THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW (IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) by Andre Jute
Andre Jute
On Aug 17, 12:43 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW
> (IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
> by Andre Jute
>
> It is a risible myth that your average American is a tall-walking free
> individual untrammeled by government: he is in fact just as much
> constricted as a European soft-socialist consumerist or Japanese
> collective citizen, though it is true that the American is controlled
> in different areas of his activity than the European or the Japanese.
> To some the uncontrolled areas of American life, for instance the
> ability to own and use firearms, smacks of barbarism rather than
> liberty. In this article I examine whether the lack of a mandatory
> bicycle helmet law in the USA is barbaric or an emanation of that
> rugged liberty more evident in rhetoric than reality.
>
> Any case for intervention by the state must be made on moral and
> statistical grounds. Examples are driving licences, crush zones on
> cars, seatbelts, age restrictions on alcohol sales, and a million
> other interventions, all now accepted unremarked in the States as part
> of the regulatory landscape, but all virulently opposed in their day.
>
> HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
> Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
> that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through
> exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no
> effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm
> putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and
> unexceptional general morality.
>
> In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
> data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
> injured.
>
> Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
>
> The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to
> compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists'
> average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough.
>
> Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
> 11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
> 2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken
>
> By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of
> journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in
> the US:
>
> Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
> 3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
> 3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding
>
> Source:http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7man...
>
> It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less
> likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the
> benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater
> per mile/per trip/per hour danger.
>
> This gives us the overall perspective but says nothing about wearing a
> cycling helmet.
>
> HELMET WEAR AT THE EXTREME END OF CYCLING RISK
>
> What we really want to know is: what chance of the helmet saving your
> life? The authorities in New York made a compilation covering the
> years 1996 to 2003 of all the deaths (225) and serious injuries
> (3,462) in cycling accidents in all New York City. The purpose of the
> study was an overview usable for city development planning, not helmet
> advocacy, so helmet usage was only noted for part of the period among
> the seriously injured, amounting to 333 cases. Here are some
> conclusions:
>
> • Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
> • Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
> • Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal
> crashes
>
> Source:http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf
>
> This concatenation of facts suggests very strongly that not wearing a
> helmet may be particularly dangerous.
>
> • It looks like wearing a helmet saved roundabout 33 cyclists or so
> (of the 333 seriously injured for whom helmet use is known) from
> dying.
> • If those who died wore helmets at the same rate of 13% as those in
> the study who survived, a further 22 or so could have lived.
> • If all the fatalities had been wearing a helmet (100%), somewhere
> between 10% and 57% of them would have lived. This number is less firm
> to allow for impacts so heavy that no helmet would have saved the
> cyclist. Still, between 22 and 128 *additional* (to the 33 noted
> above) New Yorkers alive rather than dead for wearing a thirty buck
> helmet is a serious statistical, moral and political consideration
> difficult to overlook.
>
> SO HOW MANY CYCLISTS CAN HELMETS SAVE ACROSS THE NATION?
> New York is not the United States but we're not seeking certainly,
> only investigating whether a moral imperative for action appears.
>
> First off, the 52,000 cyclists hurt cannot be directly related to the
> very serious injuries which were the only ones counted in the New York
> compilation. But a fatality is a fatality anywhere and the fraction of
> head injuries in the fatalities is pretty constant.
>
> So, with a caution, we can say that of 716 cycling fatalities
> nationwide, helmet use could have saved at least 70 and very likely
> more towards a possible upper limit of around 400. Again the
> statistical extension must be tempered by the knowledge that some
> impacts are so heavy that no helmet can save the cyclist. Still, if
> even half the impacts resulting in fatal head trauma is too heavy for
> a helmet to mitigate, possibly around 235 cyclists might live rather
> than die on the roads for simply wearing a helmet. Every year. That's
> an instant reduction in cyclist road fatalities of one third. Once
> more we have arrived at a statistical, moral and political fact that
> is hard to ignore: Helmet wear could save many lives.
>
> THE CASE AGAINST MANDATORY HELMET LAWS
>
> • Compulsion is anti-Constitutional, an assault on the freedom of the
> citizen to choose his own manner of living and dying
> • Many other actitivities cause fatal head injuries. So why not insist
> they should all be put in helmets?
> • 37% of bicycle fatalities involve alcohol, and 23% were legally
> drunk, and you'll never get these drunks in helmets anyway
> • We should leave the drunks to their fate; they're not real cyclists
> anyway
> • Helmets are not perfect anyway
> • Helmets cause cyclists to stop cycling, which is a cost to society
> in health losses
> • Many more motorists die on the roads than cyclists. Why not insist
> that motorists wear helmets inside their cars?
> • Helmets don't save lives -- that's a myth put forward by commercial
> helmet makers
> • Helmets are too heavily promoted
> • Helmet makers overstate the benefits of helmets
> • A helmet makes me look like a dork
> • Too few cyclists will be saved to make the cost worthwhile
>
> THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY HELMET LAW IN THE STATES
> • 235 or more additional cyclists' lives saved
> • 716 deaths of cyclists on the road when a third or more of those
> deaths can easily be avoided is a national disgrace
> • Education has clearly failed
> • Anti-helmet zealots in the face of the evidence from New York are
> still advising cyclists not to wear helmets
> • An example to the next generation of cyclists
> • A visible sign of a commitment to cycling safety, which may attract
> more people to cycling
>
> © Copyright Andre Jute 2010. Free for reproduction in non-profit
> journals and sites as long as the entire article is reproduced in full
> including this copyright and permission notice.
Anton Berlin
as society doesn't have to pay for spoon feeding them over the next 50
years.
Andre Jute
> It's a decent argument but I like Darwin's law to work here.
Okay, we've considered the upside (or I have, on RBT alone), so let's
look at the downside, and at the cost of partial success.
> As long
> as society doesn't have to pay for spoon feeding them over the next 50
> years.
You could have a point there.
From the report http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf
"Serious injuries are defined as injuries that require the bicyclist
to be taken to the hospital, and may include amputation, concussion,
internal bleeding, severe burns, fracture and dislocation."
It seems pretty clear to me that many of these injured cyclists will
run out of insurance long before they come to the end of their
requirement for treatment. So the thirty buck helmet, in saving them
from death merely to turn them into a cripple could cost society
plenty.
Maybe the government should ban bike helmets altogether. Let the
carnage commence as soon Mr Obama drops his hankie.
Permit me to make a modest proposal. We could give a weekly prize on
television to the driver who has run over *and killed* most cyclists
with his SUV. Every driver will receive, with his driving licence, a
scorecard, on which merely crippling rather than killing a cyclist
will score a negative number. Reversing to finish the job, while
unsporting, will not be against the rules.
So as to waste nothing, we could freeze bodies and ship them out to
Polynesia and certain parts of Africa as delicacies to relieve the
natives of an unvarying diet of their neighbours and relatives.
You could be onto something here, Anton. You're in the right company:
that great humanitarian eugenicist, Frank Krygowski, has already
repeatedly advised that we should leave the drinkers (37 per cent of
bicycle fatalities) to their fate at the hands of motorists.
Jonathan Swift
Dean
St. Patrick's Cathedral
Dublin
snogfest
experience shows that the people who agree (with wearing helmets) are
already wearing them.
It is compulsory here (NZL), it was a *huge* non-event when the law
was changed. Same as motorcycle helmet laws back in the 70's. We are
quite pragmatic like that.
IT JUST MAKES SENSE.
You can tout all the stat's that you like (and you have, scary
stuff!), but the bottom line is, do you want a small barrier between
the top of your ears and the top of your head and "hard things".
I would like to have the choice not to, and I sometimes do (not wear
one), but have to admit, if it was optional, I probably would not,
except when training or racing (stupid logic, I know).
We have a no-blame/no-fault system here (no lawyers chasing
ambulances) paid for by public funds/levies/taxes. Not much chance of
this happening in the US of A.
I'd also like to see cyclists carrying some sort of indemnity
insurance (even in this country).
Superfly TNT
>
> - Show quoted text -
.
.
.
I say a law should be passed that requires people in automobiles to
wear a helmet!
.
.
.
Andre Jute
Quite. But those aren't all the people who need helmets. If all those
were in your group, a MHL would be unnecessary.
> It is compulsory here (NZL), it was a *huge* non-event when the law
> was changed. Same as motorcycle helmet laws back in the 70's. We are
> quite pragmatic like that.
> IT JUST MAKES SENSE.
> You can tout all the stat's that you like (and you have, scary
> stuff!), but the bottom line is, do you want a small barrier between
> the top of your ears and the top of your head and "hard things".
I'm so fairskinned, I would have to wear a hat or a cap anyway. I'm
just so used to the helmet by now, I don't even think about putting it
on, it is just part of my routine of getting out of the door with my
bike.
> I would like to have the choice not to, and I sometimes do (not wear
> one), but have to admit, if it was optional, I probably would not,
> except when training or racing (stupid logic, I know).
> We have a no-blame/no-fault system here (no lawyers chasing
> ambulances) paid for by public funds/levies/taxes.
I noticed how cheap automobile insurance was when I lived in South
Australia, where it was handled by the State.
