Who do you think I've been addressing? Read my posts, and see who I'm speaking to. Have I at anytime tried to sell the notion that those who wear helmets shouldn't.

I think the moderates can think for themselves and read my posts at face value. In any case, I'm not trying to convince anyone to change his views, I'm simply advocating the agnostic view, and giving moral support to those who don't wear helmets, while appealing to the moderates to understand that we don't want to be proselytized at every opportunity.

My position on helmets is and has always been very simple. Do what you want, and leave those who think differently alone.

Um, what about all the white stuff? Surprisingly, there actually _is_ a little bit of world beyond what your graph shows...

Also, what about all that stuff in the fourth dimension? Look at the time progression of these laws.

....paranoia. Even paranoids have enemies. #too_much_crazy

I did, actually, around 2013-12-08 or -09.

Summary: there's little doubt that helmet laws kill people, and it's probably not much of a stretch to claim that peer pressure behaves similarly to law (this is my hypothesis, as yet unproven, but do you have good reason to doubt it?). Therefore it's reasonable to conclude that wearing a helmet (creating a fertile environment for peer pressure by adding obviously pro-helmet peers) may kill people. The effect will be small, and in the USA the First Amendment should come into play, but the mechanism is very plausible.

Further study might be wise. The effect is probably small enough as to make it a non-urgent concern. Much more critical to, for example, evaluate the safety benefits of helmet use in cars, where the effect could easily be huge (due to vastly higher exposure; the possibility of heavier, sweatier, but more effective helmets; better control of impact angles; and of course the possibility of reducing driving, which is immensely helpful to almost every living thing, but most especially to the human involved).

????

What about it?

Most of the people here are from the US. They will tend to have a better idea of what the activity level of "bicycle advocacy" is in the US than in other parts of the world.

3alarmer was contributing to the dicussion as to whether there is a positive correlation between "bicycle advocacy" and "mandatory helmet laws"). It doesn't seem you are following the discussion. Regardless, if you have actual information about the rest of the world, people might be interested in seeing it. But it appears you have no information at all.

What about it? What deep observation about it are you keeping secret?

.........it's doubtleth a vatht conthpirathy. I think you ought to Google a definition of viable. #too_much_crazy

See, e.g., http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1249.html

Ah, ok, fair enough. I was just allowing myself to become annoyed by what appeared to be USAians' pervasive tendency to refuse to learn anything from beyond their borders, but I see now that it's at least a little justified here.

Sorry, no, I wasn't. But I read 3alarmer's post as also making a claim about progress:

How are helmet laws changing over time? "Here's a snapshot of a part of a system, and it proves that nothing's happening" is wrong. You want a time-derivative in order to make a claim like that.

:rolleyes: The heap of assumptions that "study" (which I've seen before) is based on make the "doubt" significantly larger than "little".

And no one here is arguing for helmet laws!!!!

That was careless. You should spend more time paying attention than becoming "annoyed".

It's also amusing that you are keeping where you are from secret.

No, he was showing support against the notion that "bicycle advocates" are pushing MHL. Given the context, it should be clear that he's talking about "helmet-wearing bicycle advocates". (Keep in mind that "helmet proponents" might not be helmet wearers: they might not cycle at all).

... I read your link. It is very interesting. I cannot find the linked studies which predict the
decrease in bicycle ridership due to mandatory helment laws, even though i'm certain they
must be there. Otherwise, why propose such an equation at all ?

So if you would be so kind as to point them out for me I would be very appreciative.


I know that science is very often used in the prediction of outcomes, and even though
it's not what I've done for a living, I'm reasonably good at reading the literature, and
I'm very curious as to the quality of studies that can predict a long term ridership decrease
because of helments. It seems like it would be hard to quantify and difficult to assess.

There were a few studies by D. L. Robinson in Australia (in NSW particularly, where there is a helmet law) that indicated a correlation to a reduced level of cycling. I suspect that this study was done by people associated with her.

Anyway, there are all sorts of potential issues with the linked-to study (especially, as establishing "little doubt that helmet laws kill people").

* The assumption that a large number of "avid" cyclists (who might derive most of the health benefits) would be discouraged from cycling by a helmet law is weak.

* The assumption that casual cyclists (who might be much more likely to be discouraged) obtain a significant health benefit from the limit cycling they do is also weak.

* Of course, it's also possible that reduction in cycling might recover once people got used to the law. (There was a "study" in Canada that indicated that a helmet law did not have an effect on cycling).

(One could still find discouraging cycling to be bad regardless of any imagined "health benefit".)

But, since no one here is advocating for helmet laws, it's strange that people keep assuming that they are! Such people might be assuming that evidence against helmet laws specifically is also evidence against helmets generally (but that, too, would be weak). Then, again, it might be just incontinence (an inability to keep from railing against helmet laws).

In 274 pages of posts, not one mind has changed. Maybe in another 274 pages of posts. Time well spent!

...not true at all. My opinion has been completely rewritten with regard to the levels of crazy that can be achieved here.http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...otallthere.gif

Actually, several folks have claimed that this thread helped moderate their opinions of helmet use. I don't know if that qualifies for having a mind "changed", but I do believe it worthwhile, at any rate.

Of course, occasionally the conversation gets dominated by some nutcase from one side of the debate or the other (as has happened over the last few pages) which does indeed make the conversation worse than pointless. But nutcases tend to have short attention spans...

False.

Mconlonx changed/modufied his position. I suspect that a few more (at least) have shifted from the "organ donor " stuff.

...I think you'll find that many of the insane actually have very long attention spans,
and depending on their particular psychosis, can have very elaborate and long lasting
fantasies..........so do the math, amigo.

**********

Keep in mind the context of that "quote".

Some of the people "yelling" (who you are complaining about here/elsewhere) call people not wearing helmets "organ donors".

You might be a bit of a tyro with respect to this thread (and its predecessors) if the "organ donor" name-calling stuff is unfamiliar to you.

Leading by example is indeed effective, so thanks for that, I guess.

Njkayaker gave a semi-coherent response, but the belligerence clouds it a bit, as usual. Short version is that some of the really hard-core helmeteers - guys that were given to yelling "organ donor!!!" at anyone who questioned the helmeteer agenda - have discovered via the helmet thread that helmets are not necessarily protective against all foreseeable bodily harm.

But the original reference to folks having shifted from organ donor stuff, wasn't clear whether you were referring to folks here who call the unhelmeted organ donors, or to folks who complain here about organ donor references while on the road.

In the morning, I am going to learn how hard it is to get rye whiskey out of my keyboard. I may be sending you a bill.

That's a question I can answer.

And, "folks who complain here about organ donor references" have zero chance of changing their minds (which means it is very unlikely that that's what I meant). That is, it's pretty odd to think that a "anti-helmet" person would shiift to calling people who didn't wear helmets "organ donors".

It should have not been that hard to figure-out what I meant.

You are adding the "belligerence" you think is there.

Well, all I know about you is what I read online. You almost certainly will disregard that, but I suppose there is the miniscule chance that you will think about it.

You are imagining the belligerence. You are the one calling people names. It's actually your problem. You clearly didn't think about that.

.
.
....anyone trying to get my organs will find out just how belligerent I can be.http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...images/taz.gif

That's about the quality of response I expected. C'est la vie.

BTW, there are a number of ways to call people names - and you've figured most of them out. So your complaints about "ad hominem" are disingenuous at best, and everyone here knows it.