Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

[Bill Sornson]

jtaylor wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> That's the irony in all this. They're alienating the very people
>> who MAY have or get to vote some day on an MHL.
>>
>
>
> But you already had your chance to do something about MHL's.

Silly and untrue.

> Now you have an ever-increasing number of them - 37 states,
> commonwealths, and DC at this point have MHL's.

Silly and misleading.

> You have repeatedly claimed that you are aginst MHL's - tell us, did
> you ever do anything to oppose all those laws that you now have?

Never seen anything close to a propostion on which to vote; never heard a
word about even a child mhl much less an adult one. But if I ever do,
you'll be the first one I notify! LOL

Thanks for your hand-wringing, however... BS

 

[Bill Sornson]

jtaylor wrote:
> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Jeff Starr wrote:
>>
>>> No, I think he's a flaylor sock puppet. Whoever he is, he advised
>>> flaylor not to answer my questions, yet he thinks that he deserves
>>> answers from SMS.
>>
>> First, of course I've kill-filed him,
>
> Oh oh.
>
> Cue the comment from Sorni:
>
>
> "> Into the killfile.
>
> Coward's way out; big shock."

Plonking someone in the /middle/ of a discussion? Yup.

I don't bother blocking you and Blurt because you're both so easy to refute,
ridicule or ignore.

HTH!

 

[Bill Sornson]

jtaylor wrote:

> There _is_ prior evidence of his weak intellectual skills.

You're wasting your corrosive breath, Flailmore, because Ravin' HAS YOU
PLONKED! ROTFL

(Unless, of course, he was LYING when he said he was killfiling you for your
constant cross-posting.)

Keep licking his boots, however. We've gotten so USED to it...

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> jtaylor wrote:
> > "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>
> >> That's the irony in all this. They're alienating the very people
> >> who MAY have or get to vote some day on an MHL.
> >>
> >
> >
> > But you already had your chance to do something about MHL's.
>
> Silly and untrue.
>
> > Now you have an ever-increasing number of them - 37 states,
> > commonwealths, and DC at this point have MHL's.
>
> Silly and misleading.

Yep. The AHZs keep going on about a MHL in the state in which I reside.
They neglect to say, of course, that it only applies to children.
Moreover, they know nothing about the enforcement levels, which appear
to be non-existant (an observation I have made in many municipalities
in several counties). The fact of the matter is that here in Arkansas,
there is far higher helmet use among adults (with no compulsion!) than
there is among children, despite the child only MHL.

>
> > You have repeatedly claimed that you are aginst MHL's - tell us, did
> > you ever do anything to oppose all those laws that you now have?
>
> Never seen anything close to a propostion on which to vote; never heard a
> word about even a child mhl much less an adult one. But if I ever do,
> you'll be the first one I notify! LOL
>
> Thanks for your hand-wringing, however... BS

 

[Burt]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> SMS wrote:
>>
>> If there were actually evidence that a) bicycle use decreased
>> significantly, over the long term, and b) that if it decreased as a
>> result of an MHL. There is no credible evidence of this.
>
> Some is presented simply and coherently in Robinson's March BMJ paper.

Ummm, let's see, who should I believe? A peer-reviewed article in an
authoritative magazine, or Straw Man Scharf, who has provided no evidence
and has been proved wrong 100% of the time?

Help!

 

[Burt]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I can only think you are being wilfully obtuse for some reason as I don't
> really believe you can actually be that dumb.

I do.

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

I've just read Fred Epstein's obituary in this week's British Medical Journal.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/333/7561/263

I don't know if you need to subscribe to access this.

Fred was a neurosurgeon who was wearing his helmet when he came off his
bicycle. He suffered a subdural haematoma which left him paralysed. He
died of an unrelated cause.

The reader can speculate as to whether the helmet altered the injury...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:39:56 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> said
in <[email protected]>:

>And somehow that means *I'm* evasive.

Yup. Because you evaded the point and attacked instead the context.
Happy to have cleared that up.

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?]

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:36:41 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>> Why not cut to the chase and have invoking "anti helmet zealot", with no
>> basis that such a creature even exists?
>Sure, as soon as these creatures stop existing.

But they'd have to start existing first. What was your pointless
again?

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?]

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:47:39 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> said
in <[email protected]>:

>>> "Every helmet worn is a silent vote for compulsion" is /literally/
>>> true?
>> Yup.
>>> You do realize how absurd that is, right?
>> Of course I do. Sadly my Government does not, as the Hansard extracts
>> prove.
>So amend your argument to communicate clearly. As it was, it was
>disingenuous.

It was clear form the outset, your attempts to pretend otherwise
notwithstanding.

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?]

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:10:44 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> said
in <[email protected]>:

>While they're not honest enough to flat out say they'd like to ban helmets,
>they all but admitted as much by attacking people /solely/ for choosing to
>wear them.

Right. So you can't actually cite *anyone*, not even the two people
you consider most extreme, whose zealotry approximates to that of
those who press for helmet laws - in other words, to a good first
approximation, zealotry is the exclusive province of the pro-helmet
camp. Thanks for clearing that up.

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]

Peter Clinch wrote:

> You summarised an incorrect perception (whether deliberately falsified
> or accidentally I don't know, but false one way or the other), as
> opposed to showing the *actual* rationale used.

I believe it's an accurate perception, after reading many of the posts
in this and other helmet threads. In a large number of the posts, there
are claims that the lack of drastically reduced injury rates when a
helmet law is introduces is direct proof that helmets are ineffective.

The basic problem with the AHZs is that they either don't understand
the basic concepts of research, statistical data and evidence, or they
pretend to not understand them because it suits their agenda.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:58:04 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>They just make these ridiculous statements to be obnoxious, but even if
>they actually believed any of them, they should keep it to themselves in
>the interest of preventing compulsion laws.

So you say. And yet we are the ones who have successfully prevented
laws, whereas you restrict yourself to proof by assertion.

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?]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 15:40:19 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> said
in <[email protected]>:

>> Or rather they see that helmets make no effective difference to the rates
>> of serious head injury and conclude that, errr, they make no difference to
>> the rates of serious head injury. How obtuse is that...

>It's just false is all. Otherwise, good one!

Amazing that the BMJ was prepared to print this "false" view.
Something to do with its being backed by robust evidence, I guess...

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?]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:30:46 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>I believe it's an accurate perception, after reading many of the posts
>in this and other helmet threads. In a large number of the posts, there
>are claims that the lack of drastically reduced injury rates when a
>helmet law is introduces is direct proof that helmets are ineffective.

It's one of the many proofs, yes. In fact, the only evidence
otherwise is (notoriously weak) case-control studies. When their
predictions fail to be borne out by other, more robust forms of
evidence, then it's fair to conclude that (as usual, per recent
studies) they are wrong.

>The basic problem with the AHZs is that they either don't understand
>the basic concepts of research, statistical data and evidence, or they
>pretend to not understand them because it suits their agenda.

No, the *basic* problem with AHZs is that they don't exist.

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?]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 07:02:59 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>Still, there are very few fatalities in bicycle racing.

The number of fatalities in the first five years since UCI introduced
mandatory helmet use appears to be somewhat higher than for any
previous decade. Funny, 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

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> jtaylor wrote:

>>> Now you have an ever-increasing number of them - 37 states,
>>> commonwealths, and DC at this point have MHL's.

>> Silly and misleading.

> Yep. The AHZs keep going on about a MHL in the state in which I
> reside. They neglect to say, of course, that it only applies to
> children. Moreover, they know nothing about the enforcement levels,
> which appear to be non-existant (an observation I have made in many
> municipalities in several counties). The fact of the matter is that
> here in Arkansas, there is far higher helmet use among adults (with
> no compulsion!) than there is among children, despite the child only
> MHL.

Same in CA -- at least here in LoSoCA. I see more kids in lids on
/skateboards/ than I do on bikes. As for adults, very high helmet usage
among road cyclists and mountain bikers; much more spotty among beach area
sidewalk cruisers and wrong-way riders.

Just the way it is.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Amazing that the BMJ was prepared to print this "false" view.
> Something to do with its being backed by robust evidence, I guess...

Hmmm. Tony goes away and Guy reappears. Interesting...

 

[Bill Sornson]

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
> I've just read Fred Epstein's obituary in this week's British Medical
> Journal.
>
> http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/333/7561/263
>
> I don't know if you need to subscribe to access this.

One does.

> Fred was a neurosurgeon who was wearing his helmet when he came off
> his bicycle. He suffered a subdural haematoma which left him
> paralysed. He
> died of an unrelated cause.
>
> The reader can speculate as to whether the helmet altered the
> injury...

Are you of the opinion it did so? Any evidence to suggest it? Might it
just possibly have been worse without a helmet?

(Also, of course, one can't help wondering if Tony would count this
unfortunate man among those who died /with/ a subdural hematoma as opposed
to /from/ one if he'd tripped and fallen or been assaulted instead of coming
off his bike.)

Anyway, sorry to hear about your friend and/or professional acquaintance.

Bill S.

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> > Amazing that the BMJ was prepared to print this "false" view.
> > Something to do with its being backed by robust evidence, I guess...
>
> Hmmm. Tony goes away and Guy reappears. Interesting...


"Guy" is pulling the slack whilst the Great Leader Raven is away.

Of course, as we know, slack isn't the only thing "Guy" is apt to be
pulling.