#21
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet ******s
"Tom Kunich" wrote in message
link.net... Let's be sure to note that I for one have been at the scene of several of what looked to be rather minor car racing accidents in which the occupant/driver died despite seat belts, helmets and whatever else. True enough, but the fatality rate in auto racing has come down significantly since the widespread acceptance of mandatory safety equipment regulations. That fact is indisputable. I'm not arguing that mandatory anything is correct..personally, I think nanny laws suck. If you're over 18, you can do anything you want to yourself as far as I'm concerned. Helmetless since birth, Scott.. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet ******s
In aus.bicycle on Thu, 05 Feb 2004 00:52:12 +0000
Dave Kahn wrote: Similarly people sometimes drown when they go swimming - even good experienced swimmers. Those lives could be saved if every swimmer wore water wings. Inconvenient? Yes. But surely worth it if just one life is saved. I presume all those who advocate helmets to save just one life wear them when driving cars and insist all passengers wear them? Just one life and all that. Zebee -- Zebee Johnstone ), proud holder of aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1. "Motorcycles are like peanuts... who can stop at just one?" |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet ******s
"Tom Kunich" wrote:
Only a few guys in the world of Usenet could state the case against helmets with such clarity. What's weird about this thread is that every time Mr. K and I and ridden together, he's been wearing a helmet. I'll put the question out the Tom, is your default riding mode "Helmet" or "No Helmet"? Chris Neary "Science, freedom, beauty, adventu what more could you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet ******s
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message ... In article , John Doe wrote: If that one life could have been saved by a helmet then it is worth it. What value are you placing on looking cool? And if the cost of saving that one life is two people who died because they were wearing helmets (and wouldn't have done if they weren't), then is it still a good idea to make them mandatory? The point is that we really don't know whether they increase or reduce injury, and the evidence points in both directions. Why do you claim Divine Enlightenment to know what the truth is? Regards, Nick Maclaren. Hmm Think I was saying how it is in this country not what I believe is the correct approach. Was not expressing an opinion due to the form of debate it takes on with such learned folk as yourself. You end up with a tis snot tis snow type of school argument that I am not interested in. I do not have the research behind me to make such an informed decision so I am at the mercy of people I have intrusted with such. This is one of those debates that cannot be won with anecdotal guessing. Once again. I do not have an opinion apart from the fact that I have to trust the opinions of people that are given the job of deciding these things based on their careful study. Rightly or wrongly it is the best I can hope for. However I will not trust the John Does (like myself) on Usenet to make up my mind. I do not have the time to research this to the full extent that it requires for me to make my own personal decision as I already have a job that consumes most of my time and my family the other. This debate comes up every few months and ends up being long heated and full of half truths till it dies a natural death of boredom. regards Peter |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet ******s
"John Doe" wrote in message
... "Nick Maclaren" wrote in message ... In article , John Doe wrote: If that one life could have been saved by a helmet then it is worth it. What value are you placing on looking cool? And if the cost of saving that one life is two people who died because they were wearing helmets (and wouldn't have done if they weren't), then is it still a good idea to make them mandatory? The point is that we really don't know whether they increase or reduce injury, and the evidence points in both directions. Why do you claim Divine Enlightenment to know what the truth is? Regards, Nick Maclaren. Hmm Think I was saying how it is in this country not what I believe is the correct approach. Was not expressing an opinion due to the form of debate it takes on with such learned folk as yourself. You end up with a tis snot tis snow type of school argument that I am not interested in. I do not have the research behind me to make such an informed decision so I am at the mercy of people I have intrusted with such. This is one of those debates that cannot be won with anecdotal guessing. Once again. I do not have an opinion apart from the fact that I have to trust the opinions of people that are given the job of deciding these things based on their careful study. Rightly or wrongly it is the best I can hope for. However I will not trust the John Does (like myself) on Usenet to make up my mind. I do not have the time to research this to the full extent that it requires for me to make my own personal decision as I already have a job that consumes most of my time and my family the other. This debate comes up every few months and ends up being long heated and full of half truths till it dies a natural death of boredom. I would agree with you save the fact that they obvoiusly didn't study the available data and strangely enough chose bicyclists as their targets when they could have gotten a four fold improvement (if they believe helmets work) by making them mandatory for those walking near traffic. Government by the Nanny and for the Nanny isn't going to work for anyone but Nanny. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet ******s
snip
