Reply to Why are there no safety rules regarding children on bikes?

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Why are there no safety rules regarding children on bikes?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]
[b]There's no single thing we could do that's easier, cheaper and more effective in reducing head injuries than requiring cyclists to wear helmets. [/b]

And yet the bike lobby (while claiming safety is their priority) is like, "Wah, I don't want to wear a helmet." [/quote]

If you go back to this article, https://www.thewashcycle.com/2013/06/nhtsa-admits-helmet-effectiveness-claim-violates-data-quality-act.html , that claim is addressed:

[quote]
NHTSA did not, however, agree to our request that the agency either substantiate or remove the claim that “wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” NHTSA said that WABA had not met its burden of proof. Evidently, WABA and NHTSA disagree on whether NHTSA is required to provide at least one study showing its statement to be correct, before WABA would be required to show the statement to be wrong.

[/quote][/quote]
What do you think this “proves” exactly?[/quote]

NHTSA was unable to provide any proof for the statement on their website, "wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” Yet they continue to perpetuate this statement without evidence. [/quote]
Do you have an account of NHTSA saying they have no proof?[/quote]

They were asked to substantiate the claim and their response was that they felt they didn't have to. Why would they refuse to provide proof if they had it?[/quote]
I don’t think you understand how burden of proof works. It is the petitioner who has the burden to substantiate their claim and If this account from WABA is to be believed, NHTSA determined that WABA failed to do so. [/quote]

Under your interpretation the Data Quality Act has no meaning. If a statement is a complete fabrication, how do you show that it is unsupported by the science?[/quote]
What are you’re talking about. Data Quality Act?

Here’s the interaction.

NHTSA: helmets reduce brain injury.
WABA: you’re wrong.
NHTSA: say what, do you have any proof that we’re wrong?
WABA: no but what’s your proof that you’re right?
NHTSA: leave me alone morons. [/quote]

Read the article. The Data Quality Act is a federal law that  requires information on federal web sites to be accurate and supported by appropriate research. WABA complained that the bicycle helmet information on the NHTSA website did not comply with the DQA. In response to WABA's complaint, NHTSA agreed to remove statements that bicycle helmets prevent 85% of head injuries. They stopped short of removing the statement that helmets are single the most effective way of preventing head injuries, even though they could provide no evidence that the statement was supported by appropriate research, as the DQA requires. [/quote]
In all sincerity you don’t seem to understand how stuff works. [/quote]

I understand enough of the bureaucratic mindset to know that if NHTSA had had the evidence, they would have provided it. And that their reaction when they couldn't find the evidence was to say, "You can't make us."[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics