Warning: H*lm*t content

"flaco" writes:

An oxymoron? If others had the same religious beliefs as I do, their
views would presumeably be similar to mine, by definition.

That's what *I* said.



Not when it comes to helmets....

In case it's not entirely obvious, I was talking about (a) laws in
general; (b) compulsion in general; (c) helmet *laws* in particular;
(d) *compulsion* to wear helmets in particular; and (e) the "option"
of denying medical care to those who need it. I pointed out the
violence inherent in all these things, and the fact that therefore the
OP's two options were unChristian. (That is a reasoned deduction from
facts, by the way.)

I was not discussing the technical merits or demerits of helmets, as
you seem to be implying; I left that to others. Personally, I'd
generally rather be wearing a helmet than not, but that's my opinion
only and not a deduction from facts. Compulsion is not only morally
wrong, unChristian, and disrespectful of your right to choose for
yourself, it's also stupid when all the facts are not in.

David


--

David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

One of the clearest lessons of history, including recent history, is
that rights are not granted; they are won. The rest is up to us.

-- Noam Chomsky
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20041217.htm

David Trudgett wrote:
"flaco" writes:


An oxymoron? If others had the same religious beliefs as I do, their
views would presumeably be similar to mine, by definition.


That's what *I* said.



Not when it comes to helmets....


In case it's not entirely obvious, I was talking about (a) laws in
general; (b) compulsion in general; (c) helmet *laws* in particular;
(d) *compulsion* to wear helmets in particular; and (e) the "option"
of denying medical care to those who need it. I pointed out the
violence inherent in all these things, and the fact that therefore the
OP's two options were unChristian. (That is a reasoned deduction from
facts, by the way.)

I was not discussing the technical merits or demerits of helmets, as
you seem to be implying; I left that to others. Personally, I'd
generally rather be wearing a helmet than not, but that's my opinion
only and not a deduction from facts. Compulsion is not only morally
wrong, unChristian, and disrespectful of your right to choose for
yourself, it's also stupid when all the facts are not in.

David



That's a pretty poor argument regardless of what side of the helmet
debate you're on. Society compels us to do all sorts of things every
day. At some stage society has decided it's the right thing to do,
regardless of what you or I may think. Christians are experts at
compelling people to do things. Think your argument through and try again.

Zooom

Theo Bekkers wrote:
Bleve wrote:

I'm intrigued as to the use of pedestrians as a control
group, and the reduction of head injuries there that
seem to match. There's no attempt to suggest why peds
were showing up less at hospitals with serious head injuries. Did
something change in the water in 1985?

I think these stats were mostly from Vic. At that time the Vic Police got
very heavy with speeding, red light running, and concentrated quite heavily
on traffic offences. The death rate for car occupants dropped dramatically
as well.

Theo

This seems likely. In fact Robinson in her 1996 paper states:
"The percentage of cyclists with head injuries after collisions with
motor vehicles in Victoria declined by more, but the proportion of head
injured pedestrians also declined; the two followed a verysimilar
trend. These trends may have been caused by major road safety
initiatives introduced at the same time as the helmet law and directed
at both speeding and drink-driving."
( Abstract Robinson Accident Analysis & Prevention 1996)

Peter Keller wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:33:11 -0700, wrote:


Peter Keller wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:26:55 +1000, Claes wrote:

Much clipped

I think my head probably would crack. However i am not volunteering for
the experiment!
Helmets are certified up to a direct blow of 20kph (very simply put) Such
a blow will not reliably crack my skull. French research seems to show
that at direct blows of more than 23kph, the polystyrofoam shatters rather
than squashes, thereby offering no energy absorption whatsoever! No, to
keep myself as safe as possible in traffic, I am not going to rely on a
h*lm*t, even if the stupid law forces me to wear one.

peter

Peter, would you have a reference to that French research? It sounds
interesting.

John Kane
Kingston ON Canada

Hi John
Sorry, this is one of those snippets of information which flashed by me
about 2 years ago, and I cannot find the reference. I will keep
searching.
In the meantime, I have found this from
Edward B. Becker, Executive Director of Snell Memorial Foundation:
http://www.smf.org/articles/soft.html
which does describe this kind of catastrophic failure of helmets to which
o alluded.

Peter


Thanks for this.

John Kane
Kingston ON

Gidday, Zoom,

Zoom writes:

David Trudgett wrote:
"flaco" writes:

An oxymoron? If others had the same religious beliefs as I do, their
views would presumeably be similar to mine, by definition.
That's what *I* said.