If you ride a bicycle for long enough, well, statistically, you're going to take falls, and take a bad fall sometime or other. If you don't think so, you are either or both of a) lucky b) a fool. There is no inevitability about it. snip A bicycle helmet (probably) didn't save my life, nor did it stop me from getting smashed and ripped up really badly, which generally happens when you hit the asphalt at 60 kph. But it did mean I can still walk, talk, ride a bicycle. Or not. Maybe it was your Mk. 1 Skull which did the job. Given the fact that people have been bashing their heads for tens of thousands of years, in evolutionary terms, wouldn't that be more like "Skull Version 26.9" ? C.Q.C. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet ******s
S. Anderson wrote in message
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message ... Amazingly, when the UK introduced sealt belt legislation - driver fatalities stayed the same! But there was a substantial rise in pedestrian, cyclist and rear-seat passenger fatalities. Can you cite the data for this declaration? I'd be interested to see this. The laws of physics are the same in the UK as they are here and I simply don't believe a word of it. BTW, when Victoria first introduced compulsory seatbelt usage not only did the number of fatalities drop significantly but the number of spinal injuries dropped 75% in the first year. -- A: Top-posters. Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet ******s
S. Anderson wrote in message
[...] True enough, but the fatality rate in auto racing has come down significantly since the widespread acceptance of mandatory safety equipment regulations. That fact is indisputable. I'm not arguing that mandatory anything is correct..personally, I think nanny laws suck. If you're over 18, you can do anything you want to yourself as far as I'm concerned. If you lived alone on an island you could get away with that sort of naivette but you don't. What you do impacts on the rest of us in a variety of ways and there's no getting around that fact. You live in a community and you should think communally. -- A: Top-posters. Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet ******s
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 22:26:00 GMT, "John Doe" wrote: If that one life could have been saved by a helmet then it is worth it. What value are you placing on looking cool? Stop driving NOW! Car drivers kill tens of thousands every year in the US ALONE! If even one life can be saved (and actually it'll bve tens of thousands) surely it's worth it. Extreme it may seem, but this *is* one reason why i do not drive. I do not wish to be part of that culture that kills and injures so many. If you drive you contribute towards the problems that motoring inflicts on society. John B |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet ******s
In article , "John Doe" writes: | | Hmm Think I was saying how it is in this country not what I believe is the | correct approach. Was not expressing an opinion due to the form of debate | it takes on with such learned folk as yourself. You end up with a tis snot | tis snow type of school argument that I am not interested in. I do not have | the research behind me to make such an informed decision so I am at the | mercy of people I have intrusted with such. This is one of those debates | that cannot be won with anecdotal guessing. | | Once again. I do not have an opinion apart from the fact that I have to | trust the opinions of people that are given the job of deciding these things | based on their careful study. Rightly or wrongly it is the best I can hope | for. However I will not trust the John Does (like myself) on Usenet to make | up my mind. I do not have the time to research this to the full extent that | it requires for me to make my own personal decision as I already have a job | that consumes most of my time and my family the other. | | This debate comes up every few months and ends up being long heated and full | of half truths till it dies a natural death of boredom. Correct. But let me introduce myself. While I am very rusty, I am a statistician by training and was once fairly good. Again, while I haven't looked at ALL of the evidence, I did spend some time looking at many of the references quoted by the pro-helmet brigade, and found that all except a couple were complete nonsense. Their data may have been correct, but the analysis was so obviously incorrect that their conclusions were often the OPPOSITE of what should have been derived from the data. The couple that weren't complete nonsense were inconclusive, and counterbalanced by equivalent research that indicated that bicycle helmets increased the risk of brain damage. There MAY be some new data, but I doubt it. The executive summary is this: Helmets almost certainly reduce trivial head injuries in all classes of cyclist - i.e. mere bruises, cuts and so on. Yes, some of the cuts may have needed hospital treatment, but they are STILL trivial. Helmets almost certainly make a negligible difference to the incidence of brain damage following an accident for normal cyclists, and the data are not good enough to tell whether the difference is positive or negative. Helmets probably help with extreme cycling - crashes at speeds above 30 MPH, people who ride over broken rock and so on - the evidence is very scanty and hence inconclusive, but is at least fairly consistent. Mandatory and even semi-mandatory helmet wearing reduces the number of normal cyclists significantly, especially those that are using cycling as a form of transport rather than recreation. And 'significantly' is of the order of tens of percent. The rest is politics, dogma and so on. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Helmet Wankers | Tom Kunich | General | 263 | February 13th 04 05:43 AM |
Helmet Wankers | CSB | UK | 138 | February 13th 04 05:43 AM |
Fule face helmet - review | Mikefule | Unicycling | 8 | January 14th 04 05:56 PM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | General | 17 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | Social Issues | 14 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |