Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through



....stuff deleted
>> There's been an increase in red-light running and other reckless
>> behavior, plus a huge increase in the average vehicle size, all of
>> which make cycling more dangerous than before.
>
> Now's the time for you to post some evidence of both the increase in red
> light running, and the increased cycling danger.
>
....more deleted

Frank,

You very well know that there is little, if any, such data available.
Having driven in the 60's, however, I can definitely state that once the
majority of drivers attempted to stop for yellow lights, and now the
majority accellerate to enter the intersection before the light changes
from yellow to red. Watch intersections and count the number of folks
lock up their brakes to stop in time and the number will be zero. This
practice was not only common when I started driving, it was pretty much
the norm and you could observe it several times a day.

The overall affect of this on cycling safety is unclear, however. My
belief is that drivers today are much less tolerent, less capable, and
overall, less aware than those of today. This is, IMO, that the driver
today is severely overloaded by the amount of electronic equipment that
claims their attention.

Rick
 
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
> > BTW, if I remember
> > correctly, he used to post with the x-no-archive flag set...
>
> As usual, you're either remembering wrong or inventing things.

See
<http://www.google.com/groups?selm=355ca440.54640388%40news.gmd.de&output=gplain>
where Wolfgang Strobl said precisely that - that he used the
x-no-archive flag. I don't see why he'd lie about it given that he
was explaining to someone why a search of DejaNews (before Google
bought it) wouldn't work, and seemed to be trying to help that person
out.

> Bill, I'm continually astounded that you don't embarrass yourself to
> silence.

What you should be embarassed by, Krygowski, is your bald-faced lies
and baseless statements like the above when you really don't have
the facts and are too inept to check for yourself. All you had to
do was to search messages in rec.bicycles.soc whose author is Strobl
and with the phrase x-no-archive. It took a couple of minutes and
is not particularly difficult.

But, your behavior is typical of you, and that is precisely why I
have no respect for you - it is not an error on your part given
how often you do this sort of thing.

Oh, and one other thing - I posted it with the caveat "if I remembered
correctly." It meant what it said. Your statement about "inventing
things" is simply character assassination. You'd fit quite well
in Bush's election campaign - those bastards have the same ethics
you do.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >>If all these helmets are really doing what you believe, the benefits
> >>should be detectable.
> > There's been an increase in red-light running and other reckless
> > behavior, plus a huge increase in the average vehicle size, all of
> > which make cycling more dangerous than before.
>
> Ah. Interesting conjecture. But I see you've posted no evidence to
> support it - as usual.

Read the ****ing newspapers.

See <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/12/05/MNW14097.DTL>
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1996/12/31/NEWS8420.dtl>
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1996/09/12/MN74703.DTL>
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1996/09/11/MN57241.DTL>
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1995/11/14/EDITORIAL4921.dtl>

The last URL states

"I had worked in San Francisco since 1979, except for one year
in Colorado. I returned to The City in December 1994 and no
longer felt safe here.

"There were so many instances of red-light running. You could
see 50, 60 a day at Sutter and Kearny."

This is a well known problem. I shouldn't have to post "evidence"
for what you should know if you merely kept up with current events.

>
> Now's the time for you to post some evidence of both the increase in
> red light running, and the increased cycling danger.

See above, including the cyclist fatalities. Couple that change in
behavior with larger vehicles and the results are simply obvious
to anyone with half a brain.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 06:23:45 +0000, Bill Z. wrote:


>
>> Bill, I'm continually astounded that you don't embarrass yourself to
>> silence.
>
> What you should be embarassed by, Krygowski, is your bald-faced lies
> and baseless statements like the above when you really don't have
> the facts and are too inept to check for yourself. All you had to
> do was to search messages in rec.bicycles.soc whose author is Strobl
> and with the phrase x-no-archive. It took a couple of minutes and
> is not particularly difficult.
>
> But, your behavior is typical of you, and that is precisely why I
> have no respect for you - it is not an error on your part given
> how often you do this sort of thing.
>
> Oh, and one other thing - I posted it with the caveat "if I remembered
> correctly." It meant what it said. Your statement about "inventing
> things" is simply character assassination. You'd fit quite well
> in Bush's election campaign - those bastards have the same ethics
> you do.

Isn't it funny the way people who don't like a position (that mandatory
helmet laws are harmful and counterproductive) but can't find any facts
to back up their position, attack the person (messenger) instead?
Truth is absolute, and does not depend on the personal characteristics of
the person telling the truth. So if a person attacks me personally I
merely take that as evidence that he (no, it usually isn't a she) can't
find anything wrong with my statements.
What little we hear about the MHL here in NZ is usually against the law.
The pro-law people seem to have gone mute.

Peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.
 
Peter, you are wasting your time. As far as Zaumen is concerned there
are only two types of people in the world: people who agree with him,
and liars.

The former group contains, at last count, exactly one member: Zaumen
himself, and strangely, all the expertise seems to be among the
"liars." Bill has a real talent for unforced errors, gratuitous
ignorance, and arguig himself into a hole. The hole in question being
positioned - well, you can probably guess where ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:09:21 GMT, Chris Phillipo
<[email protected]> wrote:

>It's not a crime. You get a ticket, you don't go to jail.

