.

>As if getting smacked by a car was the only danger in this world! But
>remember, far more pedestrians than bicyclists get smacked - fatally
>smacked - by cars. Will your shifting standards allow you to admit
>that cycling is safer than walking?

I will continue to say what I have always said.
That being in traffic is dangerous, whether you're
on a bike, in a car, or on foot. DO YOU NOT GET IT?
I would also guess
that the risk of serious injury and death for
each of these activities would be similar, although
cycling carries an elevated risk of minor
injury due to cyclists' solo wipeouts.

>From what I've seen, when someone has claimed cycling is safer per hour
>than another activity, you've claimed per mile data is what's
>important. When someone notes a comparison where cycling is safer per
>mile (like, walking) you want to talk per hour. When counts of ER
>visits show cycling to be comparatively safe, you want to talk about
>either minor injuries or fatalities. When fatalities are mentioned,
>you want to return to per mile figures.

Yeah, you totally figured it out.


>It seems more and more obvious that your ultimate standard is this:
>Does the data make cycling look dangerous? Then it's good data. Does
>the data make cycling look safe? Then only an idiot would believe it.

Wow, you really pegged it there.

>IOW, your prejudice against cycling is extremely strong.

Said the guy whose bike is hanging by a hook
in the garage to the guy who rode 5 hours today.

Frank cracks me up.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 08 Feb 2005 04:22:17 GMT, [email protected] (R15757) wrote:

>I will continue to say what I have always said.
>That being in traffic is dangerous, whether you're
>on a bike, in a car, or on foot. DO YOU NOT GET IT?

Really? You have evidence for that? According to the stats for UK
roads, urban roads are actually pretty safe, it's country roads which
have the highest accident rates (for all road user types). The reason
is fairly obvious: urban traffic is typically not moving very fast.

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[R15757]

Guy replied:

>>That being in traffic is dangerous, whether you're
>>on a bike, in a car, or on foot. DO YOU NOT GET IT?

>Really? You have evidence for that? According to the stats for UK
>roads, urban roads are actually pretty safe, it's country roads which
>have the highest accident rates (for all road user types). The reason
>is fairly obvious: urban traffic is typically not moving very fast.

It's true that accidents on rural roads
tend to be deadlier accidents than urban
accidents, although there are fewer
accidents on country roads.

But--at what point, while you are getting
run down by a car on a country road, are you
not "in traffic?" Seems to me that the
failure (of cyclists and drivers) to grasp that
they are "in traffic"
no matter what road they're on is
a main reason that accidents on
country roads are disproportionately
deadly.

Robert

 

[[email protected]]

R15757 wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>
>
> >...remember, far more pedestrians than bicyclists get smacked -
fatally
> >smacked - by cars. Will your shifting standards allow you to admit
> >that cycling is safer than walking?
>
> I will continue to say what I have always said.
> That being in traffic is dangerous, whether you're
> on a bike, in a car, or on foot. DO YOU NOT GET IT?

I think I get it. You think driving is dangerous, and you think
walking is dangerous, and (I suppose) you think motorcycling is
dangerous. And, of course, you think bicycling is dangerous.

But AFAIK, you are quite silent on those other activities, yet you
devote all your energy to yelling that bicycling is dangerous.

It's hard not to interpret that as prejudice against cycling!

> Said the guy whose bike is hanging by a hook
> in the garage to the guy who rode 5 hours today.

While my ride today was much shorter than 5 hours, your guess about the
garage is wrong. But no matter.

It is, obviously, possible for someone to ride a bike, yet routinely
disparage bicycling. Sure, the psychology is weird, but you're not the
only example, Robert - not by a long shot.

 

[[email protected]]

R15757 wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>
>
> >...remember, far more pedestrians than bicyclists get smacked -
fatally
> >smacked - by cars. Will your shifting standards allow you to admit
> >that cycling is safer than walking?
>
> I will continue to say what I have always said.
> That being in traffic is dangerous, whether you're
> on a bike, in a car, or on foot. DO YOU NOT GET IT?

I think I get it. You think driving is dangerous, and you think
walking is dangerous, and (I suppose) you think motorcycling is
dangerous. And, of course, you think bicycling is dangerous.

But AFAIK, you are quite silent on those other activities, yet you
devote all your energy to yelling that bicycling is dangerous.

It's hard not to interpret that as prejudice against cycling!

> Said the guy whose bike is hanging by a hook
> in the garage to the guy who rode 5 hours today.

While my ride today was much shorter than 5 hours, your guess about the
garage is wrong. But no matter.