Not when it comes to helmets....
In case it's not entirely obvious, I was talking about (a) laws in
general; (b) compulsion in general; (c) helmet *laws* in particular;
(d) *compulsion* to wear helmets in particular; and (e) the "option"
of denying medical care to those who need it. I pointed out the
violence inherent in all these things, and the fact that therefore the
OP's two options were unChristian. (That is a reasoned deduction from
facts, by the way.)
I was not discussing the technical merits or demerits of helmets, as
you seem to be implying; I left that to others. Personally, I'd
generally rather be wearing a helmet than not, but that's my opinion
only and not a deduction from facts. Compulsion is not only morally
wrong, unChristian, and disrespectful of your right to choose for
yourself, it's also stupid when all the facts are not in.
David


That's a pretty poor argument regardless of what side of the helmet
debate you're on. Society compels us to do all sorts of things every
day. At some stage society has decided it's the right thing to do,
regardless of what you or I may think.

I can sympathise with the way you feel, Zoom, and you are certainly in
good company, since many feel the same way. It would make life a hell
of a lot easier if we could just accept what "society" says is
"right", but unfortunately, history proves that we cannot do that, no
matter how comforting we may find the thought.

Another you in another time and place would have supported slavery for
the same reasons. Even in this country not so long ago, Aboriginal
people were kept as virtual slaves, being the backbone of the economy
of outback Australia, and receiving very little if anything in
return. This was also accepted by many (but by no means all) as just
the way things were.

It is very difficult to understand and accept that the "society" in
which we live is based on some pretty fundamental lies and
hypocrisies. But it is true, and that is why we are sinking deeper and
deeper into the proverbial manure. That is why people pretend business
as usual while Australians are overseas helping commit murder, under
the cover of lies that are an insult to the intelligence of a
child. That is why people hate greed but worship capitalism as some
sort of god, even though it is quite obvious that capitalism is about
sharing in the same way that Tug-Of-War is about sharing the
rope. That is why people love peace but are willing to go to war and
kill people they've never met.

This sort of hypocrisy is intolerable, and it causes a deep moral
sickness and even a sort of insanity in everyone who tries to pretend
it is all normal and OK.


Christians are experts at compelling people to do things.

Don't make the mistake of accepting anyone's claim of being a
Christian at face value (not even mine). A Christian is not a
Christian because he (she) says he is, but because of what he
does. George W. Bush and John W. Howard both claim to be Christian,
for instance, but you can't be a Christian and do what they've done.


Think your argument through and try again.

It's not safe to assume people haven't thought through their
arguments.


Bye for now, and wear a helmet for the right reason, not just because
the law tells you to do it!

David



--

David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

Who would Jesus bomb?

David Trudgett wrote:
"Theo Bekkers" writes:

I didn't get to pick it. Else I might be David, or Sue.

I'd definitely go for 'David'! I don't think 'Sue' suits you... :-)

I could have become a lawyer.

Theo

David Trudgett wrote:
OP's two options were unChristian. (That is a reasoned deduction ....

snip

Another you in another time and place would have ...

snip

George W. Bush and John W. Howard both claim to be Christian,


Have sex with a helmet on in the rain....

Bingo.

-Religion
-Politics
-History
-Sex
-Weather

This thread has now covered every conversation topic.
Even bicycles (to an extent)

flaco wrote:
David Trudgett wrote:

OP's two options were unChristian. (That is a reasoned deduction ....


snip

Another you in another time and place would have ...


snip

George W. Bush and John W. Howard both claim to be Christian,



Have sex with a helmet on in the rain....

Bingo.

-Religion
-Politics
-History
-Sex
-Weather

This thread has now covered every conversation topic.
Even bicycles (to an extent)


Hmmm
I must have missed the bit about the bikes.

Zoom

Zoom Wrote:

Hmmm
I must have missed the bit about the bikes.

Zoom

lordy knows most of you did :rolleyes

--
flyingdutch

On 2005-08-22, Euan (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
"Claes" == Claes writes:

Claes I for one, can not understand how someone can say that
Claes helmets do no good. Must be me that is thick. Put a soft
Claes veggie in a helmet, drop it on the ground so the helmet hits
Claes the ground first, veggie will prolly survive from head
Claes height. Drop veggie from same height, veggie will go
Claes "splat". To me that shows it could help in accident, and I
Claes really can not see how it could make an injury worse.

The human brain is not a vegetable.

Try telling that to Prado drivers.

--
TimC
If you tried to understand this, you'd be very confused, in the standard
way we talk about confusion. -- Some astronomer at a talk.