>Not much chance of
> this happening in the US of A.
Now here's a truly scary statistic for you: one out of every 414
persons in the USA is a lawyer. In Japan it is less than one out of
every 10,000.
> I'd also like to see cyclists carrying some sort of indemnity
> insurance (even in this country).
Why?
Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Bicycles at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
Andre Jute
That's a pretty passive safety device.
How about placing in every car by law a spike on the steering wheel
pointing straight at the driver's heart (thanks, Chalo, a wonderful
idea). If he crashes into something, he feels the pain too. That would
actively reinforce and reward safe driving.
snogfest
> > I'd also like to see cyclists carrying some sort of indemnity
> > insurance (even in this country).
>
> Why?
>
> Andre Jute
> Visit Jute on Bicycles at
> http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
If I run a red light or just generally fall off my bicycle and someone
has an accident whilst avoiding me, they really have very little come-
back.
It's more likely I'll have a threesome with the Obama's than MHL's.
Edward Dolan
"Andre Jute" <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:59df29cb-52fa-4225...@k10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Sorry, didn't mean to leave the rest of you guys off.
On Aug 17, 12:43 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW
> (IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
> by Andre Jute
[...]
Andre, your article was too longwinded for Usenet. No one will read it clear
through or know what to make of it. Attention spans are short in the world
of Usenet and a sharper focus is what is required.
All road cyclists should be required to wear a helmet. A helmet will not
save you from many injuries, but it will save you from some injuries. That
is reason enough.
What is interesting is that a helmet will not do you much good when mountain
biking. The over the handlebars header (a common accident when cycling on a
hiking trail) will break your neck, helmet or no helmet. But even so, a
helmet will still protect you from some injury, so it should be mandatory
there too.
The freedom issue is irrelevant when it comes to the safety issue.
Government regulates our lives in a thousand ways for our own good.
Libertarians are all crazy as hoot owls. Thus spake Zarathustra!
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
PS: How is Ireland treating you these days?
Beloved Fred No. 1
> Sorry, didn't mean to leave the rest of you guys off.
>
> On Aug 17, 12:43 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW
>> (IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
>> by Andre Jute
Is it winter in the northern hemisphere already ?
Chalo
You are so concerned about a few hundred cyclists versus tens of
thousands of motorists every single year? There is low hanging fruit
in this discussion, and it's not us.
20 mph in-city speed limits on motorists, zealously enforced, could
spare this country more debilitating head injuries than just about all
other possible non-car measures combined. So why are busybodies going
on about bicycle hats when there is so much more simple and effective
work to be done in the public interest?
Chalo
Edward Dolan
"Chalo" <chalo....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6bc2dc1-8260-4915...@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Right you are Chalo. The fact is that cyclists and motorists do not not mix.
Even bike lanes will not save us. We need our own paths separated altogether
from motor vehicles. But in the meantime, we might as well wear helmets
since a bare head outside the house is an abomination in and of itself.
SMS
> Anton Berlin wrote:
>>
>> It's a decent argument but I like Darwin's law to work here. As long
>> as society doesn't have to pay for spoon feeding them over the next 50
>> years.
>
> You are so concerned about a few hundred cyclists versus tens of
> thousands of motorists every single year? There is low hanging fruit
> in this discussion, and it's not us.
Those motorists are protected by a steel safety cage, harnesses, and
multiple air bags. Their vehicles are likely to also have anti-lock
breaks and traction control systems that help avoid accidents in the
first place. A large percentage of the total distance traversed by these
motorists is on limited access highways designed to minimize the
likelihood of a serious collision.
There is no good reason for an all-ages mandatory helmet law, but your
argument regarding motorists has no validity at all.
Jeff Liebermann
<chalo....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Anton Berlin wrote:
>>
>> It's a decent argument but I like Darwin's law to work here. As long
>> as society doesn't have to pay for spoon feeding them over the next 50
>> years.
There's some logic in that. For example, it's been proposed that one
solution to the shortfall in funding social security, Medicare, and
senior support programs, is to pass out free cirgarettes to everyone.
The logic is that lung cancer tends to kill off its victims somewhat
earlier than various more expensive geriatric conditions, thus saving
the taxpayer the expense of treating these conditions. Despite the
moral implications, I rather like the logic.
>You are so concerned about a few hundred cyclists versus tens of
>thousands of motorists every single year? There is low hanging fruit
>in this discussion, and it's not us.
There's room for improvement in both bicycle and vehicle safety. For
example, adding mandatory training wheels to bicycles will probably
save a few lives, where the bicyclist is too inebriated to maintain
his balance.
>20 mph in-city speed limits on motorists, zealously enforced, could
>spare this country more debilitating head injuries than just about all
>other possible non-car measures combined.
Lowering speed limits does not work as expected. For a while, it was
customary to lower the speed limit after an accident on the assumption
that this would make the road safer. Instead, accidents increased.
What happens is the traffic density (vehicles/hr) increases as speed
limit goes down, but the traffic volume (vehicles/day) remains
constant. In extreme cases, traffic simply stops because of too many
cars. Lower speed limits means the same number of cars are on the
road for longer times.
However, that ignores the bicycles, where the difference in speed
between the vehicles and bicycles seems to be the problem. Since I
believe it impractical to slow down the vehicles, perhaps a minimum
speed limit for bicyclists might make things easier for everyone?
Mandatory electric assist for any bicycles that can't keep up with
traffic.
>So why are busybodies going
>on about bicycle hats when there is so much more simple and effective
>work to be done in the public interest?
My guess(tm) is that it's a conspiracy precipitated by the oil lobby
and automobile manufacturers intended to create an aversion to
bicycling, thus securing the demand for automobiles and making the
roads safe only for automobiles. If one digs deep enough, everything
is a conspiracy.
My issue with wearing a helmet is the weird sunburn it produces. The
bald spot on top of my head usually requires some manner of covering
while riding. The problem is with the helmet ventillation slots. I
get sunburned through these slots resulting in a red impression of the
helmet on my head. I get tired of getting laughed at after explaining
what happened.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Jeff Liebermann
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Now here's a truly scary statistic for you: one out of every 414
>persons in the USA is a lawyer. In Japan it is less than one out of
>every 10,000.
It's worse than that:
<http://new.abanet.org/marketresearch/Pages/StatisticalResources.aspx>
1,180,386 practicing USA attorneys in 2009.
Population of US in 2009 was about 305 million.
That's 1 in 258 are attorneys.
No country ever sued its way to greatness.
Edward Dolan
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4c6ab00d$0$22142$742e...@news.sonic.net...
[...]
> There is no good reason for an all-ages mandatory helmet law, but your
> argument regarding motorists has no validity at all.
Surely a mandatory helmet law will protect against some injuries. If it
does, that is reason enough.
Edward Dolan
"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:j7dl66t3qn79k6qft...@4ax.com...
[...]
> Lowering speed limits does not work as expected. For a while, it was
> customary to lower the speed limit after an accident on the assumption
> that this would make the road safer. Instead, accidents increased.
> What happens is the traffic density (vehicles/hr) increases as speed
> limit goes down, but the traffic volume (vehicles/day) remains
> constant. In extreme cases, traffic simply stops because of too many
> cars. Lower speed limits means the same number of cars are on the
> road for longer times.
All the above is gobble-de-gook. Lowering the speed limits saves lives. Any
idiot knows that much.
> However, that ignores the bicycles, where the difference in speed
> between the vehicles and bicycles seems to be the problem. Since I
> believe it impractical to slow down the vehicles, perhaps a minimum
> speed limit for bicyclists might make things easier for everyone?
> Mandatory electric assist for any bicycles that can't keep up with
> traffic.
Cyclists need their own bike paths. There is no way cyclists and motorists
can coexist on the same roads regardless of speed limits. Any idiot knows
that much.
[...]
> My issue with wearing a helmet is the weird sunburn it produces. The
> bald spot on top of my head usually requires some manner of covering
> while riding. The problem is with the helmet ventillation slots. I
> get sunburned through these slots resulting in a red impression of the
> helmet on my head. I get tired of getting laughed at after explaining
> what happened.
You must be an idiot not to able to figure out how to prevent sunburn.
Edward Dolan
> <chalo....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Anton Berlin wrote:
>>>
>>> It's a decent argument but I like Darwin's law to work here. As long
>>> as society doesn't have to pay for spoon feeding them over the next 50
>>> years.
>
> There's some logic in that. For example, it's been proposed that one
> solution to the shortfall in funding social security, Medicare, and
> senior support programs, is to pass out free cirgarettes to everyone.
> The logic is that lung cancer tends to kill off its victims somewhat
> earlier than various more expensive geriatric conditions, thus saving
> the taxpayer the expense of treating these conditions. Despite the
> moral implications, I rather like the logic.
Why not put a bullet through your poor excuse for a brain and rid us of your
loathsome presence. That is the only kind of logic that I like.
>>You are so concerned about a few hundred cyclists versus tens of
>>thousands of motorists every single year? There is low hanging fruit
>>in this discussion, and it's not us.
>
> There's room for improvement in both bicycle and vehicle safety. For
> example, adding mandatory training wheels to bicycles will probably
> save a few lives, where the bicyclist is too inebriated to maintain
> his balance.
Jesus Christ, he thinks that is wit no doubt! What a moron!
>>20 mph in-city speed limits on motorists, zealously enforced, could
>>spare this country more debilitating head injuries than just about all
>>other possible non-car measures combined.
>
> Lowering speed limits does not work as expected. For a while, it was
> customary to lower the speed limit after an accident on the assumption
> that this would make the road safer. Instead, accidents increased.
> What happens is the traffic density (vehicles/hr) increases as speed
> limit goes down, but the traffic volume (vehicles/day) remains
> constant. In extreme cases, traffic simply stops because of too many
> cars. Lower speed limits means the same number of cars are on the
> road for longer times.
Now this jerk is pretending to be scientific, a regular master of
statistics. One thing is for sure, I do not want him ever driving a motor
vehicle.
> However, that ignores the bicycles, where the difference in speed
> between the vehicles and bicycles seems to be the problem. Since I
> believe it impractical to slow down the vehicles, perhaps a minimum
> speed limit for bicyclists might make things easier for everyone?
> Mandatory electric assist for any bicycles that can't keep up with
> traffic.
More fucking wit from a certifiable moron!
>>So why are busybodies going
>>on about bicycle hats when there is so much more simple and effective
>>work to be done in the public interest?
>
> My guess(tm) is that it's a conspiracy precipitated by the oil lobby
> and automobile manufacturers intended to create an aversion to
> bicycling, thus securing the demand for automobiles and making the
> roads safe only for automobiles. If one digs deep enough, everything
> is a conspiracy.
The only consirpiacy is your moronic attempt at trying to get someone to
agree with you. That will never happen as long as I am here to call you out
for the jerk that you are.
> My issue with wearing a helmet is the weird sunburn it produces. The
> bald spot on top of my head usually requires some manner of covering
> while riding. The problem is with the helmet ventillation slots. I
> get sunburned through these slots resulting in a red impression of the
> helmet on my head. I get tired of getting laughed at after explaining
> what happened.
Put a piece of cloth under your helmet, you fucking idiot.
Wit should only be attempted by those who have the intelligence for it.
Otherwise, it shows you up for the fool that you are.
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>
>"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
>news:j7dl66t3qn79k6qft...@4ax.com...
>[...]
>> Lowering speed limits does not work as expected. For a while, it was
>> customary to lower the speed limit after an accident on the assumption
>> that this would make the road safer. Instead, accidents increased.
>> What happens is the traffic density (vehicles/hr) increases as speed
>> limit goes down, but the traffic volume (vehicles/day) remains
>> constant. In extreme cases, traffic simply stops because of too many
>> cars. Lower speed limits means the same number of cars are on the
>> road for longer times.
>
>All the above is gobble-de-gook. Lowering the speed limits saves lives. Any
>idiot knows that much.
Ok, I'll explain how it works. You have a road, any road, that moves
X number of cars per hour at the speed limit. Now, you cut the speed
limit in half. The same number of cars have to get from here to there
but now at half the speed. Therefore, they take longer to get there.
The number of cars per hour are half of the original speed limit, but
the number of cars that have to pass per day are the same. The result
is more congestion, for longer periods.
Incidentally, Google found several references that indicate that
whiplash, the most common automobile injury, occurs below 12 mph.
<http://www.truckinfo.net/trucking/whiplash-statiscs.htm>
How slow do you want to go?
While it is true that driving lower will lower the risk of a fatal
accident, the probability of having an accident is higher at lower
speeds. Fatal accidents tend to be at speed, usually from drinking or
inattention. Ordinary, non-fatal accidents can happen at any speed,
but most whiplash related accidents occur at below 12 mph.
However, I do agree with your claim that lowering the speed limit
saves lives. By reducing the speed limit to absurdly low limits,
driving will become unattractive and bicycling will become more
attractive. It's also more difficult to have a fatal accident in
bumper to bumper slow traffic.
>> However, that ignores the bicycles, where the difference in speed
>> between the vehicles and bicycles seems to be the problem. Since I
>> believe it impractical to slow down the vehicles, perhaps a minimum
>> speed limit for bicyclists might make things easier for everyone?
>> Mandatory electric assist for any bicycles that can't keep up with
>> traffic.
>
>Cyclists need their own bike paths. There is no way cyclists and motorists
>can coexist on the same roads regardless of speed limits. Any idiot knows
>that much.
>[...]
I'm not just any idiot. We have a multi-use "bike" path that runs
along the shoreline in Santa Cruz CA. It's shared by cyclists,
runners, skateboards, baby strollers, walkers, and tourists. I would
rather do battle with the cars on the adjacent road, than deal with
these. At least cars are fairly predictable. Maybe if they paint
separate lane lines for each type of user?
>> My issue with wearing a helmet is the weird sunburn it produces. The
>> bald spot on top of my head usually requires some manner of covering
>> while riding. The problem is with the helmet ventillation slots. I
>> get sunburned through these slots resulting in a red impression of the
>> helmet on my head. I get tired of getting laughed at after explaining
>> what happened.
>
>You must be an idiot not to able to figure out how to prevent sunburn.
I have a piece of cotton T-shirt material that I jam between my head
and the helmet. It does a fair job but makes my head sweat. Various
sunscreen products work, but also tend to loosen the glue that holds
the pads inside the helmet. It also gets absorbed by the nylon
straps, which when mixed with dust, turns into a sticky dirty goo.
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
--
AMuzi
>> Now here's a truly scary statistic for you: one out of every 414
>> persons in the USA is a lawyer. In Japan it is less than one out of
>> every 10,000.
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> It's worse than that:
> <http://new.abanet.org/marketresearch/Pages/StatisticalResources.aspx>
> 1,180,386 practicing USA attorneys in 2009.
> Population of US in 2009 was about 305 million.
> That's 1 in 258 are attorneys.
> No country ever sued its way to greatness.
It's worse.
Politicians now are more [insert adjective] lawyers than any
other trade. Ever wonder why law now is incomprehensibly
complex, circuitous and pointless?
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Edward Dolan
Sir, allow me to advise you that you are an an idiot. The slower the speed,
the less the accidents and most certainly the less the serious accidents.
Speed kills. It always has and it always will. Hells Bells, speed kills if
you are riding a bicycle too fast or even if you are walking too fast.
> However, I do agree with your claim that lowering the speed limit
> saves lives. By reducing the speed limit to absurdly low limits,
> driving will become unattractive and bicycling will become more
> attractive. It's also more difficult to have a fatal accident in
> bumper to bumper slow traffic.
Everyone in the entire universe is driving too god damn fast. A 55 mph speed
limit made sense some years ago and it still makes sense.
>>> However, that ignores the bicycles, where the difference in speed
>>> between the vehicles and bicycles seems to be the problem. Since I
>>> believe it impractical to slow down the vehicles, perhaps a minimum
>>> speed limit for bicyclists might make things easier for everyone?
>>> Mandatory electric assist for any bicycles that can't keep up with
>>> traffic.
>>
>>Cyclists need their own bike paths. There is no way cyclists and motorists
>>can coexist on the same roads regardless of speed limits. Any idiot knows
>>that much.
>>[...]
>
> I'm not just any idiot. We have a multi-use "bike" path that runs
> along the shoreline in Santa Cruz CA. It's shared by cyclists,
> runners, skateboards, baby strollers, walkers, and tourists. I would
> rather do battle with the cars on the adjacent road, than deal with
> these. At least cars are fairly predictable. Maybe if they paint
> separate lane lines for each type of user?
You need to ride that bike path when no others are using it. I will admit I
do not ride bike paths when they are full of other users.
>>> My issue with wearing a helmet is the weird sunburn it produces. The
>>> bald spot on top of my head usually requires some manner of covering
>>> while riding. The problem is with the helmet ventillation slots. I
>>> get sunburned through these slots resulting in a red impression of the
>>> helmet on my head. I get tired of getting laughed at after explaining
>>> what happened.
>>
>>You must be an idiot not to able to figure out how to prevent sunburn.
>
> I have a piece of cotton T-shirt material that I jam between my head
> and the helmet. It does a fair job but makes my head sweat. Various
> sunscreen products work, but also tend to loosen the glue that holds
> the pads inside the helmet. It also gets absorbed by the nylon
> straps, which when mixed with dust, turns into a sticky dirty goo.
Sir, riding a bicycle for long hours is inherently uncomfortable for a
variety of reasons. I sweat like a pig whenever I ride. I would only begin
to worry when I don't sweat.
I have made it a point never to get a sunburn. I am of Irish extraction and
apparently the sun never shone in that accursed isle as I can get burned to
a crisp in matter of an hour or so. It is all due to my heredity. I never
use sunscreen. I cover up entirely - long pants, long sleeve jerseys and
most definitely a helmet, one without any slots. So I sweat, so what!
Sweating is good for you, but skin cancer is not.
Chalo
> On 17/08/10 3:50 AM, Chalo wrote:
>
> > Anton Berlin wrote:
>
> >> It's a decent argument but I like Darwin's law to work here. As long
> >> as society doesn't have to pay for spoon feeding them over the next 50
> >> years.
>
> > You are so concerned about a few hundred cyclists versus tens of
> > thousands of motorists every single year? There is low hanging fruit
> > in this discussion, and it's not us.
>
> Those motorists are protected by a steel safety cage, harnesses, and
> multiple air bags.
And yet they they die in numbers of something like 40,000/year in the
USA alone. Sounds like whatever their ssafety devies, they aren't
doing enough.
Or they're risk compensating.
> Their vehicles are likely to also have anti-lock
> breaks and traction control systems that help avoid accidents in the
> first place.
And yet they get into large numbers of serious accidents every day.
> A large percentage of the total distance traversed by these
> motorists is on limited access highways designed to minimize the
> likelihood of a serious collision.
And yet... you see my point. Oh-- no you don't, you're Willfully
Oblivious Man!
> There is no good reason for an all-ages mandatory helmet law, but your
> argument regarding motorists has no validity at all.
This is as true as most of your pronouncements on the subject.
Chalo
Jeff Liebermann
>> Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Now here's a truly scary statistic for you: one out of every 414
>>> persons in the USA is a lawyer. In Japan it is less than one out of
>>> every 10,000.
>
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> It's worse than that:
>> <http://new.abanet.org/marketresearch/Pages/StatisticalResources.aspx>
>> 1,180,386 practicing USA attorneys in 2009.
>> Population of US in 2009 was about 305 million.
>> That's 1 in 258 are attorneys.
>> No country ever sued its way to greatness.
>
>It's worse.
>Politicians now are more [insert adjective] lawyers than any
>other trade. Ever wonder why law now is incomprehensibly
>complex, circuitous and pointless?
Well, most politicians are former lawyers, so there's considerable
overlap.
More fun with numbers. The 2009 US population was about 305 million,
but that includes kids and retirees, which would normally not be
qualified to act as an attorney. I'm too lazy to excavate the
demographics, but my guess is that there are about 180 million people
between age 20 and 65 thus making it one attorney in every 160. Even
worse, if I only count the 140 million taxpayers that filed returns in
2007, it's one attorney in every 120 workers. Unfortunately kids are
now filing returns, so it's probably even worse.
Now, if you want to really worry, there are about 1.5 million people
in the US directly involved in some aspect law enforcement (not
including part time employees, reserve, military law, lawyers, and the
courts).
<http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/law_enforcement_personnel/table_74.html>
That's one out of every 120 workers.
Jay Beattie
You jest! If you want to read an incomprehensible law, pick any law
that is the product of an initiative. I don't sign petitions any more
because if passed, the results are usually horrendous and
unanticipated.
Federal law is incomprehensibly complex because of the complexity of
regulated enterprises -- among other things. Some transactions are so
complex that just understanding the applicable tax code section
requires a degree in accounting (and not law). You cannot understand
insurance regulation unless you understand insurance. I don't know
what laws you are thinking about, but the really, really complex ones
I know deal with really, really complex enterprises, industries,
transactions, etc.
I don't know what you consider a "pointless law," but the ones that
come to my mind were proposed by do-gooders or moralists or local
budget writers -- and have nothing to do with the practice of law.
For example, I don't understand the point of a lot of the animal
abuse laws. You can't hurt a fish, but you can eat it. Have you ever
landed a fish and then clubbed it? You may be a criminal -- but
probably only if you enjoyed clubbing it. Why can't we eat dogs? Some
look delicious. And don't get me going on bogus "companion animals" in
the supermarket! -- Jay Beattie.
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>> While it is true that driving lower will lower the risk of a fatal
>> accident, the probability of having an accident is higher at lower
>> speeds. Fatal accidents tend to be at speed, usually from drinking or
>> inattention. Ordinary, non-fatal accidents can happen at any speed,
>> but most whiplash related accidents occur at below 12 mph.
>The slower the speed,
>the less the accidents and most certainly the less the serious accidents.
See my quote above. Please note that I agreed that going slower will
reduce the likelihood of getting killed in an auto accident. However,
also note that the increased traffic density is likely to increase the
number of minor accidents, all of which might be debilitating, but
probably not fatal. High speeds may kill, but high density traffic
causes more accidents. However, it's a tradeoff. How many minor
accidents are needed to balance one fatality?
>Speed kills. It always has and it always will. Hells Bells, speed kills if
>you are riding a bicycle too fast or even if you are walking too fast.
I presume you have a mechanical governor attached to your bicycle to
prevent you from speeding. It's the only safe thing to do.
I really like one line slogans, such as "speed kills" and "lower speed
limits reduce fatalities". They are usually true only if you ignore
all the other consequences and undesired effects. They're also
non-linear. One fatality equals how many fender benders? It also
doesn't consider the real causes of most fatalities, with are
intoxication and inattention. Getting killed by drunk driver is
immaterial whether he was weaving at 60mph or 30mph.
>Everyone in the entire universe is driving too god damn fast. A 55 mph speed
>limit made sense some years ago and it still makes sense.
The 55 mph speed limit was instituted during the 1973-74 energy crisis
because it allegedly saved gasoline. Improved "safety" was deemed an
added bonus, which has never really adequately demonstrated.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law>
>You need to ride that bike path when no others are using it. I will admit I
>do not ride bike paths when they are full of other users.
I was thinking a train style cow catcher would be useful. I have a
nifty bicycle path, that follows the river levee, right outside my
office. It's great for a quick ride or service call to downtown. The
problem is that during the summer, the foot and bike traffic are
rather sparse, but continuous. At any hour of the day, there are
small mobs walking side-by-side, blocking the path. The worst are
multiple baby strollers, side-by-side. I'm polite, do my best to work
around them, but I've had some close calls. Pedestrians and baby
strollers do not normally come equipped with rear view mirrors. They
don't see me approaching from the rear, and often make unpredictable
sideways movements. I haven't hit anyone yet, but I've come very
close far too often. Most of the time, it's a screeching stop, or a
plunge into the bushes. West cliff drive is just as bad. During the
winter, there's less traffic, but it's still a problem. Even after
midnight, there's a problem. We have a large transient population of
homeless drifters and bums, that seem to congregate in the area. I'm
sometimes afraid to ride my bike after dark in these areas. I've had
a few minor incidents, easily solved because they were too drunk to do
anything dangerous. No, riding the bike path after dark isn't going
to work.
>Sir, riding a bicycle for long hours is inherently uncomfortable for a
>variety of reasons. I sweat like a pig whenever I ride. I would only begin
>to worry when I don't sweat.
A solar powered cooling fan on top of the helmet might help.
>I have made it a point never to get a sunburn. I am of Irish extraction and
>apparently the sun never shone in that accursed isle as I can get burned to
>a crisp in matter of an hour or so. It is all due to my heredity. I never
>use sunscreen. I cover up entirely - long pants, long sleeve jerseys and
>most definitely a helmet, one without any slots. So I sweat, so what!
>Sweating is good for you, but skin cancer is not.
Ok, you've solved the problem. My fear is the added 1 mm of helmet
thickness may adversely affect my safety. It clearly says on my
helmet that any modifications or additions are not covered under the
warranty. The extra 1 mm puts my helmet that much close to the
pavement and impending doom. At least one authority in this
newsgroups has proclaimed that the thickness of the helmet increases
the chances of pavement impact, which would otherwise not have
occurred had I not been wearing a helmet.
I don't sweat much, probably because I don't ride much.
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
Andre Jute
> "Andre Jute" <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:59df29cb-52fa-4225...@k10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> Sorry, didn't mean to leave the rest of you guys off.
>
> On Aug 17, 12:43 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:> THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW
> > (IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
> > by Andre Jute
>
> [...]
>
> Andre, your article was too longwinded for Usenet. No one will read it clear
> through or know what to make of it. Attention spans are short in the world
> of Usenet and a sharper focus is what is required.
I count at least half a dozen engineers in this thread. You don't
think much of their education, do you?
But I don't care if inadequates don't read me; the article is exactly
as long as it needs to be to make all my points, not a word longer or
shorter, and has been read and understood by everyone I intended to
read and understand it.
> PS: How is Ireland treating you these days?
It's the season of mellow mists here, or was yesterday, a soft day
(1). I love the autumn and early winter in Ireland, some mild years
all the winter.
(1) For those without Irish roots or vocabulary, this means there is a
mist in the air, too fine to form droplets, enough to dampen your
shirt in an hour or two.
Andre Jute
Pictorials of local West Cork rides via
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
Andre Jute
> So why are busybodies going
> on about bicycle hats when there is so much more simple and effective
> work to be done in the public interest?
Who said this has anything to do with the "public interest"? That's
poncey Krygowski-speak. What this is about is Frank Krygowski's
attempts to set himself up as a "cycling advocate". First of all, a
fascist moron like Frank Krygowski speaks for me over my dead body.
Secondly, I warned Krygowski two years ago when I arrived on RBT and
he (and some others from whom I've already sucked the glee, the ghee
and the marrow) tried to drive me out, simply out of fear of a
superior talent, that he would pay for it. The bill's due now, with
interest for impertinence. Thirdly, I'm just having fun with figures;
it's like flexing one's muscles for the kinesthetic pleasure.
Fourthly, and pretty distantly in my book, it would be a public
service to save cyclists from Krygowski, but I'm with Adam Smith in
mistrusting those who claim to act from disinterested motives, so
we'll just stick with the first three adequate reasons for kicking
Krygowski's pet project, and Franki Shavelegs himself, in the goolies,
repeatedly.
Andre Jute
Knight of the Hidden Hand of St Adam Smith
(with apologies to Ed Dolan)
Andre Jute
Steven, have you read the neutral and balanced lists of pros and cons
for a mandatory helmet law particularly in the US, at the end of the
post at the head of this thread. For your convenience I copy it here:
-- Andre jute
Andre Jute
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:54:09 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
>
> >Now here's a truly scary statistic for you: one out of every 414
> >persons in the USA is a lawyer. In Japan it is less than one out of
> >every 10,000.
>
> It's worse than that:
> <http://new.abanet.org/marketresearch/Pages/StatisticalResources.aspx>
> 1,180,386 practicing USA attorneys in 2009.
> Population of US in 2009 was about 305 million.
> That's 1 in 258 are attorneys.
>
> No country ever sued its way to greatness.
Thanks for depressing me, Jeff! -- AJ
Andre Jute
This is a function of the number of psychopaths in the population. In
Britain, for instance, 1 in a 200 people is a psycho on Professor
Hare's useful scale but in the States it is double that, 1 in every
100 people is a psychopath. In jails this number is much higher, of
course, and on death row it approaches 100%. -- AJ
James
> You can't hurt a fish, but you can eat it. Have you ever
> landed a fish and then clubbed it? You may be a criminal -- but
> probably only if you enjoyed clubbing it. Why can't we eat dogs? Some
> look delicious. And don't get me going on bogus "companion animals" in
> the supermarket! -- Jay Beattie.
I say a little prayer before clubbing a fish. It makes me feel
better, not the fish, but not enough to have enjoyed it. What I
really enjoy is eating it once it's cooked over an open fire. Nothing
better than fresh cooked trout with a hint of smoke. A glass of wine
tops off the meal.
Ever skinned a fox? They stink, worse than a ferret. I've heard some
people eat foxes. Ugh. I can't imagine a dog being much better
really.
What is a 'bogus "companion animals" in the supermarket'?
James.
Andre Jute
> I have made it a point never to get a sunburn. I am of Irish extraction and
> apparently the sun never shone in that accursed isle as I can get burned to
> a crisp in matter of an hour or so. It is all due to my heredity. I never
> use sunscreen. I cover up entirely - long pants, long sleeve jerseys and
> most definitely a helmet, one without any slots. So I sweat, so what!
> Sweating is good for you, but skin cancer is not.
Ditto. Since I had a lot of experience in sunny climes, and of being
hospitalized in places with unpronouncable names with sunburn, I was
horrified when I used to see the Irish come off the plane in
Australia, see the sun, go mad, take their shirts off, and not put it
on again until the cancers on their backs were too far advanced to be
treated. An insurance agent in my poker school told us his head office
gave him unofficial advice not to insure new Australians of Irish
extraction because paying out when they inflicted terminal skin cancer
on themselves was getting a bit expensive. -- Andre Jute
James
> Those motorists are protected by a steel safety cage, harnesses, and
> multiple air bags. Their vehicles are likely to also have anti-lock
> breaks and traction control systems that help avoid accidents in the
> first place.
Which only encourages them to drive faster, comforted by the knowledge
that their motor vehicle will keep them safe from themselves. It's
not speed that kills, its the sudden stop that does it.
JS.
Jay Beattie
Ooops. I should have said "service animals." It is a violation of the
ADA and similar state laws to prohibit business patrons from entering
a premises with a "service animal" -- usually a seeing eye dog. Due
to the flexibility of the Act and definition of "service animal,"
people are now claiming that various animals from lap dogs to ferrets
are "service animals" because they make the owners happy and ward off
disabling depression, anxiety, impotence, etc., etc. If a proprietor
asks some lady whether the iguana in her purse is or is not a "service
animal", the proprietor may face a suit under the ADA.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2008-07-30/news/check-your-faux-service-dog-at-the-door/
http://www.ksat.com/news/4999942/detail.html.
http://www.oceancitytoday.net/news/2010-07-30/Front_Page/IGUANA_NOW_CERTIFIED_SERVICE_ANIMAL.html
BTW, I caught a cat fish once and only had some side cutters to whack
it with. It took me about a minute of pounding. Those fish are tough
suckers. Luckily, I escaped prosecution. -- Jay Beattie.
mike
2315eb...@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, chalo....@gmail.com
says...
red herring at best.
If you have a limited resource, then of course it is advisable to
utilise that resopurce where it can do the best good. But legislation is
hardly a rare resource, if legislation can (and I believe that mandatory
helmet laws do) reduce the cost to individuals/society, then there is no
sensible argument along the lines that "you shouldn't legislate this,
because if you legislate that (unrelated thing) you will achieve greater
benefit".
Also note that here (where I live), the speed limit in high pedestrian
and/or high cross-traffic zones, is now commonly being reduced from 50
kph (the normal urban speed limit) to 40 kph, or 30 kph. You see, you
can have the best of both worlds.
Mike
James
>
> BTW, I caught a cat fish once and only had some side cutters to whack
> it with. It took me about a minute of pounding. Those fish are tough
> suckers. Luckily, I escaped prosecution. -- Jay Beattie.
Thank you. That was worth a ROTFL.
"Is that a service animal in your pocket, or are you just glad to see
me?"
A blind man walks into a supermarket with his seeing eye dog. He gets
to the middle of the store, hurls the dog into the air and swings him
around on the lead a few times before bringing the dog back to
ground.. Someone sees him and walks over. "Excuse me, why did you
just do that?" "I was just having a look around", came the reply.
James.
P.S. Don't mention the war...
Frank Krygowski
> ... if legislation can (and I believe that mandatory
> helmet laws do) reduce the cost to individuals/society...
Not according to the evaluation reported at
or
Read it and see.
- Frank Krygowski
Edward Dolan
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:37:24 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> While it is true that driving lower will lower the risk of a fatal
>>> accident, the probability of having an accident is higher at lower
>>> speeds. Fatal accidents tend to be at speed, usually from drinking or
>>> inattention. Ordinary, non-fatal accidents can happen at any speed,
>>> but most whiplash related accidents occur at below 12 mph.
>
>>The slower the speed,
>>the less the accidents and most certainly the less the serious accidents.
>
> See my quote above. Please note that I agreed that going slower will
> reduce the likelihood of getting killed in an auto accident. However,
> also note that the increased traffic density is likely to increase the
> number of minor accidents, all of which might be debilitating, but
> probably not fatal. High speeds may kill, but high density traffic
> causes more accidents. However, it's a tradeoff. How many minor
> accidents are needed to balance one fatality?
Fender benders are inevitable no matter the speed limit. The parking lot at
Wal-Mart is dangerous even though everyone is just barely moving.
>>Speed kills. It always has and it always will. Hells Bells, speed kills if
>>you are riding a bicycle too fast or even if you are walking too fast.
>
> I presume you have a mechanical governor attached to your bicycle to
> prevent you from speeding. It's the only safe thing to do.
Nope, but I have a brain which does the same thing.
> I really like one line slogans, such as "speed kills" and "lower speed
> limits reduce fatalities". They are usually true only if you ignore
> all the other consequences and undesired effects. They're also
> non-linear. One fatality equals how many fender benders? It also
> doesn't consider the real causes of most fatalities, with are
> intoxication and inattention. Getting killed by drunk driver is
> immaterial whether he was weaving at 60mph or 30mph.
Alas, only too true!
>>Everyone in the entire universe is driving too god damn fast. A 55 mph
>>speed
>>limit made sense some years ago and it still makes sense.
>
> The 55 mph speed limit was instituted during the 1973-74 energy crisis
> because it allegedly saved gasoline. Improved "safety" was deemed an
> added bonus, which has never really adequately demonstrated.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law>
It was demonstrated to me every day whenever I drove my car on the highway.
>>You need to ride that bike path when no others are using it. I will admit
>>I
>>do not ride bike paths when they are full of other users.
>
> I was thinking a train style cow catcher would be useful. I have a
> nifty bicycle path, that follows the river levee, right outside my
> office. It's great for a quick ride or service call to downtown. The
> problem is that during the summer, the foot and bike traffic are
> rather sparse, but continuous. At any hour of the day, there are
> small mobs walking side-by-side, blocking the path. The worst are
> multiple baby strollers, side-by-side. I'm polite, do my best to work
> around them, but I've had some close calls. Pedestrians and baby
> strollers do not normally come equipped with rear view mirrors. They
> don't see me approaching from the rear, and often make unpredictable
> sideways movements. I haven't hit anyone yet, but I've come very
> close far too often. Most of the time, it's a screeching stop, or a
> plunge into the bushes. West cliff drive is just as bad. During the
> winter, there's less traffic, but it's still a problem. Even after
> midnight, there's a problem. We have a large transient population of
> homeless drifters and bums, that seem to congregate in the area. I'm
> sometimes afraid to ride my bike after dark in these areas. I've had
> a few minor incidents, easily solved because they were too drunk to do
> anything dangerous. No, riding the bike path after dark isn't going
> to work.
The main thing you have to do when others are on the path is to slow down.
If you don't do that, you will surely have an accident sooner or later.
>>Sir, riding a bicycle for long hours is inherently uncomfortable for a
>>variety of reasons. I sweat like a pig whenever I ride. I would only begin
>>to worry when I don't sweat.
>
> A solar powered cooling fan on top of the helmet might help.
>
>>I have made it a point never to get a sunburn. I am of Irish extraction
>>and
>>apparently the sun never shone in that accursed isle as I can get burned
>>to
>>a crisp in matter of an hour or so. It is all due to my heredity. I never
>>use sunscreen. I cover up entirely - long pants, long sleeve jerseys and
>>most definitely a helmet, one without any slots. So I sweat, so what!
>>Sweating is good for you, but skin cancer is not.
>
> Ok, you've solved the problem. My fear is the added 1 mm of helmet
> thickness may adversely affect my safety. It clearly says on my
> helmet that any modifications or additions are not covered under the
> warranty. The extra 1 mm puts my helmet that much close to the
> pavement and impending doom. At least one authority in this
> newsgroups has proclaimed that the thickness of the helmet increases
> the chances of pavement impact, which would otherwise not have
> occurred had I not been wearing a helmet.
I have ridden every kind of bicycle for over 30 years and have never had an
accident where my head was at risk. Still, you have to wear something on
your head, so why not a helmet.
> I don't sweat much, probably because I don't ride much.
I can sweat in temps below freezing because of the way I dress. In the
wintertime, I dress like an Eskimo because I would rather be too hot than
too cold.
Edward Dolan
"Andre Jute" <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1061427f-f42c-4d31...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 17, 7:56 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:59df29cb-52fa-4225...@k10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> Sorry, didn't mean to leave the rest of you guys off.
>
> On Aug 17, 12:43 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:> THE CASE FOR
> A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW
> > (IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
> > by Andre Jute
>
> [...]
>
> Andre, your article was too longwinded for Usenet. No one will read it
> clear
> through or know what to make of it. Attention spans are short in the world
> of Usenet and a sharper focus is what is required.
>> I count at least half a dozen engineers in this thread. You don't
think much of their education, do you?
Their technical education is no doubt adequate, but they seem to lack broad
interests. When they get off their subject, they show us just how uneducated
they really are. Tom Sherman (a civil engineer) springs immediately to mind.
>> But I don't care if inadequates don't read me; the article is exactly
as long as it needs to be to make all my points, not a word longer or
shorter, and has been read and understood by everyone I intended to
read and understand it.
I did not see any responses to your long message in any detail. This tells
me that no one is reading it. Best to keep things short and to a single
point. At least that has been my experience.
> PS: How is Ireland treating you these days?
>> It's the season of mellow mists here, or was yesterday, a soft day
(1). I love the autumn and early winter in Ireland, some mild years
all the winter.
>> (1) For those without Irish roots or vocabulary, this means there is a
mist in the air, too fine to form droplets, enough to dampen your
shirt in an hour or two.
Anything is better than these god awful Minnesota winters, which seem to
last at least 5 months of the year.
Edward Dolan
[...]
> This is a function of the number of psychopaths in the population. In
Britain, for instance, 1 in a 200 people is a psycho on Professor
Hare's useful scale but in the States it is double that, 1 in every
100 people is a psychopath. In jails this number is much higher, of
course, and on death row it approaches 100%. -- AJ
I was once told by a high government official that at any one time 1 in 10
persons walking around on the street is crazy. Craziness comes and goes of
course, but 1 in 10 is a constant. When I look around, I believe it!
Andre Jute
> In article <c6bc2dc1-8260-4915-92cb-
> 2315eba37...@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, chalo.col...@gmail.com
Those bike boulevards that Pete Cresswell started a subthread on sound
good to me. Sorta like a pedestrian mall for bikes, except with
pavements to keep the pedestrians clear, and a low speed limit to keep
the bikes safe from the cars. You can bet house prices in those bike
boulevards immediately started rising as families with young children
discovered they were safer than the main drags. These lower speed
limits of yours sounds like part of the same idea but applied on a
larger scale. -- Andre Jute
Andre Jute
> "Andre Jute" <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:15caac26-46d0-450f...@z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
>
> > This is a function of the number of psychopaths in the population. In
>
> Britain, for instance, 1 in a 200 people is a psycho on Professor
> Hare's useful scale but in the States it is double that, 1 in every
> 100 people is a psychopath. In jails this number is much higher, of
> course, and on death row it approaches 100%. -- AJ
>
> I was once told by a high government official that at any one time 1 in 10
> persons walking around on the street is crazy. Craziness comes and goes of
> course, but 1 in 10 is a constant. When I look around, I believe it!
Possible. There are many kinds of crazies and sociopaths are just a
small percentage of those. Most psychopaths are well integrated and
controlled, often by finding approved and highly rewarded outlets for
their personality traits and urges, which is why professional sports
are awash with well-controlled psychopaths. -- AJ
Andre Jute
> On Aug 17, 7:07 pm, mike <m....@irl.cri.replacethiswithnz> wrote:
>
> > ... if legislation can (and I believe that mandatory
> > helmet laws do) reduce the cost to individuals/society...
>
> Not according to the evaluation reported at
>
The findings of the study Krygowsky cites are contrary to Krygowski's
claims for it. Perhaps Krygowski is counting on us not reading the
reference he gives! Or perhaps Krygowski cannot understand plain
English.
In "An economic evaluation of the mandatory bicycle helmet legislation
in Western Australia" by Delia Hendrie, Matthew Legge, Diana Rosman
and Carol Kirov reported:
• REDUCTIONS IN CYCLISTS' HEAD INJURIES AFTER HELMET LEGISLATION: "The
findings of this study support those of evaluations in other
Australian states that found reductions in the number of cyclists with
head injury following the introduction of the bicycle helmet
legislation." -- p13
• NO CONCLUSION FOR OR AGAINST ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF HELMET LEGISLATION:
"The study provided no clear answer as to whether the helmet wearing
legislation had been an effective countermeasure in an economic
sense." -- p13
CONCLUSION: Krygowski lies through his teeth. Again. But worse is the
insult to our intelligence of his patent belief that we'll swallow his
crap without checking his references.
What is your argument against saving perhaps up to 400 American
cyclists by mandatory helmet laws, Franki-boy? Do tell.
Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html
Frank Krygowski
Those interested in actually learning should read the entire report,
not just Jute's selective quotes.
This particular study found a reduction in bicyclist head injuries due
to the law, but it was very tiny. Their research showed that the
imposed mandatory helmet laws caused only 20 to 44 fewer bicyclist
head injuries per year in all of Western Australia. (Whether 20 or 44
depends on the method used for estimating.)
They found the monetary effect of the law to be within the range of $2
million benefit, to $10 million loss. And as they say, that does not
take into account the health detriments due to the reductions in
cycling caused by the law.
"In monetary terms, it is unlikely that the helmet wearing legislation
would have achieved net savings of any sizeable magnitude. Under the
assumptions used in the study, the most favourable estimate of the
Net
Present Value of the bicycle helmet legislation was $2.0 million, and
this calculation excluded any costs associated with reduced cycling
activity."
- Frank Krygowski
Jeff Liebermann
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Possible. There are many kinds of crazies and sociopaths are just a
>small percentage of those. Most psychopaths are well integrated and
>controlled, often by finding approved and highly rewarded outlets for
>their personality traits and urges, which is why professional sports
>are awash with well-controlled psychopaths. -- AJ
Hint: All of these people were judged to be psychopaths, and
therefore candidates for expensive treatment, by people that have a
pecuniary interest in producing as many psychopaths as possible.
Whether better diagnostics or changes in definitions were responsible
is immaterial. As long as there's money to be made on treating
psychopaths, the supply of new psychopaths must be maintained.
Incidentally, you would probably be considered a sociopath because of
your failure to conform to widely recognized social norms,
specifically an aversion to using a motor vehicle. Such independent
thinking cannot be tolerated and will certainly require investigation
and treatment.
<http://www.blogthings.com/hownormalareyouquiz/>
<http://www.chatterbean.com/fun-quizzes/runormal/>
<http://www.quizgalaxy.com/quizzes/how-normal-are-you/>
Should you fail any of these tests, some remedial re-education or
brain washing might be advisable.
Andre Jute
The report is there for anyone who wants to read it, Franki-boy. But,
in any event, I quoted the lead sentence to each of the conclusions as
given by the authors of the report, in short the text they wanted to
give the most emphasis to. Now let's see if by heaving and cutting and
trimming and distortion you can change my conclusions -- and those of
the authors of a report you cited yourself!
> This particular study found a reduction in bicyclist head injuries due
> to the law, but it was very tiny. Their research showed that the
> imposed mandatory helmet laws caused only 20 to 44 fewer bicyclist
> head injuries per year in all of Western Australia. (Whether 20 or 44
> depends on the method used for estimating.)
Krygowski is simply lying to you again. The population of West
Australia is under 2,236,900 people, men, women, children, todders,
babes in arms, geriatrics on zimmer frames, everyone included, not
just those of cycling age and circumstances. Every life is precious,
and in seven years the saving in head injurious because of the
mandatory helmet law amounted to 307. What the authors actually say is
not that the effect of the legislation was "tiny" as Krygowsky tries
to claim, but that in those seven years head injuries would have been
a full quarter (26%) higheer without the mandatory helmet legislation.
(Table on p8 of the report cited above)
> They found the monetary effect of the law to be within the range of $2
> million benefit, to $10 million loss.
"Loss"? That's a very commercial word to be using to evaluate saving
lives. I'm pretty sure the authors of the report did nothing as crass,
so that must be Krygowski's true nature and character making a
Freudian slip.
What the authors actually report is, depending on method of
calculation, that the reduction in head injuries provided a net result
(WA has mixed private/public health provision with a pretty decent
safety net) of AUS2m to a cost of ~AUS10m. Any Australian politician
who doesn't think that a miserable sum like AUS3573.29 is dirtcheap
for saving a head injury is a wannabe who hasn't yet been elected and
will never be elected. Krygowski is simply, numbly, dumbly, projecting
some kind of Americanism on a situation of which he clearly has not
the faintest grasp.
>And as they say, that does not
> take into account the health detriments due to the reductions in
> cycling caused by the law.
Crap. They say no such thing. What Krygowski is referring to is this:
"This meant that the evaluation was a partial analysis only since the
enforced wearing of helmets may have resulted in reduced cycling
activity, which could have resulted in the loss of health benefits or
negative environmental effects." Ugh. "May have", "could have" --
these are not facts or data in opposition to the findings, these are
the CYA conditionals of scientists writing a report to be given as the
showpiece of a government bureau's conference at which every writer of
every report on the subject in the nation will be present on an all-
expenses paid junket and must be stroked by a citation to avoid
disturbances. Once more Krygowski has no grasp of the context of a
report he cites. Yo, dickhead, read what it says right at the top of
the report: "INSURANCE COMMISSION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA / CONFERENCE ON
ROAD SAFETY".
> "In monetary terms, it is unlikely that the helmet wearing legislation
> would have achieved net savings of any sizeable magnitude. Under the
> assumptions used in the study, the most favourable estimate of the
> Net
> Present Value of the bicycle helmet legislation was $2.0 million, and
> this calculation excluded any costs associated with reduced cycling
> activity."
So we can save pain and suffering and fatalities and perhaps also get
a financial benefit from it, but anyhow the cost per individual will
be pisswilly (less than 10% of the cost per mile of road) -- but
Krygowski thinks an argument has been made against mandatory helmet
laws!
> - Frank Krygowski
Whatta maroon! But we should probably feel sorry for Krygowski. If
such a favourable report to mandatory helmet laws is the best he
argument he bring against them, his case is not only lost, he knows it
is lost. Which probably accounts for why he sounds so desperate.
Andre Jute
Anti-Helmet Zealotry is like Scientology, only with less science
Andre Jute
What is your argument against saving perhaps up to 400 American
cyclists by mandatory helmet laws, Franki-boy? Do tell.
Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html
Here's the full post in which the question appeared:
Andre Jute
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 07:42:18 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
>
> >Possible. There are many kinds of crazies and sociopaths are just a
> >small percentage of those. Most psychopaths are well integrated and
> >controlled, often by finding approved and highly rewarded outlets for
> >their personality traits and urges, which is why professional sports
> >are awash with well-controlled psychopaths. -- AJ
>
> Hint: All of these people were judged to be psychopaths, and
> therefore candidates for expensive treatment, by people that have a
> pecuniary interest in producing as many psychopaths as possible.
> Whether better diagnostics or changes in definitions were responsible
> is immaterial. As long as there's money to be made on treating
> psychopaths, the supply of new psychopaths must be maintained.
>
> Incidentally, you would probably be considered a sociopath because of
> your failure to conform to widely recognized social norms,
> specifically an aversion to using a motor vehicle. Such independent
> thinking cannot be tolerated and will certainly require investigation
> and treatment.
> <http://www.blogthings.com/hownormalareyouquiz/>
> <http://www.chatterbean.com/fun-quizzes/runormal/>
> <http://www.quizgalaxy.com/quizzes/how-normal-are-you/>
> Should you fail any of these tests, some remedial re-education or
> brain washing might be advisable.
A cyclist who doesn't have faith in Global Warming...
A conservationist who believes the evidence of his own eyes that the
environment is becoming better year by year...
I know what you mean.
-- AJ
James
> On Aug 18, 4:44 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > They found the monetary effect of the law to be within the range of $2
> > million benefit, to $10 million loss.
>
> "Loss"? That's a very commercial word to be using to evaluate saving
> lives. I'm pretty sure the authors of the report did nothing as crass,
> so that must be Krygowski's true nature and character making a
> Freudian slip.
The lunatic is on the grass? Sorry, thought you said Floydian slip...
JS.
Andre Jute
You're right. A little Acapulco red grass probably would relax
Krygowski enough to classify him as human, at least until it wears
off. Then what, though? Can't keep him permanently doped up. -- AJ
snogfest
> Sorry, didn't mean to leave the rest of you guys off.
>
>
>
>
> > THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW
> > (IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
> > by Andre Jute
>
> > individual untrammeled by government: he is in fact just as much
> > constricted as a European soft-socialist consumerist or Japanese
> > collective citizen, though it is true that the American is controlled
> > in different areas of his activity than the European or the Japanese.
> > To some the uncontrolled areas of American life, for instance the
> > ability to own and use firearms, smacks of barbarism rather than
> > liberty. In this article I examine whether the lack of a mandatory
> > bicycle helmet law in the USA is barbaric or an emanation of that
> > rugged liberty more evident in rhetoric than reality.
>
> > Any case for intervention by the state must be made on moral and
> > statistical grounds. Examples are driving licences, crush zones on
> > cars, seatbelts, age restrictions on alcohol sales, and a million
> > other interventions, all now accepted unremarked in the States as part
> > of the regulatory landscape, but all virulently opposed in their day.
>
> > HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
> > Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
> > that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through
> > exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no
> > effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm
> > putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and
> > unexceptional general morality.
>
> > In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
> > data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
> > injured.
>
> > Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
>
> > The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to
> > compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists'
> > average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough.
>
> > Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
> > 11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
> > 2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken
>
> > By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of
> > journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in
> > the US:
>
> > Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
> > 3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
> > 3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding
>
> > Source:http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7man...
>
> > It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less
> > likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the
> > benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater
> > per mile/per trip/per hour danger.
>
> > This gives us the overall perspective but says nothing about wearing a
> > cycling helmet.
>
> > HELMET WEAR AT THE EXTREME END OF CYCLING RISK
>
> > What we really want to know is: what chance of the helmet saving your
> > life? The authorities in New York made a compilation covering the
> > years 1996 to 2003 of all the deaths (225) and serious injuries
> > (3,462) in cycling accidents in all New York City. The purpose of the
> > study was an overview usable for city development planning, not helmet
> > advocacy, so helmet usage was only noted for part of the period among
> > the seriously injured, amounting to 333 cases. Here are some
> > conclusions:
>
> > • Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
> > • Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
> > • Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal
> > crashes
>
> > Source:http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf
>
> > This concatenation of facts suggests very strongly that not wearing a
> > helmet may be particularly dangerous.
>
> > • It looks like wearing a helmet saved roundabout 33 cyclists or so
> > (of the 333 seriously injured for whom helmet use is known) from
> > dying.
> > • If those who died wore helmets at the same rate of 13% as those in
> > the study who survived, a further 22 or so could have lived.
> > • If all the fatalities had been wearing a helmet (100%), somewhere
> > between 10% and 57% of them would have lived. This number is less firm
> > to allow for impacts so heavy that no helmet would have saved the
> > cyclist. Still, between 22 and 128 *additional* (to the 33 noted
> > above) New Yorkers alive rather than dead for wearing a thirty buck
> > helmet is a serious statistical, moral and political consideration
> > difficult to overlook.
>
> > SO HOW MANY CYCLISTS CAN HELMETS SAVE ACROSS THE NATION?
> > New York is not the United States but we're not seeking certainly,
> > only investigating whether a moral imperative for action appears.
>
> > First off, the 52,000 cyclists hurt cannot be directly related to the
> > very serious injuries which were the only ones counted in the New York
> > compilation. But a fatality is a fatality anywhere and the fraction of
> > head injuries in the fatalities is pretty constant.
>
> > So, with a caution, we can say that of 716 cycling fatalities
> > nationwide, helmet use could have saved at least 70 and very likely
> > more towards a possible upper limit of around 400. Again the
> > statistical extension must be tempered by the knowledge that some
> > impacts are so heavy that no helmet can save the cyclist. Still, if
> > even half the impacts resulting in fatal head trauma is too heavy for
> > a helmet to mitigate, possibly around 235 cyclists might live rather
> > than die on the roads for simply wearing a helmet. Every year. That's
> > an instant reduction in cyclist road fatalities of one third. Once
> > more we have arrived at a statistical, moral and political fact that
> > is hard to ignore: Helmet wear could save many lives.
> > journals and sites as long as the entire article is reproduced in full
> > including this copyright and permission notice.
I don't believe in stat's, but, here are some
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets_in_New_Zealand
however, much more important than typing on a keyboard is the lady who
got the law changed
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/inspiration-behind-helmet-lady-dies-3710527
If you *really* want the law changed, that's how it is done. Rebecca
Oaten would have been an amazing athlete, passionate, focussed,
determined.
Andre Jute
>
> however, much more important than typing on a keyboard is the lady who
>
> If you *really* want the law changed, that's how it is done. Rebecca
> Oaten would have been an amazing athlete, passionate, focussed,
> determined.
The intention of my article is to present reliable facts for both
sides in the USA. I live in Ireland. I'm not trying to get the law
changed anywhere. If it hadn't been for the atrocious behaviour of the
anti-helmet zealot Frank Krygowski in spreading obvious lies about the
statistics, and trying to sneer some significant studies out of court,
I wouldn't even have done that much. I owe Krygowski a few kicks in
the goolies, and this struck me as a good time to deliver them. You
will notice that the Krygowski Klowns are not arguing the case from
the original post, merely nibbling at the edges with irrelevant
semantic objections and misinterpretations of studies they hope we
won't read in full, in short more lies. That's because they cannot
argue with my facts, and they know it, Of course they're simmering
with anger that I should dare present the facts so plainly for
everyone to make up their own minds. But so what; those klowns are not
my constituency of bright, thoughtful, liberal independent thinkers.
Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio
constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of
wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review
thirty-six
> The intention of my article is to present reliable facts for both
> sides in the USA. I live in Ireland. I'm not trying to get the law
> changed anywhere. If it hadn't been for the atrocious behaviour of the
> anti-helmet zealot Frank Krygowski in spreading obvious lies about the
> statistics, and trying to sneer some significant studies out of court,
> I wouldn't even have done that much. I owe Krygowski a few kicks in
> the goolies, and this struck me as a good time to deliver them. You
> will notice that the Krygowski Klowns are not arguing the case from
> the original post, merely nibbling at the edges with irrelevant
> semantic objections and misinterpretations of studies they hope we
> won't read in full, in short more lies. That's because they cannot
> argue with my facts, and they know it, Of course they're simmering
> with anger that I should dare present the facts so plainly for
> everyone to make up their own minds. But so what; those klowns are not
> my constituency of bright, thoughtful, liberal independent thinkers.
>
How about some Mogadon?
Andre Jute
Sorry, Trevor. There are rules about prescribing over the net. In any
event, it isn't calming down that Krygowski requires (Krygowski is so
dull, he's comatose already, being omnidirectionally nasty on
autopilot), it's a sharp shove up the arse with a pointed stick dipped
in turpentine to help him put his mind in gear. I have high hopes for
Krygowski once I have him trained. After all, he was a craftsman who
educated himself at night school, and he's so old, he probably passed
his engineering exams before they lowered the standards so
grotesquely, so in his youth he couldn't have been such a moron as he
now appears, and he rose to be a professor which -- even if it says
nothing about his teaching skills (judging by what we see here, non-
existent) -- does tell us that once he had some political nous. So
there is no reason that, once I straighten him out, and give him a few
short, sharp lessons in personal and mass motivation, Krygowski should
not be a reasonably effective spokesman for cyclists. Of course, even
I am not infallible, and my attention span is short, and my patience
shorter still, and Krygowski may yet prove too slow a learner in his
old age even for my brand of short, sharp shock treatment to work, so
it is worth repeating: in his present state, we should permit
Krygowski to be our spokesman only over our dead bodies, mogadon or
not. --AJ
Frank Krygowski
>
> I don't believe in stat's, but, here are somehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets_in_New_Zealand
Keep in mind, statistical study is how things like medicines and
surgeries are evaluated. You should prefer - say - an antibiotic
proven by statistical studies, over a Bach Flower Remedy. (And as one
poster has noted in the past, helmets are the Bach Flower Remedies of
bicycling, with similar "proof" of value.)
- Frank Krygowski
Ron Ruff
> How about placing in every car by law a spike on the steering wheel
> pointing straight at the driver's heart (thanks, Chalo, a wonderful
> idea). If he crashes into something, he feels the pain too. That would
> actively reinforce and reward safe driving.
They feel the pain well enough if they hit large vehicles, just not
small ones.
I'd prefer to equip bikes with a sophisticated laser that would detect
vehicles that are on a collision course, and vaporize them before
impact.
Andre Jute
> On Aug 18, 7:02 pm, snogfest <snogfest_hosebe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't believe in stat's, but, here are somehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets_in_New_Zealand
>
> Keep in mind, statistical study is how things like medicines and
> surgeries are evaluated. You should prefer - say - an antibiotic
> proven by statistical studies, over a Bach Flower Remedy. (And as one
Unnamed!
> poster has noted in the past, helmets are the Bach Flower Remedies of
> bicycling, with similar "proof" of value.)
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski is the Bach Flower Girl of the Anti-Helmet Zealots.
Below is hard statistical evidence, counted at accidents in the
streets of New York, recorded in the hospitals of that great city over
the open wounds of the seriously injured, over a period of years,
which shows that helmets work. Poor old Krygo hasn't dared attack
these facts because he knows he'll be steamrollered. By the way, some
of you may not know this, but Krygowski's got his story that cycling
is "safe enough" from me; he made such a mess of his calculations and
presentation that I took pity on him and showed him how to do both. So
any figures Krygowski spouts correctly are mine -- it is when he
diverges from the authorized version of sound statistics that he goes
so badly wrong, poncing around in his swimsuit in fields of Bach
Flowers. Ripley!
****
thirty-six
> including this copyright and permission notice.
Yeah like I read it. FFS, no blue-collar American is going to wear a
Chinese foam hat even when cycling, whatever the law demands. Try to
be a bit realistic.
Andre Jute
We last heard these fulminations from the mouth-breathers when seat
belts in cars became mandatory, or was it when catalytic converters
became mandatory, or when safe food became mandatory, or when-- you
get the idea, Trev. Stop blustering and wasting everyone's time.
Andre Jute
Yawn
dbrower
>
> What is your argument against saving perhaps up to 400 American
> cyclists by mandatory helmet laws, Franki-boy? Do tell.
>
I think the viable counter argument is (picking a number from air)
50,000 heart attack deaths a year that would have been prevented by
people riding who don't because they won't wear a helmet. I am not
saying the number is valid, or that the conclusion on preventable
heart attacks is correct, but that seems to be the gist of the
argument.
Pointing solely at the "400 American deaths" without considering the
other alternative is an emotional appeal, which can work if the other
health factors can be buried and ignored. It does seem shortsighted.
For the record, I wear a helmet all the time, but don't have a strong
opinion either way on making it legally mandatory.
-dB
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > What is your argument against saving perhaps up to 400 American
> > cyclists by mandatory helmet laws, Franki-boy? Do tell.
>
> I think the viable counter argument is (picking a number from air)
> 50,000 heart attack deaths a year that would have been prevented by
> people riding who don't because they won't wear a helmet. I am not
> saying the number is valid, or that the conclusion on preventable
> heart attacks is correct, but that seems to be the gist of the
> argument.
I agree that cycling has health benefits. I don't agree that
significant numbers of people will stop cycling because of mandatory
helmet laws. The history of automobile seatbelts is just one of the
many examples weighing against acceptance of that straw man of the
anti-helmet zealots.
> Pointing solely at the "400 American deaths" without considering the
> other alternative is an emotional appeal, which can work if the other
> health factors can be buried and ignored.
I've said all along that I believe in the health benefits. But we're
making those health benefits multitask rather extensively. The very
relative safety of cycling depends on them, and now we want to justify
around 235 to 400 unnecessary death by these unquantified health
benefits. That's starting to sound expensive.
> It does seem shortsighted.
On the contrary, it sounds like there is a case here to bring cost-
benefit to bear on an uncertainty being used for emotional blackmail
by the anti-helmet zealots. I have make a mathematical case for the
lives saved. Let the anti-helmet crowd make a mathematical case for
the heart attacks saved -- after they first prove that people will
stop cycling if forced to wear a helmet, and the those who stop won't
be replaced by new cyclists, in short that cycling growth will be
stunted.
> For the record, I wear a helmet all the time, but don't have a strong
> opinion either way on making it legally mandatory.
I'm with you. I too wear a helmet all the time. I'd wear a hat or cap
anyway because I'm very fairskinned. I'm not promoting any case here,
merely putting honest statistics on the table. My interest is merely
to stop Krygowski lying about the numbers, not to promote one side or
the other. (If I were interested in promoting one side or the other,
I'd do it so insidiously, the insensitive clowns here won't even
notice I've been in action.)
Andre Jute
Teach your daughter mathematics, Mrs Worthington!