It is, obviously, possible for someone to ride a bike, yet routinely
disparage bicycling. Sure, the psychology is weird, but you're not the
only example, Robert - not by a long shot.

 

[Alfred Ryder]

Robert wrote

> > I will continue to say what I have always said.
> > That being in traffic is dangerous, whether you're
> > on a bike, in a car, or on foot. DO YOU NOT GET IT?

Frank wrote

<snip>
> It is, obviously, possible for someone to ride a bike, yet routinely
> disparage bicycling. Sure, the psychology is weird, but you're not the
> only example, Robert - not by a long shot.

I have become interested in trying to understand why people believe strange
and illogical things. And am always looking for an underling reason.

Perhaps one reason why some dedicated bike riders believe and advocate that
riding is dangerous is to impress themselves and their acquaintances. It
stokes the ego more to claim you have killed a fire breathing dragon than to
say you have killed a cow.

 

[Alfred Ryder]

Robert wrote

> > I will continue to say what I have always said.
> > That being in traffic is dangerous, whether you're
> > on a bike, in a car, or on foot. DO YOU NOT GET IT?

Frank wrote

<snip>
> It is, obviously, possible for someone to ride a bike, yet routinely
> disparage bicycling. Sure, the psychology is weird, but you're not the
> only example, Robert - not by a long shot.

I have become interested in trying to understand why people believe strange
and illogical things. And am always looking for an underling reason.

Perhaps one reason why some dedicated bike riders believe and advocate that
riding is dangerous is to impress themselves and their acquaintances. It
stokes the ego more to claim you have killed a fire breathing dragon than to
say you have killed a cow.

 

[R15757]

Frank:

>-) I think I get it. You think driving is dangerous, and you think
>walking is dangerous, and (I suppose) you think motorcycling is
>dangerous. And, of course, you think bicycling is dangerous.

In traffic.

OTOH, you think playing basketball
is more dangerous than being in traffic on a bike.
And you have stated that driving is about as
dangerous as cycling, so obviously you think
playing basketball is more dangerous than
driving as well. That would be an interesting
argument for the relatives of the 40000 or
so traffic dead each year. "The 'official data'
says driving is safer than playing basketball,
you hand-wringers!"

>But AFAIK, you are quite silent on those other activities, yet you
>devote all your energy to yelling that bicycling is dangerous.

Leave it to Frnk to sniff out the conspiracy of
silence!

In fact I have repeated repititiously the point
that Americans don't appreciate the dangers
inolved in everyday traffic. Negotiating
traffic is the most dangerous thing that
the majority of Americans will ever do,
which is to say that traffic is dangerous,
and also that Americans rarely do anything
besides sit in front of a screen of some sort
or drive in traffic.

>It's hard not to interpret that as prejudice against cycling!

If you're a tard, maybe.

 

[R15757]

Frank wrote in part:

>While my ride today was much shorter than 5 hours, your guess about the
>garage is wrong. But no matter.

Got a definite garage vibe.

>It is, obviously, possible for someone to ride a bike, yet routinely
>disparage bicycling. Sure, the psychology is weird, but you're not the
>only example, Robert - not by a long shot.

This is fascinating stuff. Please expound on this
theory. I will never tire of your "disparage cycling"
line. Please give more examples of folks who ride
1200 hours per year (out of a total of 8760 hours)
and secretly hate every minute of it.

Robert

 

[[email protected]]

R15757 wrote:
> Frank:
>
> >-) I think I get it. You think driving is dangerous, and you think
> >walking is dangerous, and (I suppose) you think motorcycling is
> >dangerous. And, of course, you think bicycling is dangerous.
> >But AFAIK, you are quite silent on those other activities, yet you
> >devote all your energy to yelling that bicycling is dangerous.
>
> Leave it to Frnk to sniff out the conspiracy of
> silence!
>
> In fact I have repeated repititiously the point
> that Americans don't appreciate the dangers
> inolved in everyday traffic.

Did you repeatedly repeat that repetitiously over and over?


Negotiating
> traffic is the most dangerous thing that
> the majority of Americans will ever do,
> which is to say that traffic is dangerous...

Admittedly, I haven't checked to see if you regularly get onto the
driving, motorcycling, walking and jogging groups to subject them to
your handwringing. If you do, give us a pointer to your posts. My
bet, though, is that you mention the "traffic is oh so dangerous" line
only in connection with bicycling.

And if that's true, your claim to your secret beliefs doesn't absolve
you; in fact, it adds evidence against you. It means you're making
negative statements _only_ about cycling, despite (supposedly) having
the same negative beliefs about other activities. You _are_
discriminating against cycling.