|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#761
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
Sorni wrote: I wear/ use what seems to me to be appropriate clothes/gear/equipment for that activity. Your choice is your own, at least in most areas. (Some are not allowed to choose.) But how do you decide what "seems to be appropriate"? Understand, up to 1975 in America, everybody thought no hat, or perhaps a cotton cap with a brim, seemed appropriate for cycling. There was no epidemic of serious head injuries that told anyone different. There were no newspaper or magazine articles about the head injury danger of cycling. Then, with the Bell Biker came the articles explaining why you might need such a thing. I recall Buycycling magazine justifying helmet wearing by printing an article about a rider who fell and was concussed. My friends and I were extremely skeptical. In all our countless miles as children and adults, we'd never heard of such a thing - and the rider was merely dazed, in any case. It took energetic funding by Snell, and heavy promotion by Safe Kids, The Harborview Institute and others to invent and publicize a connection between cycling and head injury. Now, after 15 years of work, they've made the connection "seem appropriate." If it were not for their heavy advertising, it would "seem to be appropriate" to call a foam hat ludicrous. It still seems that way for the vast majority of the world's cyclists - those who haven't been attacked with the propaganda, or who have enough experience to resist. In defense of the people who buy the propaganda, this line of thought is certainly not unique to cycling helmets. It's now being heavily promoted that the ground under a jungle gym must be covered with rubber - as if kids never climb trees. Now every surface a toddler may ever touch must be padded with rubber and sanitized. Now cars come with headlights that the drivers are incapable of turning off. Paper cups of coffee have hazard warnings printed on the sides. Scissors and knives come in boxes that say "Caution! Contents may be sharp!" and so on. One day, we may find it's illegal to cycle without a GPS, in case we get lost, take a break in a coffeee shop to get out bearings, and fatally scald ourselves. - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#762
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
The Wogster wrote:
I am against MHL's but I actually have a helmet, and use it when riding, for a couple of reasons, one is that most people know what a bicycle helmet is, and figure if your wearing one, your probably on a bicycle, they can often see your head, even when the bicycle itself is not visible. Interestingly I've come to the conclusion that a helmet is counter-productive in your objectives. When I stopped wearing a helmet a couple of years ago it was very noticeable that cars gave me more room and more attention. I've come to the conclusion its because they identify me as a person and a vulnerable one instead of a helmet and protected Try it yourself - its very difficult to identify or recognise someone cycling with a helmet. You try to recognise them by their clothing and helmet. If they are helmetless you can see their head and identify them by their face which makes them human. -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham |
#763
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
|
#764
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
In uk.rec.cycling Sorni wrote:
Tony Raven wrote: I'll just say this: I consider /perceived/ risk of failure, and equip myself accordingly. For example, I wear a seatbelt every time I drive, even though the chance that I'll "need" it is miniscule. I've had homeowner's insurance for 15 years; never submitted a claim. Ridden my road bike over 10K miles; haven't fallen once (yet). But IF I'm going 45 mph down a steep hill and IF I flat or hit a hole or sandy patch, I want to have a helmet on my head when it hits the pavement (hard, glancing, sliding, whatever). You're quite right, it's a question of perceived risk. The reason I wouldn't wear a cycle helmet going downhill at 45mph is because my perception is that if I fell off at that speed and hit my head on the road I'd be more at risk of the helmet giving me a rotational injury than it saving me from some other injury. I might wear some other kind of helmet, but IMHO cycle helmets in those circs are worse than nothing. Unlike some other kinds of helmet, that problem has not been considered seriously in their design. I'm not against helmets per se, I just think the current crop of cycle helmets are a con, a marketing scam. -- Chris Malcolm +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] |
#765
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message ... "The Wogster" wrote in message .. . [...] The real question is, should we legislate against stupidity? Let me explain, manditory seatbelt use, for motor vehicle operators is a good idea, it keeps the operator at the controls as long as possible, allowing them to possibly take evasive action to prevent further injury and property damage. Laws against drunk or stoned driving, also a good idea, as those people often injure innocent bystanders, and damage the property of others. Both of these laws are designed to protect others, the fact that the operator often gains some benefit is a side issue. However legislating seatbelt use for others in a vehicle, other then the operator, is simply legislating against stupidity. I consider bicycle helmets in the same category, mandatory helmet laws, are only legislating against someone's own foolish behavior. Newsgroups modified. I am very much in favor of the government protecting us from our own stupidity. Any other view is a libertarian one and is quite callous as well as being wrongheaded. We are living in very complex societies and amidst technological phenomena that none of us have much understanding of. We need laws to protect us from our own stupidity, or better, ignorance. I am not about to embark on learning everything that it would be necessary for me to know for my own safety. I prefer that the government do it for me - and so does everyone else whether they realize it or not. You have not thought through the implications of your statement above. You can be either for or against helmets, but it is pointless to be against laws regulating their use once it has been established that helmets protect us from our own stupidity. Everyone is stupid, only on different subjects. I have heard this Canadian complaint too many times about there being too many laws. Must be a Canadian thing. We Americans like lots and lots of laws, the more the merrier until they start conflicting with one another. Hey, why do you think we have so many lawyers in this country? The one thing that used to amaze me is that in communist countries you had very few lawyers. Good or bad? You tell me! Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota There remains controversy over whether or not helmets 1. Prevent injury, 2. Discourage cycling (because of mandatory helmet laws). You can take whatever position you want about helmets but you can't easily make the controversy go away. Regarding laws to protect us from ourselves: We have always been a fiercely independent people who don't like being told what to do. We tolerate restricting personal liberty when we feel it is for a good cause, however. It is one thing to say that we should all be allowed to do whatever we want but in the same breath you must realize that when things turn out badly, the libertarian may end up being cared for by the society and thus a burden. Should tobacco be outlawed? Should eating or drinking to excess? On the other hand, should drugs be legalized? I'm not looking for specific answers to the above questions. They merely serve to point out that the discussion about personal freedom vs. legal restriction of personal liberty is a complex one. We have a lot of lawyers because the pay is good. When there are so many that they must compete by lowering their rates, or if we achieve meaningful tort reform, then the number of new lawyers will drop. People will always go where the money is. I can almost guarantee you that most lawyers are not there because they "love the law", some are, but not most. Jeff |
#766
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
"Jeff Grippe" wrote in message ... "Edward Dolan" wrote in message ... [...] I have heard this Canadian complaint too many times about there being too many laws. Must be a Canadian thing. We Americans like lots and lots of laws, the more the merrier until they start conflicting with one another. Hey, why do you think we have so many lawyers in this country? The one thing that used to amaze me is that in communist countries you had very few lawyers. Good or bad? You tell me! There remains controversy over whether or not helmets 1. Prevent injury, 2. Discourage cycling (because of mandatory helmet laws). You can take whatever position you want about helmets but you can't easily make the controversy go away. If there are laws on the books mandating helmets, then we should obey those laws. The fact that the laws got on to the books in the first place prejudices me in favor of them. I do not want to have to decide for myself whether helmets are good or bad. I want someone else who is expert in the subject to decide for me. Regarding laws to protect us from ourselves: We have always been a fiercely independent people who don't like being told what to do. We tolerate restricting personal liberty when we feel it is for a good cause, however. It is one thing to say that we should all be allowed to do whatever we want but in the same breath you must realize that when things turn out badly, the libertarian may end up being cared for by the society and thus a burden. Should tobacco be outlawed? Should eating or drinking to excess? On the other hand, should drugs be legalized? I'm not looking for specific answers to the above questions. They merely serve to point out that the discussion about personal freedom vs. legal restriction of personal liberty is a complex one. We Americans are no longer fiercely independent. You are talking about our forefathers. Today we have grown lazy and dependent and we want the government to do as much as possible for us. We really are no different than the Europeans in that respect. We have a lot of lawyers because the pay is good. When there are so many that they must compete by lowering their rates, or if we achieve meaningful tort reform, then the number of new lawyers will drop. People will always go where the money is. I can almost guarantee you that most lawyers are not there because they "love the law", some are, but not most. The question that needs to be answered is why American society has so many lawyers in comparison to other societies which are not oriented in the same way as ours. Communist societies for instance have very few lawyers, but lots and lots of bureaucrats. Does this not tell us something significant about the differences between the two types of societies. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#767
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
In message . com, peter
wrote: But it's the advocates of MHLs that are citing all the truly junk science case control studies like the ones by Thompson/Rivara. These use self-selected population samples and erroniously base their conclusions on the *assumption* that the only explanation for different injuries between the groups is their choice of head covering. From my observations helmet wearers are also more likely to: Wear hi-visibility clothing. Have 2 independent brakes. Use lights. Not ride on the pavement. Cycle in a safe manner. I meet a boy once at night who admitted to removing the lights, and since his rear wheel was bent, the rear brakes as well. He wasn't wearing a helmet. Other examples are using dim LED lights or a handheld torch on a unlit road. I've never seen such reckless cyclists wearing helmets. -- Member AFFS, WYLUG, SWP (UK), UAF, RESPECT, StWC OpenPGP key fingerprint: D0A6 F403 9745 CED4 6B3B 94CC 8D74 8FC9 9F7F CFE4 No to software patents! Victory to the iraqi resistance! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gobsmacked | wafflycat | UK | 63 | January 4th 06 07:50 PM |
water bottles,helmets | Mark | General | 191 | July 17th 05 04:05 PM |
Rec.Bicycles Frequently Asked Questions Posting Part 1/5 | Mike Iglesias | General | 4 | October 29th 04 07:11 AM |
Five cyclists cleared | Marty Wallace | Australia | 2 | July 3rd 04 11:15 PM |
MP wants cyclists banned-Morn. Pen. | rickster | Australia | 10 | June 1st 04 01:22 AM |