Helmet ******s

wrote:

"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.

I think it's sad that this seems like an extreme view.

--
Benjamin Lewis

On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague:
"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli

snip
Personally, I'd change that to "You can do anything you want to yourself
provided that no material harm comes to anyone else without their
consent."

The first time I read that philosophy, was in the Satanic Bible (c:
Surprisingly good book. You should read it.

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." - Aleister Crowley

C.Q.C.

snip
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.

I think it's sad that this seems like an extreme view.

It's about as sad as the fact that freedom is considered an extremist
viewpoint these days.

That's the one thing at the core of this whole debate that ****es me off ...

Allowing people the choice to wear one or not is right and correct.

Forcing people to wear one is just plain wrong *even if everyone wanted to
in the first place*.

The definition of a liberal: Believing everyone has the freedom to do what
they want, as long as it's mandatory.

C.Q.C.

In rec.bicycles.misc Q. LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com wrote:
: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." - Aleister Crowley

lol. that was also on the famous LoD shirt along with "Hacking for Jesus."
--
david reuteler

In article ,
Benjamin Lewis writes:

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.

I think it's sad that this seems like an extreme view.

Maybe the real extremeness is the pressure put on non-drivers
to become drivers. Being a non-driver can certainly limit one's
employment opportunities, for one example. And then there's
putting up with the incessant, bleated pleas from drivers for us
to become one of them. Almost makes one feel like the Omega Man.
Or that old Star Trek episode with the computer-controlled society
("You are not of The Body!")


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Tom Keats wrote:

In article ,
Benjamin Lewis writes:

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.

I think it's sad that this seems like an extreme view.

Maybe the real extremeness is the pressure put on non-drivers
to become drivers.

One of the worst being the assumption one has a driving licence for ID
purposes.

John B

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 08:29:28 +0000, JohnB 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.

Hard to disagree. We still have one car between us, but I try not to
use it.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 13:31:50 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 20:06:46 -0500 someone who may be "S. Anderson"
wrote this:-
Can you cite the data for this declaration? I'd be interested to see this.

It was in the Durbin/Harvey Report. As they were professor's of
statistics then one may assume that their methods are not open to
too much criticism.

[s******]


---
Cheers

PeterC

[Rushing headlong: out of control - and there ain't no stopping]
[and there's nothing you can do about it at all]

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

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.

Hi, totally agree. The big problem with these studies is the
interpretation of the data. The reason we get these conflicting studies is
that it is down to individual human interpretation. Sometimes the study is
also funded by a specific interest group (helmet manufacturer) that can also
have an effect (even if the scientists say they impartial funding can have a
sub conscious effect).

The only twe reasons that I have seen that they increase brain damage is
that they increase the incidence by the way riders ride (please correct me
here if there are others). They think they are safe because they strap some
egg shells to their head so ride with less caution. Studies have also shown
since the advent of air bags, people tend to tail gate more often. (however
I believe that it cannot be all down to that. People are just less patient
and more aggressive these days. Cars per capita in this country has
exploded in the last 30 years and traffic is worse increasing peoples
tension. Lots of other reasons that could explain this also). The second
reason due to the decrease in cycling popularity. Now anecdotally I have
noticed far less children riding on the roads compared to when I was young
and doing it. That was the only way we got around. Now we have mum driving
us everywhere via a 3T all terain vehicle. The majority of riders you see
seen now are enthusiasts that are either training, social or transport.

The first reason is individual. If you still ride as carefully with and
without then you may have increased your level of protection. The second
reason is out of your control.

snip
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.

Yes. This is a main reason I have heard against the arguement. Decreases
the incidence of cyclists so much that drivers have lost the ability to see
them or the skills to pass safely. Their could be other reasons why mothers
have stopped their children and adults have stopped riding. Motor vehicles
per capita have boomed in the last 30 years and would also explain the
booming level of obesity in this country. Road construction has not kept
pace and traffic is a lot more aggressive and abundant. Once again it is
intrepretation of the data. What has happened in countries like the US
where there is no compulsory rules - and a similar obesity trend. Is
Cycling as popular per capita as it was 30 years ago?

BTW: When they introduced compulsory helmet wearing for motor cyclists did
the participation rate drop? Although the reason that people are much more
aggressive on the road could explain the decrease in popularity.

regards
pete

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...


On the face of it it's hard to add anything to that, other than that I
believe the evidence indicates that cyclists wearing helmets have a
greater
propensity to risk-taking (risk compensation).

The helmet issue also affects the perception of the risk of cycling by
drivers, such that they are likely to attribute the death of a cyclist
wrongly as the consequence of cycling being a dangerous activity, when the
reality is that it's driving that's dangerous. What a horrible sentence.
I
think you know what I mean, though.


Thats for sure. One of the biggest issues is that people wrongly believe
that it is a dangerous activity. I am sure sitting on my arse and eating
potato chips, drinking beer, watching TV all day is a lot more dangerous. I
also swim in the sea for at least 6-10km's per week. I am sure that is more
dangerous than cycling.