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..

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?"

"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

"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

"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.

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.

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?

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?

"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

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.