#111
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
!Jones wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:38:50 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech Peter Grange wrote: I have absolutely no problem with personal choice, and taking the consequences with that choice. There is however no credible evidence that wearing a helmet will afford me any protection in a motor vehicle accident, so saying I take some responsibility for my injuries if I'm not wearing one is just plain nonsense. Oh, there is a wealth of correlational evidence that helmets do, in fact, afford protection. The fact that *experimental* studies cannot be done doesn't mean that there's no evidence. Thompson, et.al. was credible evidence... they just tried to go too far and claimed causality, leading some to dismiss the entire study. Has it ever been proven that smoking causes health problems. (Hint: NO.) It there credible evidence that smoking is linked to health problems? You have a very similar issue here. It's none of my business whether or not you wear a helmet until you expect me to assume liability for your head. If you're willing to shoulder your own risk, then go (helmetless) in peace. I hope you wear a helmet when walking, gardening, bathing, climbing stairs and riding in motorized transport, where the risk of head injury is more severe than cycling, if you expect your insurance to cover head injuries without inflating the rates of others. -- Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 The right to arm bears does not make armed bears right.- Anon. |
Ads |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
!Jones wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:15:18 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre Jute wrote: Not that I'm not making a case for or against helmets -- I've long since decided that's a religious matter best left to private conscience -- but that I'm discussion the methodology of this ongoing and unnecessarily heated polemic, the balance of argument and proof in it. Well, last Thursday, while under sharp acceleration on a new tandem, we suffered a structural failure. We did not have time to repent. We both augured into the pavement; my wife (60 years old) hit her head hard on the left temple. Her helmet absorbed the impact, breaking as it was designed to do. Nope, that is not how a helmet is designed to function. If the helmet does NOT remain otherwise intact during foam compression, it has failed to absorb much energy. She was knocked unconscious for a couple of minutes; however, she suffered no head injury. The fractured helmet merely worked as a bump and scrap protector. A heavy wool stocking cap would have done the same. I simply care not about a study... that helmet saved her life; I was there; I saw it happen. False conclusion - the broken helmet absorbed relatively little energy. And (glory hallelujah) I'm converted. Everyone else is going to hell. (AMEN!) We're already there. -- Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 The right to arm bears does not make armed bears right.- Anon. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
On 14 July, 04:04, !Jones wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:39:45 GMT, in rec.bicycles.tech Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote: So let me see if I understand: if I shoot you and you're not wearing a bullet-proof vest, at least some of the liability is yours? If I'm strolling downrange where bullets are common, then, yes. *If you commit a crime, then we're talking about something different. Golly, y'all really *do* "froth at the mouth", don't you? Lemme sum up: I doubt that some "judge in the UK" ruled contributary negligence. *I don't think we're there yet; however, I believe in the idea. *The problem is that judges are usually lawyers and no lawyer will act against the best interests of the Bar in general. *Such a ruling would reduce motorists' liability and promote the idea of personal responsibility. *If it does happen, it will signal a sea change in many more areas than bicycle helmets, I say. Jones I remember this. These are my words. It went something like: It has to be shown (in court) that wearing of an approved helmet would have reduced injury for this event and the cyclist was contributary to the event. An award would be reduced according to degree of responsibility placed on cyclist and the proven reduction in injury. No such case has had this reduction applied. The defendant would have to establish the cyclist's hand in his injuries. The defendant has to show a reduction in injury was certain. The costs incurred to prove injury reduction (if a helmet had been worn) in each case would likely outweigh any savings unless the cyclist was almost completely responsible for the incident which led to his injuries. Remember that for the minor injuries a helmet could be 'proved' to reduce, the larger award for shock would remain unaffected and totally dwarf the reduction. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:04:35 -0500, !Jones wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:39:45 GMT, in rec.bicycles.tech Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote: So let me see if I understand: if I shoot you and you're not wearing a bullet-proof vest, at least some of the liability is yours? If I'm strolling downrange where bullets are common, then, yes. If you commit a crime, then we're talking about something different. I note you didn't answer any of my other questions about similar scenarios involving accidents while walking, or being in a car. Here they are again (it's your perogative to ignore them, but they do seem to poke holes in your absurd theory....): What about if I'm driving a car and hit you when you're walking on the sidewalk? That happens all the time -- is some of the liability for the injury yours? What if I'm driving and you're sitting in the back seat of a car and injure your head? Should you have been wearing a helmet? What if you're in a car that doesn't have side curtain airbags and I hit your car with mine, from the side? Is some of the liability yours? |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:06:43 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tom Sherman
°_° wrote: I simply care not about a study... that helmet saved her life; I was there; I saw it happen. False conclusion - the broken helmet absorbed relatively little energy. You may believe as your prejudices dictate. It is not important to me to convert you to my beliefs. You weren't there; I was. I'll leave it at that. Jones |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:43:46 GMT, in rec.bicycles.tech Johnny
Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote: I note you didn't answer any of my other questions... Excuse me, sir. Please explain to me exactly how the fact that you spew a string of silly-assed questions onto Usenet places me under some kind of an obligation to provide you with answers. You address that question, then we'll consider yours. Jones |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:13:00 -0500, !Jones wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:43:46 GMT, in rec.bicycles.tech Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote: I note you didn't answer any of my other questions... Excuse me, sir. Please explain to me exactly how the fact that you spew a string of silly-assed questions onto Usenet places me under some kind of an obligation to provide you with answers. You address that question, then we'll consider yours. Nice dodge attempt. You're under no "obligation" to answer my question, but if you can't answer my questions it surely undercuts your earlier assertion. My questions are for analogous situations to the one in which you claim a person not wearing a helmet on a bike is somehow partially liable to damages he/she gets simply due to the fact that he/she is not wearing a helmet. If your claim is true, it should hold up in similar situations involving other types of activities and injuries. So here are the questions for you again: What about if I'm driving a car and hit you when you're walking on the sidewalk? That happens all the time -- is some of the liability for the injury yours? What if I'm driving and you're sitting in the back seat of a car and injure your head? Should you have been wearing a helmet? What if you're in a car that doesn't have side curtain airbags and I hit your car with mine, from the side? Is some of the liability yours? |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:13:00 -0500, !Jones wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:43:46 GMT, in rec.bicycles.tech Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote: I note you didn't answer any of my other questions... Excuse me, sir. Please explain to me exactly how the fact that you spew a string of silly-assed questions onto Usenet places me under some kind of an obligation to provide you with answers. You address that question, then we'll consider yours. PS -- I really have to laugh when someone conspicuously avoids a very simple and relevant question that points up their dopiness. Hahahahahahah Thanks for the chuckle. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:20:43 GMT, in rec.bicycles.tech Johnny
Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote: Excuse me, sir. Please explain to me exactly how the fact that you spew a string of silly-assed questions onto Usenet places me under some kind of an obligation to provide you with answers. You address that question, then we'll consider yours. Nice dodge attempt. No, I put a lot of thought and effort into my writing. I have seen *that* lame scam run all over Usenet... the person spews forth a long string of brainless questions, then stridently demands answers to all of them. If I attempt to answer them, all that will follow are more brainless questions. It is my position that we (meaning: in the US) tend not to accept responsibility for our own actions. If I smoke and the result is poor health (and it has never been proven that I have contributed in any way to that), then I want the tobacco companies to compensate me. It can be argued that, even though no experimental studies exist that prove smoking causes health problems, common sense would say that I knowingly contributed to my own issues. That would be my analogy... and quite a bit better than your shrieking about guns and bullet-proof vests, etc, IMO. I'm not going to try to make you wear a helmet; however, I reserve "I told you so" rights, OK? Jones |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
On Jul 13, 8:16*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jul 13, 6:35*pm, Jay Beattie wrote: On Jul 13, 2:39*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Jul 13, 12:56*pm, Jay Beattie wrote: Ah, there is the problem! *With eggs in corrugated boxes, you get serious egg risk-compensation. * OK, Jay, you've been harping on risk compensation. 1) *Does this mean you don't believe such a thing exists? 2) *Have you read the book _Risk_ by John Adams? I'm sure it exists. If that's the case, you might stop mocking the concept. *And read that book. *There's much to learn. *More than you seem to think. I'm not mocking the concept. I don't think it has anything to do with the behavior of ordinary cyclists who are hit by cars or who encounter routine hazards. *My ski bindings, bicycle brakes, studded bike (and car) tires, HID lights -- -- they all result in risk compensation. Would I not use them? *No. *I just have to know they have limits, which I do. *Same goes with my helmet. I think this is a major part of the problem: *Helmet promoters have done all they can to tell the public that the same does NOT go for bike helmets. *Or rather, to minimize their colossal limitations. That's the very reason for that most frequent claim, that bike helmets "reduce head injuries by [up to] 85%." *They recognize that most people hear that and think "Almost 100%!" Again, during my state's first attempt at a MHL, the local helmet queen said "Frank! *85%! *It's so simple!!" *It took me a year to convince her that there was anything more to bicycle safety. Who is talking MHLs? I never heard the 85% number until I read the Thompson study in connection with a case I was defending. The notion that ordinary cyclists rely on these statistics is unfounded. Also, my accident-related head injuries have not occurred while I was taking risks, unless you consider riding home on a rutted road in the dark with bright headlights an unreasonable risk or falling on ice or getting hit by a car that violated my right of way. *I don't think that most head injuries occur on a bike during risky activity unless, again, you think that riding on a city street is risky. sigh *And the same can be said for head injuries incurred during walking, unless you consider using a crosswalk is risky. *Ditto for motoring, unless you consider driving on city streets risky. *Or walking around the house, unless you consider rugs and stairs risky... and so on. Here's that pie chart of causes of head injuries, once again.http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/tbi/Causes.htm And remember that for fatalities (which are used for most helmet promotion, it seems) cycling is an even smaller percentage of the total. Now why is it that people advocate helmets (almost) only for bicycling? *Why is it that bicycling gets all the "Danger! Danger! THIS is what COULD happen!!!" treatment? *Again, there's no particular "per-hour" justification. *There's no particular "cost to society" justification. *From what I've been able to tell, after much digging, there's merely lots of sophisticated salesmanship plus even more gullibility. You keep missing the point: personal risk factors justify helmet use by many cyclists, including me. You want every decision to turn on population studies, which is fine for making public health decisions but not for many personal decisions. But when confronted with personal risk, you then call it "risk compensation" or claim that people are acting unreasonably if they "need" a helmet. I was not taking any unusual risks at any time I struck my head. I fear other injuries too much to take unreasonable risks at my age. I was on MtHood last week picking up my son from mogul camp, and I talked to a mother whose young daughter (former national GS champ) went off in to the rocks on Palmer and avoided more serious injury because she had a race helmet and CF shin guards (both were perforated by the rocks). I suppose I could have told her that summer skiing is really risky and that her daughter should quit -- or that she shouldn't wear a helmet because it makes her ski in to the rocks, or something like that. You mean you might tell her that her daughter should not slide down a mountain at high speed with no brakes when there's a good chance that she'll run out of clean snow and into a pile of rocks? *Gosh, why would anybody even think such a thing? You just wiped out the whole downhill bicycle racing scene. I will inform them all to stay home then next time I see them and to quit taking risks. Also, I am very equivocal on the use of helmets in skiing because most accidents do not involve striking objects -- unless you are skiing a lot of trees or during the summer, when there are rocks. Ski helmets are also heavier than bike helmets, and whip lash type injuries are common. But for racers, tree skiers, park skiers (with rails, tables, etc.) -- I think helmets are a good idea. -- Jay Beattie. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unicycling extended my lifeline! | SkierAlex | Unicycling | 4 | June 2nd 08 05:53 PM |
Unicycling extended my lifeline! | uniaddict | Unicycling | 0 | June 2nd 08 07:24 AM |
Unicycling extended my lifeline! | nimblelight | Unicycling | 0 | June 1st 08 11:05 PM |
hyper-extended themb | mornish | Unicycling | 17 | June 24th 06 06:43 AM |
Extended Cloak of Invisibility | Danny Colyer | UK | 7 | December 14th 03 11:30 PM |