Are you sure of that? Over here, the pro-speeding lobby love tom
claim that speeding is not a crime because you don't go to jail, but
they are flat wrong. The fact that the state prosecutes the offence
makes it a criminal matter, and it is heard in the criminal courts.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:57:50 -0500, "DT"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I think many parents and youth are simply unaware of the inherent dangers
>of sport and the benefits if wearing helmets as was the cace with
>seatbelts. The law will change all.

I think this is a crock of ****. If you look at the percentage of
head injuries in cyclists and pedestrians in NZ, and co-plot against
helemt wearing rates, it is absolutely plain that there is no
measurable effect. You can't guess from the chart which line is peds
and which cyclists.

In the USA, the cyclist head injury rate has risen by 40% in the last
ten years, as helmet use has increased threefold to 50%, with cyclist
numbers reducing by 21%.

As ever with road safety, what is "obvious" is wrong.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 15:25:06 GMT, Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening"
Zaumen wrote:

>Wolfgang is back, repeating the same things he's said for years.

Your house a bit short of mirrors, then, Bill?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:27:41 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>To the fellow who was thinking about fleeing to Canada from
>the horrors of Bush's low tax rates, you might want to think about
>this proposed law.

LOL! One of your better ones, Ken :)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 21:46:23 -0500, "Michael"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm undecided. People who don't wear helmets are stupid plain as day.

If I had a dollar for every helmet zealot who has made this ridiculous
assertion, I could afford to offset the huge amounts the helmet lobby
spend on supporting Handwringers Anonymous to make the claims that the
helmet makers cannot make for legal reasons (the legal reason being:
the claims are ********).

>lemme tell you a small story....

Oh look, a "helmet saved my life" anecdote. Never seen one of those
before, have we?

Since helmets are so effective you will doubtlesss be able to explain
the well-documented 40% increase in cyclist head injury rates in the
USA as helmet use rose from 18% to 50% and cycling dropped by 21%.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
Bill Z. wrote:

> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>

"Krygowski is trying to cover up the fact that Wolfgang has as much of
an anti-helmet agenda as Krygowski does. BTW, if I remember
correctly, he used to post with the x-no-archive flag set, I presume
because he was posting from work, so don't expect to find his
rants on the subject in the archives."

[fk:]

>>As usual, you're either remembering wrong or inventing things.
>
>
> See
> <http://www.google.com/groups?selm=355ca440.54640388%40news.gmd.de&output=gplain>
> where Wolfgang Strobl said precisely that - that he used the
> x-no-archive flag. I don't see why he'd lie about it given that he
> was explaining to someone why a search of DejaNews (before Google
> bought it) wouldn't work, and seemed to be trying to help that person
> out.
>
>

My apologies. In the paragraph with the quotes above, I thought the "no
archive" thing was talking about me. The antecedent of "he" wasn't at
all clear. I knew _I_ had never disabled archiving.


> What you should be embarassed by, Krygowski, is your bald-faced lies
> and baseless statements like the above when you really don't have
> the facts and are too inept to check for yourself. All you had to
> do was to search messages in rec.bicycles.soc whose author is Strobl
> and with the phrase x-no-archive. It took a couple of minutes and
> is not particularly difficult.
>
> But, your behavior is typical of you, and that is precisely why I
> have no respect for you - it is not an error on your part given
> how often you do this sort of thing.

Looks to me like the error was in sentence structure. But no matter.
As always, it's fun reading your posts, Bill. ;-)


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
 
"AustinMN" <[email protected]> writes:

> There are no X characters in my address

Indeed there are none.

Dragan

--
Dragan Cvetkovic,

To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer

!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
 
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:05:39 GMT, Chris Phillipo
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> >It's not a crime. You get a ticket, you don't go to jail.

>> Are you sure of that? Over here, the pro-speeding lobby love tom
>> claim that speeding is not a crime because you don't go to jail, but
>> they are flat wrong. The fact that the state prosecutes the offence
>> makes it a criminal matter, and it is heard in the criminal courts.

>Speeding is public endangerment with a deadly weapon. Please keep your
>posts on topic if at all possible.

Very droll. So, are you sure of that? Because the proposed law over
here would have been criminal law, and existing traffic laws (example
above) are criminal law.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:06:59 GMT, Chris Phillipo

>> >To the fellow who was thinking about fleeing to Canada from
>> >the horrors of Bush's low tax rates, you might want to think about
>> >this proposed law.

>> LOL! One of your better ones, Ken :)

>Hmm, be forced to wear a helmet while cycling of be forced to fight in
>Iraq if you left the armed forces in the last 10 years. Tough choice.

Exactly. That was a quality post from our Ken, nicely satirising the
helmet wars and the OT flamewars all in one sentence.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:03:38 GMT, Chris Phillipo
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The helmet lobby? Do they fly black helicopters? I bet those
>hypocritical bastards don't even wear helmets while doing it!

What point are you trying to make here?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:02:32 GMT, Chris Phillipo
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Very droll. So, are you sure of that? Because the proposed law over
>> here would have been criminal law, and existing traffic laws (example
>> above) are criminal law.

>I said no one is going to jail for not wearing a helmet and I stand by
>that. Show me proof to the contrary.

No, what you actually said was that because no-one is going to jail,
it is not a crime. That does not follow. I am asking: are you sure
that the helmet law is outside the criminal code? Because the law
proposed in the UK< and to the best of my knowledge the laws in Aus
and NZ, are criminal law. This is actually a completely straight
question.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:03:56 GMT, Chris Phillipo
<[email protected]> wrote:


>> >The helmet lobby? Do they fly black helicopters? I bet those
>> >hypocritical bastards don't even wear helmets while doing it!

>> What point are you trying to make here?

>That the helmet lobby in Canada is a figment of someone's overactive
>imagination.

The helmet lobby exists. It is indisputable. People are out there
lobbying for helmet laws, and that is why you have this bill in
progress. There are people all over the world lobbying for helmet
laws.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
Chris Phillipo wrote:

>
>
> I said no one is going to jail for not wearing a helmet and I stand by
> that. Show me proof to the contrary.

FWIW, in Australia there _have_ been instances of people going to jail
for repeatedly violating mandatory helmet laws. Those people were
minority folks or poor folks.

I can't say the same would happen in Canada, of course. But it has
happened.


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
 
Bill Z. wrote:

> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If all these helmets are really doing what you believe, the benefits
>>>>should be detectable.
>>>
>>>There's been an increase in red-light running and other reckless
>>>behavior, plus a huge increase in the average vehicle size, all of
>>>which make cycling more dangerous than before.
>>
>>Ah. Interesting conjecture. But I see you've posted no evidence to
>>support it - as usual.
>
>
> Read the ****ing newspapers.

:) Wipe the froth off your mouth and keyboard, Bill. You're losing
control yet again!

>
> See <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/12/05/MNW14097.DTL>
> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1996/12/31/NEWS8420.dtl>
> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1996/09/12/MN74703.DTL>
> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1996/09/11/MN57241.DTL>
> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1995/11/14/EDITORIAL4921.dtl>

Thanks - but what you've given there isn't much in the way of data. In
particular, you haven't proved that bicycling's gotten more dangerous.
Given that the red light cameras are catching these people, it's
entirely plausible that things are _safer_ for cycling. Yes, I know
there were people who said they felt walking was more dangerous - but
really, I was hoping for _data_, not uncorroborated opinions!

>>Now's the time for you to post some evidence of both the increase in
>>red light running, and the increased cycling danger.
>
>
> See above, including the cyclist fatalities. Couple that change in
> behavior with larger vehicles and the results are simply obvious
> to anyone with half a brain.

Actually, the sites you referenced talked about just one cyclist
fatality and _three_ gravely injured pedestrians - at least one of which
was a head injury. It wasn't clear if they were fatalities or not.

If a person were to take your contribution seriously, it seems they'd
get going promoting helmets for pedestrians, no?

Is that your next mission?



In any case, your idea is that helmets are helping safety, but the help
is undetectable because it's being offset by an even greater increase in
cyclist danger. So far, you've provided no data, only newspaper stories
from 8 or 9 years ago.

Got data?


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
 
Bill Z. wrote:

> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If all these helmets are really doing what you believe, the benefits
>>>>should be detectable.
>>>
>>>There's been an increase in red-light running and other reckless
>>>behavior, plus a huge increase in the average vehicle size, all of
>>>which make cycling more dangerous than before.
>>
>>Ah. Interesting conjecture. But I see you've posted no evidence to
>>support it - as usual.
>
>
> Read the ****ing newspapers.

:) Wipe the froth off your mouth and keyboard, Bill. You're losing
control yet again!

>
> See <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/12/05/MNW14097.DTL>
> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1996/12/31/NEWS8420.dtl>
> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1996/09/12/MN74703.DTL>
> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1996/09/11/MN57241.DTL>
> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1995/11/14/EDITORIAL4921.dtl>

Thanks - but what you've given there isn't much in the way of data. In
particular, you haven't proved that bicycling's gotten more dangerous.
Given that the red light cameras are catching these people, it's
entirely plausible that things are _safer_ for cycling. Yes, I know
there were people who said they felt walking was more dangerous - but
really, I was hoping for _data_, not uncorroborated opinions!

>>Now's the time for you to post some evidence of both the increase in
>>red light running, and the increased cycling danger.
>
>
> See above, including the cyclist fatalities. Couple that change in
> behavior with larger vehicles and the results are simply obvious
> to anyone with half a brain.

Actually, the sites you referenced talked about just one cyclist
fatality and _three_ gravely injured pedestrians - at least one of which
was a head injury. It wasn't clear if they were fatalities or not.

If a person were to take your contribution seriously, it seems they'd
get going promoting helmets for pedestrians, no?

Is that your next mission?



In any case, your idea is that helmets are helping safety, but the help
is undetectable because it's being offset by an even greater increase in
cyclist danger. So far, you've provided no data, only newspaper stories
from 8 or 9 years ago.

Got data?


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back