Re: Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through - Page 2

11-09-2004, 09:40 PM

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote:

> Chris B. wrote:
>
> >>I don't like holier than thou people that try to tell other people what to
> >>do; I encourage people to look at the facts and make their own informed
> >>decisions. But people that intentionally misinform others, while deluding
> >>themselves, are not my favorite people.
> >
> >
> > Contrasting the last paragraph in your post with nearly everything
> > else I have seen you write, I must conclude that you are doing parody
> > here.
>
> No parody. On my lighting pages I provide referenced facts, and informed
> opinions. The negative comments I've seen posted all use the same flawed
> logic I see in the helmet debate: "this is what I do, I've been doing it
> for a long time, I haven't had a problem with it, so this proves that
> I'm right and everyone should do everything the same way I do it." This
> line of reasoning is not logical. These people will refuse to believe
> anything that contradicts their beliefs, regardless of the evidence.

> I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly
> over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the
> anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries in
> helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies.

I guess it would depend on the definition of dangerous, wouldn't it?
How many people are killed on stairs, in the bathtub/shower, walking
on the street. Wearing a motorcyle helmet is as dangerous as not
wearing one; if you have an impact accident, you -may- reduce
the injuries, if you happen to whiplash your head during the accident,
the extra weight of the helmet -can- snap your neck and kill you.

A bicycle helmet is much lighter than a motorcycle helmet, I grant you,
but I still think the choice should rest with the individual, not the
government.

--

-TTFN

-Steven

11-09-2004, 09:40 PM

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote:

> Chris B. wrote:
>
> >>I don't like holier than thou people that try to tell other people what to
> >>do; I encourage people to look at the facts and make their own informed
> >>decisions. But people that intentionally misinform others, while deluding
> >>themselves, are not my favorite people.
> >
> >
> > Contrasting the last paragraph in your post with nearly everything
> > else I have seen you write, I must conclude that you are doing parody
> > here.
>
> No parody. On my lighting pages I provide referenced facts, and informed
> opinions. The negative comments I've seen posted all use the same flawed
> logic I see in the helmet debate: "this is what I do, I've been doing it
> for a long time, I haven't had a problem with it, so this proves that
> I'm right and everyone should do everything the same way I do it." This
> line of reasoning is not logical. These people will refuse to believe
> anything that contradicts their beliefs, regardless of the evidence.

> I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly
> over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the
> anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries in
> helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies.

I guess it would depend on the definition of dangerous, wouldn't it?
How many people are killed on stairs, in the bathtub/shower, walking
on the street. Wearing a motorcyle helmet is as dangerous as not
wearing one; if you have an impact accident, you -may- reduce
the injuries, if you happen to whiplash your head during the accident,
the extra weight of the helmet -can- snap your neck and kill you.

A bicycle helmet is much lighter than a motorcycle helmet, I grant you,
but I still think the choice should rest with the individual, not the
government.

--

-TTFN

-Steven

11-09-2004, 09:40 PM

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote:

> Chris B. wrote:
>
> >>I don't like holier than thou people that try to tell other people what to
> >>do; I encourage people to look at the facts and make their own informed
> >>decisions. But people that intentionally misinform others, while deluding
> >>themselves, are not my favorite people.
> >
> >
> > Contrasting the last paragraph in your post with nearly everything
> > else I have seen you write, I must conclude that you are doing parody
> > here.
>
> No parody. On my lighting pages I provide referenced facts, and informed
> opinions. The negative comments I've seen posted all use the same flawed
> logic I see in the helmet debate: "this is what I do, I've been doing it
> for a long time, I haven't had a problem with it, so this proves that
> I'm right and everyone should do everything the same way I do it." This
> line of reasoning is not logical. These people will refuse to believe
> anything that contradicts their beliefs, regardless of the evidence.

> I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly
> over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the
> anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries in
> helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies.

I guess it would depend on the definition of dangerous, wouldn't it?
How many people are killed on stairs, in the bathtub/shower, walking
on the street. Wearing a motorcyle helmet is as dangerous as not
wearing one; if you have an impact accident, you -may- reduce
the injuries, if you happen to whiplash your head during the accident,
the extra weight of the helmet -can- snap your neck and kill you.

A bicycle helmet is much lighter than a motorcycle helmet, I grant you,
but I still think the choice should rest with the individual, not the
government.

--

-TTFN

-Steven

11-10-2004, 05:41 AM

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:26:26 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly
>over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the
>anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries in
>helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies.

And the sceptics acknowledge both, look at the injury trends for whole
populations (which are necessarily more robust than for the tiny
groups in pro-0helmet observational studies) and conclude that,
overall, if you want to reduce cyclist injuries, helmets are a long
way down the prority list.

A poll of British doctors put it sixth out of six possible
interventions, a study by the Transport research Laboratory put it
tenth of ten possible interventions and a factor of 25 behind the
likely most effective, being traffic calming.

So the logical thing to do is tell all the helmet zealots to butt out
and return to a proper cycle safety agenda.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

11-10-2004, 05:41 AM

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:26:26 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly
>over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the
>anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries in
>helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies.

And the sceptics acknowledge both, look at the injury trends for whole
populations (which are necessarily more robust than for the tiny
groups in pro-0helmet observational studies) and conclude that,
overall, if you want to reduce cyclist injuries, helmets are a long
way down the prority list.

A poll of British doctors put it sixth out of six possible
interventions, a study by the Transport research Laboratory put it
tenth of ten possible interventions and a factor of 25 behind the
likely most effective, being traffic calming.

So the logical thing to do is tell all the helmet zealots to butt out
and return to a proper cycle safety agenda.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

11-10-2004, 05:41 AM

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:26:26 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly
>over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the
>anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries in
>helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies.

And the sceptics acknowledge both, look at the injury trends for whole
populations (which are necessarily more robust than for the tiny
groups in pro-0helmet observational studies) and conclude that,
overall, if you want to reduce cyclist injuries, helmets are a long
way down the prority list.

A poll of British doctors put it sixth out of six possible
interventions, a study by the Transport research Laboratory put it
tenth of ten possible interventions and a factor of 25 behind the
likely most effective, being traffic calming.

So the logical thing to do is tell all the helmet zealots to butt out
and return to a proper cycle safety agenda.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

11-10-2004, 05:41 AM

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:26:26 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly
>over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the
>anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries in
>helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies.

And the sceptics acknowledge both, look at the injury trends for whole
populations (which are necessarily more robust than for the tiny
groups in pro-0helmet observational studies) and conclude that,
overall, if you want to reduce cyclist injuries, helmets are a long
way down the prority list.

A poll of British doctors put it sixth out of six possible
interventions, a study by the Transport research Laboratory put it
tenth of ten possible interventions and a factor of 25 behind the
likely most effective, being traffic calming.

So the logical thing to do is tell all the helmet zealots to butt out
and return to a proper cycle safety agenda.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

11-10-2004, 07:06 AM

<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> "Steven M. Scharf" wrote:

> > I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly
> > over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the
> > anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries in
> > helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies.
>
> I guess it would depend on the definition of dangerous, wouldn't it?
> How many people are killed on stairs, in the bathtub/shower, walking
> on the street.

None of this is relevant to the bicycle helmet debate.

Some people accept the added risk inherent in not wearing a helmet, because
the risk of being involved in an accident where head injuries are involve
are small. Very few people deny the evidence that shows that helmeted riders
had less severe head injuries in crashes involving head injuries.

11-10-2004, 07:06 AM

<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> "Steven M. Scharf" wrote:

> > I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly
> > over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the
> > anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries in
> > helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies.
>
> I guess it would depend on the definition of dangerous, wouldn't it?
> How many people are killed on stairs, in the bathtub/shower, walking
> on the street.

None of this is relevant to the bicycle helmet debate.

Some people accept the added risk inherent in not wearing a helmet, because
the risk of being involved in an accident where head injuries are involve
are small. Very few people deny the evidence that shows that helmeted riders
had less severe head injuries in crashes involving head injuries.

11-10-2004, 07:06 AM

<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> "Steven M. Scharf" wrote:

> > I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly
> > over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the
> > anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries in
> > helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies.
>
> I guess it would depend on the definition of dangerous, wouldn't it?
> How many people are killed on stairs, in the bathtub/shower, walking
> on the street.

None of this is relevant to the bicycle helmet debate.

Some people accept the added risk inherent in not wearing a helmet, because
the risk of being involved in an accident where head injuries are involve
are small. Very few people deny the evidence that shows that helmeted riders
had less severe head injuries in crashes involving head injuries.