🚀 go-pugleaf

Carl Riehm (riehm@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA) writes:
>In article <6d44mm$mdc$1@nnrp2.dejanews.com:,
> <tkunich@diabloresearch.com: wrote:
>:In article <6d1akj$h7q@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>,
>:  riehm@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (Carl Riehm) wrote:
>:>
>:> In article <MPG.f5cd9cf442541539896a8@news.ea.com>,
>:> Darren Stone <dstone@ea.removethis.com> wrote:
>:> >
>:> >2.  If you suffer a head injury on a bicycle, statistically, you have a
>:> >25% chance of dying from it.  (Robinson, D.  An Assessment of the
>:> >Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Law in Australia.)  Motorists have fully a 19%
>:>
......
>:> desired conclusions on the part of the writer), I just don't believe it.
>:> The conclusions in this report defy common sense. And the reasoning is
>:> questionable at best.
>:
>:I'd be intersted in knowing why you say that Carl. While I think that
>:what was meant was "serious" head injuries (and I expect serious to mean
>:that hospital admitance was necessary) I would think that simply looking
>:at hospital admitances for head injuries in a bicycle accident and
>:the number of those leading to death would pretty much be a cut and
>:dried statistic. What would methodology have to do with that?
>:
>o
>Nothing of course. I was not disputing that particular point. 

No you just said the conclusions in this report defy common sense 
and the reasoning is questionable at best. 

>I regret getting
>drawn into this discussion, since the argument has already descended into
>a personal attack (not by you but by someone else who does this regularly). 

What do you expect when you atttack the findings of a respected expert even
though you admit you haven't read her report? You also had the gall to flash your 
teaching credentials as though that should allow your assinine comments to be
treated with some sanctity.

>As far as that particular point is concerned, one has to take into account the
>number of head accidents which occur per capita and per mile travelled, to 
>come to some sort of useful conclusion. Perhaps one should also point out
>that in many jurisdictions, strong steps (laws regarding seat and shoulder
>belts and airbags) have been taken which help to lessen the severity and 
>number of head injuries as well as other kinds of injuries.  And of course 
>these measures engender the same kind of resistance from a lot of people as 
>do helmet laws.

Yeh, it's called having an aversion to the nanny state. Why do you think
bureaucrats know better than citizens what's good for their personal safety?
They certainly don't know better than I do on how to protect myself when
riding a bicycle. 

 >I also think that the conclusion drawn re the long term health effects of 
>wearing or not wearing helmets (the tradeoff between head injuries and 
>lack of exercise resulting from avoiding cycling because of helmet laws) 
>is superficial.   
>For example, do some of those who abandon cycling because
>of helmet laws take up some other form of exercise, perhaps in some cases
>an even more healthful form?

So you say it's superficial but you don't know the answer to your own question. 
What kind of crackpot are you?

>It is possible that Robinson's study takes these factors into account, but 
>nothing I have read in this newsgroup now or during earlier discussions leads
>me to think that it has. I would be very glad to get a copy of it if someone
>has one.

Do you know how to use library services? Go get it yourself. The report 
is probably Robinson, D.L., Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet Laws, 1996, 
Accident Analysis Prevention, vol 28, pp463 - 475 (although since the title 
previously quoted is different it is possible Dorothy Robinson has since had 
something else published).
 
--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario