🚀 go-pugleaf

Graydon Patterson (gray@istar.ca) writes:
>> With increasing statistical
>> evidence that MHL's have failed everywhere they exist, a successful
>> Canadian charter of rights challenge is inevitable, sooner or
>> later. The reason for demonstrating no "helmet effect" on Canadian
>> fatalities [http://www.g;obalx.net/ocbc/fatals.html] was because these MHL's
>> are based on the lie that bicycle helmets are designed to save lives. A lie
>> that was liberally used by those who lobbied for MHL. 
> 
> I have read the study on alleged 'failure' of helmets in cycliung
> accidents, I question the methodology used in the study. Using pedestrian
> as a baseline might be approproate for comparing stats on pedestrian
> behaviour, it should not be used for a comparison on cycling.

You provide no explanation of that. Cyclists and pedestrians are very
comparable on the basis of both being vulnerable users, and neither
targetted for any particular injury reduction measures (bicycle helmets
excepted), as are applied, for example, to motor vehicle users - seat belt
use, impaired driving checks. 
 
> Did the number of pedestrians and cyclist remain the same in the study?

The Canadian population over the study period grew by 30% from 23m to 30m. 
Half of that growth in the last 10 years of the period covered. Last time I
heard virtually all, except the very youngest, of the population are
pedestrians part of their time. So there is a natural increase of pedestrians
which would mirror the population growth. Although estimates of cyclists
vary and are unreliable, there has been no particular rapid growth
in cycling during the past ten years. Any increase has likely also mirrored
the population growth, although helmet legislation has a counter effect. 
If you have contrary information, why didn't you post it?

> Has there been a change in exposre to risk to either group?

Has there been? What would you attribute it to?

> Has advances in medical science had any effect over these 20 odd years?

Huh? Which apply to one group and not the other?

> 
> I would suggest, first off, that cycling numbers have increased (greatly)
> in the last 10 years, 

Stop speculating. There's been no objective change which would cause this,
unlike an oil crisis. In fact, an objective change which has the
effect of depressing cycling, occurred in three provinces -  a helmet
law. All three cover 25% of Canada's total population. 

> therefore - the stats would indicate a decrease in
> cycling fatalities due to an increase in cycling numbers exposed to such
> hazards.

Therefore nonsense. You speculate on some false increase in cycling and
pretend that the number of pedestrians has remained constant despite a 30%
increase in population. For 23 years the trend lines are virtually
identical, and you again speculate that as helmet use increases some identical
offsetting factor is at work to hide reductions in cycling fatalities. 
Fatalities which haven't been detected in any other jurisdictions with
rapid increases in helmet use either.

As Dorre Robinson pointed out for Australia:
 
   "I looked at fatalities by helmet wearing in two States - Victoria and
NSW.  In Victoria, surveys showed approx 75% of cyclists were wearing
helmets.  So were 75% of fatally injured cyclists.  In NSW, surveys
showed roughly 80% wearing, and lo and behold, so were 80% of fatally
injured cyclists"

Same result - no helmet effect on fatality stats. 

You've been lied to, Graydon.

 > 
> -- 
> _______________________________
> Graydon Patterson * Ottawa * Canada
> gray@istar.ca * (613) 850-7170
> 
>          _--=0
>    __  /---\\
>   ___ ()    ()



--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario