Modern Morals Times 2 today

[fred2]

Joe Joseph
A colleague cycles to work without wearing a helmet. This upsets me, not
just because I'm fond of him and would hate to see him injured, but because
I think it is reckless - to himself, his family and to the NHS, which would
have to pick up the bill to fix him. Do I have any right to be upset?

Your workmate is a fool. But the world is full of fools. We are surrounded
by fools. Often we choose to surround ourselves with fools because fools
make bright company.

In an age in which governments interfere so much in our private lives that
we have come to assume that such snooping and meddling must be their natural
prerogative, it is important to remind ourselves constantly that people have
a right to do themselves a mischief without worrying about the approval or
disapproval of their fellow citizens - providing that what they are doing is
not illegal. But even here things get hazy: what is, and is not, legal is
not the result of some divine edict (except in the case of the Ten
Commandments, obviously). An act that we today deem illegal is often just an
act that was commonplace before being buried under centuries of
disapproval - sometimes, rightly so; sometimes puritanically so (this
process also works in reverse, as acts once deemed punishable, such as
homosexuality, cease to be so).

Governments walk a tightrope between protecting us and overprotecting us.
Should they warn us not to drink too much, or impose legal limits?
Discourage fatty foods and smoking, or ban them? We should be at liberty to
exercise free will; even at the cost of our own health. Otherwise who would
climb Everest, or ski off-piste? And if a skier can expect the NHS to fix
his broken leg, then why not a cyclist with a broken head? Even if the head
belongs to a fool?

--------------------------------------------------------------

Just for Info !

Fred

[Neil Williams]

On Jun 12, 3:32 pm, "fred2" > wrote:
> Joe Joseph
> A colleague cycles to work without wearing a helmet. This upsets me, not
> just because I'm fond of him and would hate to see him injured, but because
> I think it is reckless - to himself, his family and to the NHS, which would
> have to pick up the bill to fix him. Do I have any right to be upset?

<sigh>

This country really is getting totalitarian, isn't it? While the NHS
argument may or may not be valid, it is up to him and his family what
risks he and his family take. Nobody else.

Or is it better to report those not in compliance to "the party"? I
despair.

Neil

[Martin Dann]

Neil Williams wrote:
> On Jun 12, 3:32 pm, "fred2" > wrote:
>> Joe Joseph
>> A colleague cycles to work without wearing a helmet. This upsets me, not
>> just because I'm fond of him and would hate to see him injured, but because
>> I think it is reckless - to himself, his family and to the NHS, which would
>> have to pick up the bill to fix him. Do I have any right to be upset?
>
> <sigh>
>
> This country really is getting totalitarian, isn't it? While the NHS
> argument may or may not be valid, it is up to him and his family what
> risks he and his family take. Nobody else.
>
> Or is it better to report those not in compliance to "the party"? I
> despair.
>
> Neil
>

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article1916332.ece
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2bdvcd

A paper that wants to be one of the best in the country
should not print this claptrap.

I have submitted a comment to the page.

Martin.

[bugbear]

Neil Williams wrote:
> On Jun 12, 3:32 pm, "fred2" > wrote:
>> Joe Joseph
>> A colleague cycles to work without wearing a helmet. This upsets me, not
>> just because I'm fond of him and would hate to see him injured, but because
>> I think it is reckless - to himself, his family and to the NHS, which would
>> have to pick up the bill to fix him. Do I have any right to be upset?
>
> <sigh>
>
> This country really is getting totalitarian, isn't it? While the NHS
> argument may or may not be valid, it is up to him and his family what
> risks he and his family take. Nobody else.

Err. I think the real point here is the unquestioned
assumption by both questioner (a fiction, presumably)
and responder that wearing helmets is a Good Thing.

Whilst the notion that (e.g.) skydiving is dangerous
is pretty much accepted, the pros and cons of
helmet wearing are (looks around nervously) "contentious"

BugBear

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, fred2
') wrote:

> Joe Joseph
> A colleague cycles to work without wearing a helmet. This upsets me, not
> just because I'm fond of him and would hate to see him injured, but
> because I think it is reckless - to himself, his family and to the NHS,
> which would have to pick up the bill to fix him. Do I have any right to
> be upset?

You're wrong to be upset. Contrary to what one would expect, there is no
significant difference to the probability of serious injuries whether one
wears a helmet or not. Helmet wearing is very slightly - but not
significantly - more dangerous than not wearing a helmet.

What /is/ foolish is to assume that half an inch of polystyrene foam has
magic protective powers which the manufacturers of helmets don't even
pretend they have. Read the leaflet which came with your helmet, and then
ask yourself whether there's any point in wearing it.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb.

[Neil Williams]

On Jun 12, 6:08 pm, bugbear > wrote:

> Err. I think the real point here is the unquestioned
> assumption by both questioner (a fiction, presumably)
> and responder that wearing helmets is a Good Thing.

This is true, though I was going for the other angle that it is really
none of the business of the person writing to the paper whether anyone
else chooses to wear a cycle helmet or not, regardless of the view on
safety or otherwise of doing so or not doing so. (I personally do not
wear one, and would only do so under protest if it became law to do
so, and I'm currently in the Netherlands where practically nobody does
- they don't even wear helmets when riding mopeds or motor scooters
most of the time).

> Whilst the notion that (e.g.) skydiving is dangerous
> is pretty much accepted, the pros and cons of
> helmet wearing are (looks around nervously) "contentious"

Indeed. However, I would not consider it my right to determine
whether or not anyone else went skydiving, BASE jumping, free-climbing
or whatever. That's up to them.

Neil

[citizen142]

A moral dilemma. At what point does an individual have control over
his own life and actions and at what stage does the 'state' thinks it
has the right to intervene?

Also a moral dilemma for the 'state' - we know tobacco kills thousands
every year yet the 'state' does not ban it - the reasons are obvious,
money, lots of it which the 'state' needs to pay its way.

Who or what is the 'state'? In 64 years no one has ever given me an
answer I was convinced by.

[Graeme Dods]

On Jun 13, 12:08 am, bugbear >
wrote:
> Err. I think the real point here is the unquestioned
> assumption by both questioner (a fiction, presumably)

I think you may be right on that. The original question does sound a
little too journalistic. That said, they do edit submissions to
newspapers so that may be partly responsible. However I do think it
does look like a "let's make up a letter to give me a chance to have a
little rant" type set up.

Graeme

[Peter Amey]

fred2 wrote:

[snip]
>
> Governments walk a tightrope between protecting us and overprotecting us.
> Should they warn us not to drink too much, or impose legal limits?
> Discourage fatty foods and smoking, or ban them? We should be at liberty to
> exercise free will; even at the cost of our own health. Otherwise who would
> climb Everest, or ski off-piste? And if a skier can expect the NHS to fix
> his broken leg, then why not a cyclist with a broken head? Even if the head
> belongs to a fool?
>

Rather misses the point that cyclists are healthier, live longer and are
less likely to have expensive-to-fix things like dodgy hearts. So
cycling saves the NHS money even if they do have the occasional head to
mend.

Peter


--
www.amey.org.uk

[The other view point, there is one you know...]

On 12 Jun, 14:32, "fred2" > wrote:
> Joe Joseph
> A colleague cycles to work without wearing a helmet. This upsets me, not
> just because I'm fond of him and would hate to see him injured, but because
> I think it is reckless - to himself, his family and to the NHS, which would
> have to pick up the bill to fix him. Do I have any right to be upset?
>
> Your workmate is a fool. But the world is full of fools. We are surrounded
> by fools. Often we choose to surround ourselves with fools because fools
> make bright company.
>
> In an age in which governments interfere so much in our private lives that
> we have come to assume that such snooping and meddling must be their natural
> prerogative, it is important to remind ourselves constantly that people have
> a right to do themselves a mischief without worrying about the approval or
> disapproval of their fellow citizens - providing that what they are doing is
> not illegal. But even here things get hazy: what is, and is not, legal is
> not the result of some divine edict (except in the case of the Ten
> Commandments, obviously). An act that we today deem illegal is often just an
> act that was commonplace before being buried under centuries of
> disapproval - sometimes, rightly so; sometimes puritanically so (this
> process also works in reverse, as acts once deemed punishable, such as
> homosexuality, cease to be so).
>
> Governments walk a tightrope between protecting us and overprotecting us.
> Should they warn us not to drink too much, or impose legal limits?
> Discourage fatty foods and smoking, or ban them? We should be at liberty to
> exercise free will; even at the cost of our own health. Otherwise who would
> climb Everest, or ski off-piste? And if a skier can expect the NHS to fix
> his broken leg, then why not a cyclist with a broken head? Even if the head
> belongs to a fool?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Just for Info !
>
> Fred

Ask him why he doesn't wear a helmet?

If your as fond of him as you say, buy him a helmet for Birthday/Xmas,
and ask him out for a date.

Luckily as many would say, we still have a choice in the UK as to what
advice we follow...

[Jeremy Parker]

"fred2" > wrote in message
...
> Joe Joseph
> A colleague cycles to work without wearing a helmet. This upsets
> me, not just because I'm fond of him and would hate to see him
> injured, but because I think it is reckless - to himself, his
> family and to the NHS, which would have to pick up the bill to fix
> him. Do I have any right to be upset?

The national death rate remains what it always was - one each.
Surely we have an obligation to fellow taxpayers to die in a cheap a
way as possible, and perhaps an obligation to minimise pension
expenses as well.

Better a bump on the head than expensive cancer treatment, or years
in a home with Alzheimers

Jeremy Parker

[Sara Kirk]

In article . com>,
"The other view point, there is one you know..."
> wrote:

>
> If your as fond of him as you say...
>
> ...we still have a choice in the UK as to what
> advice we follow...

Including the basic rules of English, apparently.

--
Sara

The teeth are free at last! Fly free, young teethies!

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

Martin Dann wrote on 12/06/2007 16:55 +0100:
>
> http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article1916332.ece
>
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/2bdvcd
>
> A paper that wants to be one of the best in the country should not
> print this claptrap.
>
> I have submitted a comment to the page.
>

An interesting bit of data in the comments posted:

"INRET (the French equivalent of TRL) studied 5459 casualties that were
hospitalised after serious road crashes. The study noted the proportion
of road users that suffered more than 24 hours' unconsciousness
following the crash. The results were:
pedestrians 4.2%
motorcyclists 3.9%
cyclists 2.3%
car occupants 1.3%. "

Bit of Googling finds it comes from Ramet M, Vallet G. Typologies des
accidentes du trafic routier a partier de 5459 dossiers. Rapports
INRET/LCB Aug 1987 so in the days before helmets and therefore not
attributable to them.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

[The other view point, there is one you know...]

On 15 Jun, 15:57, Sara Kirk > wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "The other view point, there is one you know..."
>
> > wrote:
>
> > If your as fond of him as you say...
>
> > ...we still have a choice in the UK as to what
> > advice we follow...
>
> Including the basic rules of English, apparently.
>
> --
> Sara

Oh what a shame, you couldn't add anything to the thread. Keep in
there i'm sure you will get the hang of it.

[Rob Morley]

In article >, Tony Raven
says...
<snip>
> Bit of Googling finds it comes from Ramet M, Vallet G. Typologies des
> accidentes du trafic routier a partier de 5459 dossiers. Rapports
> INRET/LCB Aug 1987 so in the days before helmets and therefore not
> attributable to them.
>
>
IIRC helmets were widely available in 1987 - the common ones were
polystyrene with a lycra cover, microshells were just becoming
affordable and the Bell hardshell thing cost about £90. I doubt the
French were wearing many though.

[David Martin]

On Jun 17, 3:59 pm, Rob Morley > wrote:
> In article >, Tony Raven
> says...
> <snip>> Bit of Googling finds it comes from Ramet M, Vallet G. Typologies des
> > accidentes du trafic routier a partier de 5459 dossiers. Rapports
> > INRET/LCB Aug 1987 so in the days before helmets and therefore not
> > attributable to them.
>
> IIRC helmets were widely available in 1987 - the common ones were
> polystyrene with a lycra cover, microshells were just becoming
> affordable and the Bell hardshell thing cost about £90. I doubt the
> French were wearing many though.

I bought my first helmet (a Bell V1-pro) in 1987. It was much less
than 90 quid.
Giro helmets were the expensive ones.

...d

[Rob Morley]

In article om>, David
Martin
says...

> I bought my first helmet (a Bell V1-pro) in 1987.

That's the one.

> It was much less than 90 quid. Giro helmets were the expensive ones.
>
I did say 'IIRC'. :-) Maybe it was earlier that they were that sort of
price.