|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Warning: H*lm*t content
Gemma_k wrote: Stackhats went out in, oh, 1980? Modern helmets are light, well ventilated and comfortable. You miss the point. It doesn't matter how good a helmet is to wear, or how safe you feel in one, or how many vents there are or what kind of hairstyle you have. It's all about the choice of whther you WANT to wear a helmet, rather than mandating that you do.... Sure, I don't believe that helmets (or seatbelts) should be compulsory, but if you choose not to wear one, you're an idiot. History shows that there's rather more idiots in the world than is ideal. A society that does its best to look after everyone (free healthcare in particular) has a choice. Either make some level of safety equipment compulsory - and hopefully reduce the bills we all have to pay for healthcare through tax, or say "if you don't wear this/use this etc, then you void your healthcare privs." It's never an easy choice, it's always a "where do you draw the line" issue. Such are the joys of living in the real world. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Warning: H*lm*t content
ritcho Wrote: Dr Robinson is a well known anti-helmet law campaigner and does som pretty good research. However, I'm concerned that her pre-determine conclusions undermines her work Euan had better make sure he falls off and hits his head in winte only.. Ritch You're implying that I'd break the law. I wouldn't While it's law in this country to wear a helmet, I'll wear one. Depending on the cricumstances of my cycling I may choose to wear helmet if there was no compulsion, as I've said it's a handy place t put lights. There'd certainly be occaisions when I'd choose not t wear a helmet -- EuanB |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Warning: H*lm*t content
Peter McCallum wrote:
At my daughter's school there's a policy that students must wear the correct coloured shoelaces, and it's strictly enforced. Obviously shoelace colour has some bearing on educational outcomes. Yes, Peter it does. {:-) By enforcing conformity and brain numbing, your daughter is given the best chance of being a counter bunny, or burger flipper at Maccas when she finishes school. This increase the percentage of students that get jobs after school, which increases the educational standing of her educational institution (from reading the latest rating system results). |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Warning: H*lm*t content
ritcho wrote:
Dr Robinson is a well known anti-helmet law campaigner and does some pretty good research. However, I'm concerned that her pre-determined conclusions undermines her work. Umm, I thought that all scientific work was that; "I believe that this causes this and now I will go out a find evidence that supports my theory" |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Warning: H*lm*t content
"till!" wrote in message ... Gemma_k Wrote: You miss the point....It's all about the choice of whther you WANT to wear a helmet, rather than mandating that you do.... Not at all true, I mean there is no mandate that requires you ride a bike. Which is the whole point. A lot of people have been lost to cycling because of this mandate, they would prefer not to ride at all because the system has become more onerous. Many more drivers now do not know what it's like to ride a bike. These same drivers see cyclists a lot less on the roads and do not know what to do when they do see one. The fact the government makes you wear a helmet makes cycling look inherently dangerous. For those that do not understand Robinson's research, just think about what would happen to cycling if, say, fluorescent and reflectorized vests and flags were made mandatory at all times for cycling. If people really wanted to save lives and injuries, then why don't they stop dicking around with the 1%ers in road safety and look at the entire health system, and then outlaw things like smoking..... |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Warning: H*lm*t content
Euan wrote: "Bleve" == Bleve writes: Absolutely. It's a hot and smelly inconvenience which is off-putting to the fashion conscious. Bleve Stackhats went out in, oh, 1980? Modern helmets are light, Bleve well ventilated and comfortable. On a hot summer's day they most certainly aren't as comfortable as a decent sun hat. Agreed. It's a bit of baggage that you need to lug around and there is no proof that helmets provide any benefit whereas there is substantial proof that helmets are detrimental. Bleve "any" benefit? If I wasn't wearing mine a few months ago Bleve when I crashed into an oncoming bike on a bikepath, I'd Bleve probably be a vegetable (more than I am now!). I'd certanily Bleve have done significan injury. As it is, I had to buy a new Bleve helmet and was a bit dizzy for a couple of days. At age five I rode head face in to a concrete lamp post (I sneezed, opened my eyes, saw lamp post and grabbed the front brake with predictable results.) I required two stitches but other than that, fine. At at age 12 I went sailing over the bonnet of my geography teacher's car. Many bruises and abrasions but guess what? My skin and bone healed up. At fourteen my tennis racket holder (a clamp which fitted on the front forks which could hold a tennis racket) worked loose and jammed in the spokes with rather spectacular results. Again, battered and bruised but I recovered. I wasn't wearing a helmet. I hit my head. I'm here and not a vegetable. My crash had me land on the back of my head, from 2m, head first. That's the sort of concussion that can lead to brain damage and neck injury. As a kid, I had loads of "offs", without a helmet. Yeah, I got away with them. My head's a mess of scars from all sorts of minor bingles. None of them were crashes where I landed head-first. I think I was pretty lucky, as most kids are (or rather, not unlucky, we get away with all sorts of stuff that if the dice rolled the wrong numbers, would make us vegetables, as kids) There is no proof that helmets are beneficial. Bleve Heh, I refute this thus; I can still read. I refute your refute, I can still read to after several cycling accidents which resulted in a bump on the head. I fully suspect that if you had not been wearing a helmet in your accident you'd still be able to read as well. Not given the nature of the crash and how I landed. This is the thing about helmets, you have an accident and see the damage done to the helmet. ``Oh thank goodness I was wearing a helmet, that impact would have left me with brain damage.'' That's a very unlikely scenario. People have been falling on their bonce since the beginning of time and it is the minority of those cases which result in brain injury. It's not actually, it's only recently that humans have been traveling at an elevated height along concrete surfaces. A fall onto a natural surface (grass, dirt etc) is usually fine. A fall onto an unyielding surface is not to kind to our relatively fragile heads. If you're convinced of the properties of cycling helmets then I hope you wear one when walking and driving a car (I know you wear a motorcycle helmet ;-) ). As with all things of this nature, it's a "where do you draw the line" game. I'm constanly aware of the head-injury disaster area that is the inside of motor vehicles, and when I raced them, you bet I wore a helmet. and when we rolled, and the helmet got trashed from hitting the rollcage, I was mighty glad I was wearing it! The inside of cars (especially older ones) is trecherous. But, as a pedestrian, the likelyhood of a fall where I land head-first is pretty low. Now, "convinced of the properties of cycling helmets", duh. They reduce impact forces. That's *all* they do (cycling helmets don't have to pass any intrusion test, unlike Snell etc, AFAIK?). But, that's what they do. There's no convincing or otherwise. It's a fact. Hearts pump blood. That's all they do too. I still want mine Do helmets make riding safer? No, as they don't reduce the likleyhood of an accident. Do they make some classes of accident less likely to cause serious injury? Yes. Bleve It is a fact that in every country that has helmet compulsion cycling has decreased significantly which has a far greater impact on cyclist safety. Bleve It may have temporarily reduced numbers, but is there any Bleve evidence to suggest that the change lasted a generation? If the numbers hadn't reduced it's quite possible we'd have a lot more cyclists today. Maybe. That happened a generation ago though. Kids still ride bikes, they want independant transport. I think more people drive these days because they live further from work and cars are too affordable, but with the rising cost of petrol, that is changing. When I was a kid, people rode bikes because cars were expensive - most families I knew had one car, not two (or more!). Nowdays, Joe Average lives 20km+ from work and wants to get home in time to watch the dodgey tradesman getting busted on Ch 7. He'd rather sit in a comfortable, air conditioned car with a stereo (in a traffic jam!) than ride a bike into a headwind or catch a train to a station that's miles from home and is crowded, full of drunks and loonies (or at least, perceived to be) and doesn't let him stop at the stupormarket to go shopping on the way home. And then, I have to ask, are there actually less cyclists today than there was 20 years ago? In terms of percentages or base numbers? The bike shop industry is thriving. Helmets may work in very limited scenarios, they do not make a significant contribution to cyclist safety that warrants compulsion. That's your opinion. It's what counts as a significant contribution that is where the argument lies here. For me, wearing a helmet made a significant contribution to *my* safety. Compulsion is a barrier to cycling, a barrier to cycling reduces cycling numbers and increases the risk per cyclists. It's not a good trade off. Maybe, but I doubt it makes a significant difference these days. Wear a helmet or don't, I just don't agree with compulsion. Noted. I don't like compulsion either. But, here we are in that real-world thing where we all have to make compromises. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Warning: H*lm*t content
flyingdutch wrote:
Peter McCallum Wrote: At my daughter's school there's a policy that students must wear the correct coloured shoelaces, and it's strictly enforced. Obviously shoelace colour has some bearing on educational outcomes. P -- Peter McCallum Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA bwahahahah. opened up The Age today to discover my eldests' proposed highschool is introducing tie and Blazer. Daughter's response... "Can i burn it?" well it is called a blazer after all. of course ties are useful for joining together to escape over the razor wire. -- Peter McCallum Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Warning: H*lm*t content
Terry Collins wrote:
Peter McCallum wrote: At my daughter's school there's a policy that students must wear the correct coloured shoelaces, and it's strictly enforced. Obviously shoelace colour has some bearing on educational outcomes. Yes, Peter it does. {:-) By enforcing conformity and brain numbing, your daughter is given the best chance of being a counter bunny, or burger flipper at Maccas when she finishes school. This increase the percentage of students that get jobs after school, which increases the educational standing of her educational institution (from reading the latest rating system results). ROFLMAO Thankyou for your enlightened insight. I must ask her to obtain a principal's report on her uniform standard so that she can be assured a place at the University of Hamburgerology (even if I have to buy her one). -- Peter McCallum Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Warning: H*lm*t content
Bleve Wrote: Sure, I don't believe that helmets (or seatbelts) should be compulsory but if you choose not to wear one, you're an idiot I disagree. It means they've come to a different conclusion than yo have. That doesn't make them an idiot Who are you to say otherwise? Show me the data that head injuries hav decreased per kilometer cycled as a result of compulsion and you ma have a point. Current data points to the opposite trend So who's the idiot? The ones demanding helmet compulsion thereb slashing cycling numbers and increasing the risk per kilometer cycle or the ones who leave it to the individual o make the choice Noting that you're not for compulsion which is a different argumen from whether one should or not -- EuanB |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RR: On The Road (Warning: GRS Content) | Ride-A-Lot | Mountain Biking | 0 | June 6th 05 02:29 AM |
severe weather warning | joemarshall | Unicycling | 15 | January 14th 05 06:41 AM |
Weather warning ... | elyob | UK | 11 | January 5th 05 12:54 AM |
Warning! OT Political Content!!! | Steven Bornfeld | Racing | 15 | November 1st 04 12:06 AM |
Today (warning: on topic content) | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 3 | April 25th 04 12:40 AM |