|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Thank you. Democracy is the rule of fools by fools. Demos = vulgar =
common = the 'people, hence "democraps" "Michael Press" wrote in message ... In article , Werehatrack wrote: On 16 Jul 2005 07:39:04 -0700, wrote: .. Helmet manufacturers are constantly working to give you more holes and less styrofoam, while still (just _barely_) passing the ridiculously weak certification tests. Not that I care if the anti-helmer zealots ride without one or not, but... I fail to see how a helmet that barely passes a weak test could afford less protection in the event of an impact than none at all, yet this is the (to me, absurd) position that I have often seen espoused. To each his own. But let the decisions be based on rational examination, not hyperbole. I wear a helmet precisely because I don't know what's going to happen; I ride with caution to try to avoid the situations where the helmet would be needed...but I know better than to think I can obviate all risks and still function. Wearing the helmet has no cost that I can't bear. Not wearing one *might*. The chance is just enough to make the difference for me. If it isn't enough for somebody else, that's fine. It's quite literally not my problem. Why is it that clubs require that riders wear a helmet on club rides? How is it that they can reasonably expect to enforce this requirement? Why do racing organizations require entrants to wear helmets? I ask this when the case for helmets is not proven. These corporate entities could as well demand that demurrers sign a waiver. Most helmet users do not admit that they are in the majority, and that organizations use this majority to enforce their will upon a minority. tyranny: exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the purposes of government. liberty: the power of choice; freedom from necessity; freedom from compulsion or constraint in willing. Mr. Werehatrack, it is your problem. -- Michael Press |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:28:18 GMT, Werehatrack
wrote: I wear a helmet precisely because I don't know what's going to happen; I ride with caution to try to avoid the situations where the helmet would be needed...but I know better than to think I can obviate all risks and still function. Wearing the helmet has no cost that I can't bear. Not wearing one *might*. The chance is just enough to make the difference for me. If it isn't enough for somebody else, that's fine. It's quite literally not my problem. What happens if you forget your helmet somewhere or it is misplaced? Do you ride w/o it or do you put off riding till you can get a helmet? JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com **************************** |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
oups.com... Despite the hype and handwringing, head impacts are vanishingly rare riding uprights. My bet is that they're much more rare on a recumbent. Probably not. In my experience those who choose to ride rebumbents are generally really old and feeble and too stupid to just hang onto the bike if it tips over thereby protecting your head. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"Rich" wrote in message
... wrote: How about the ads showing four-year-old kids on plastic recumbent sidewalk trikes, riding three miles per hour with their heads about two feet above the ground, "safely" ensconced in helmets? How is that logical? It's getting them in the habit of wearing a helmet, so when they're older and riding bigger and faster bikes they're accustomed to riding with a helmet. So instead of teaching them to ride correctly you feel it's more important to teach them they're likely to get hurt and they should wear body armor.......... Bet that makes them squeel with delight and frenzy to ride. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:16:54 GMT, Michael Press wrote:
Why is it that clubs require that riders wear a helmet on club rides? Liability. How is it that they can reasonably expect to enforce this requirement? By denying access to the activity if the rules are not complied with. Why do racing organizations require entrants to wear helmets? Same answer. I ask this when the case for helmets is not proven. What proof do you require? Will you pay for the testing if it succeeds? If the answer is "yes" and you can demonstrate the ability to fund the testing, I think I know an underwriter who will front the cost to run the testing on the condition that you'll pay when the data is in. Meanwhile, there's already sufficient data to persuade people who are in a position to make decisions about liability costs and regulations, and if you disagree with their analysis, I suggest that you take it up with them. These corporate entities could as well demand that demurrers sign a waiver. A waiver will not prevent the filing of a wrongful injury or wrongful death lawsuit, nor even reliably prevent it from proceeding and prevailing in the majority of states, and the insurance companies that underwrite the protection for the entities holding these events know this. Most helmet users do not admit that they are in the majority, and that organizations use this majority to enforce their will upon a minority. In this area, helmet wearing is a practice that is far from being adopted by the majority. Your point is poorly-founded. tyranny: exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the purposes of government. Not present. There is no abuse of the public without justifiable purpose or benefit; the imposition is neither cruel nor illegal. You may not like it, but you *are not* harmed by it, so no claim of tyranny obtains. liberty: the power of choice; freedom from necessity; freedom from compulsion or constraint in willing. Your freedom to ride in general is only encumbered in Australia; your freedom to ride in group events and restricted localities is only encumbered insofar as the organizers must in order to have those activities with a reasonable liability indemnification cost. If you wish to organize helmetless rides, do so. I have no doubt that you will have takers. Beware of accepting non-adult participants in many parts of the US, and beware of allowing participants to ride after dark without a headlight, because as the organizer, you may be held jointly responsible for compliance with local regulations. Mr. Werehatrack, it is your problem. Sorry, no, it *isn't*. Even if I was on the other side, *your* arguments would not persuade me. This isn't a "freedom" issue, it's a liability issue. If you truly want non-helmet-required riding events, you are perfectly free to organize them in any area in which they are legal, which for adults is most of the US at this point. If you have difficulty obtaining insurance for the ride at a bearable cost, that's an *economic* issue, not a liberty issue. You are *also* free to assume the risk yourself and not buy insurance. You want others to assume the risk for your choices; waivers or not, that's the effect of what you want. They are free to refuse. If you can't accept that, it's *your* problem. -- Typoes are a feature, not a bug. Some gardening required to reply via email. Words processed in a facility that contains nuts. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
John Forrest Tomlinson a =E9crit : On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:07:35 -0400, wvantwiller wrote: I personally knew at least one child and one father who would be alive today if they had been wearing helmets after they died from the trauma of minor bicycle falls; How do you know that? Read what he said: Everyone knows that helmets can resuscitate the dead. -ilan |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Sornson wrote: wrote: Despite the hype and handwringing, head impacts are vanishingly rare riding uprights. My bet is that they're much more rare on a recumbent. Depending on what "vanishingly rare" means, something doesn't add up in those two sentences. Vanishingly = "to pass out of existence"; so how can something be MUCH more rare than that? Let's give an example. Vanishingly rare might be: One serious bicycling head injury per half million miles of riding. Much more rare than that would be: One serious recumbent head injury per two million miles of recumbent riding. I think you're right about the second part (head injuries good deal less likely on 'bents); wrong about the first (unfortuately). Well, for the club cyclists interviewed in Moritz's national survey of 1998 (Moritz, W. Adult Bicyclists in the United States - Characteristics and Riding Experience in 1996, presented at the Transportation Research Board 77th Annual Meeting, 1998) they had a "serious" crash every 30,000 miles or so. But unfortunately, "serious" was poorly defined. $50 equipment damage was called serious - like, a bent derailleur; or any injury requiring any medical treatment was called serious - like, a cut that needed two stitches. Other data shows that "moderate to serious" head injuries are present in less than 6% of cyclists coming to emergency rooms. To be conservative, let's ignore the equipment-based "serious" crashes and pretend all those surveyed were in the ER; and let's ignore the "moderate" (i.e. inconsequential) head injuries and pretend all he 6% were "serious." That works out to one serious head injury per half million miles, on average. IOW, vanishingly rare. (You may wish to use your annual miles to work out how soon you'll hit half a million miles. Let us know how many years that comes out to, for you.) Incidentally, I'll remind you that the link between cycling and serious head injuries is relatively new. I don't know your age, but trust me, people were not warned about head injuries and cycling until _after_ the Bell Biker appeared on the market. If such injuries were _not_ vanishingly rare, don't you think people would have noticed in the 1960s? Or the 1950s, during the cold war, when the leader of the free world began to bicycle for exercise? Or the 1940s, or 1930s... - Frank Krygowski |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:05:48 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote: On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:28:18 GMT, Werehatrack wrote: I wear a helmet precisely because I don't know what's going to happen; I ride with caution to try to avoid the situations where the helmet would be needed...but I know better than to think I can obviate all risks and still function. Wearing the helmet has no cost that I can't bear. Not wearing one *might*. The chance is just enough to make the difference for me. If it isn't enough for somebody else, that's fine. It's quite literally not my problem. What happens if you forget your helmet somewhere or it is misplaced? Do you ride w/o it or do you put off riding till you can get a helmet? Not an issue. Hasn't happened, and if it did, I'd make up my mind based on the situation at hand. I can't predict the answer, and it's irrelevant anyway. What *I* do is my choice; what *you* do is *yours*. Every choice has consequences, possible and actual. Not all consequences obtain in every instance. That does not change the fact that they could. -- Typoes are a feature, not a bug. Some gardening required to reply via email. Words processed in a facility that contains nuts. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Rich wrote: wrote: How about the ads showing four-year-old kids on plastic recumbent sidewalk trikes, riding three miles per hour with their heads about two feet above the ground, "safely" ensconced in helmets? How is that logical? It's getting them in the habit of wearing a helmet, so when they're older and riding bigger and faster bikes they're accustomed to riding with a helmet. Well, if that's the objective, people aren't going far enough, are they? The poor little dears are spending most of their lives without helmets! There are, of course, infant helmets on the market, apparently to protect from the terrible dangers of learning to walk. http://www.thudguard.com/ Why do they not show kids _always_ wearing helmets, starting from day one? Certainly, that would do a better job of getting them accustomed! - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|