Helmet policy for school kids.

[chipcom]

The only thing I can continue to do is the safety education. and hope that natural selection works well enough to stop this at this generation.

So in other words you are wishing injury and death on others to somehow get folks to go along with your wishes. How very white of you. Natural selection usually means the extinction of folks like you...since you obviously can't walk and chew gum without hurting yourself.

[supcom]

The only thing I can continue to do is the safety education. and hope that natural selection works well enough to stop this at this generation.

I get a chill down my spine when someone expresses this sort of sentiment about children. Very frightening.

[ignominious]

The only thing I can continue to do is the safety education. and hope that natural selection works well enough to stop this at this generation.

The Department for Transport in the UK did a study and discovered that per billion kilometres cycled the death rate (not death by head injury I might add) was 33 (48 for walking). That hardly counts as natural selection as few cyclists will ever cycle 1 million kilometres, let alone 1 billion. For natural selection to be applicable the death rate would have to be far higher than that for non-helmeted riders alone.

But if this is natural selection at work, do you risk the ire of nature by walking unhelmeted N_C? Afterall, it would be putting yourself at a risk more than 30% higher than cycling unhelmeted.

[ZachS]

I think we should take up a collection to buy N_C a walking helmet. I wasn't able to find any good pictures of walking-specific helmets, but these are probably designed for similar low-speed circumstances:

http://www.westspol.org/images/Ohiopyle2.jpg

[ignominious]

I think I speak for all of us when I say YAY FOR POKING FUN AT THE DISABLED.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I get a chill down my spine when someone expresses this sort of sentiment about children. Very frightening.
Don't forget aboutNut__Case's stated preference in the "firm hand" when applying discipline to someone else's kids. I think he is on the wrong internet list and hope he starts corresponding on one that does cater to his preferences. I assume those are closely monitored by law enforcement officials.

[ZachS]

I think I speak for all of us when I say YAY FOR POKING FUN AT THE DISABLED.

I'm not poking fun at anybody - just using a particularly apt photograph for illustrative purposes. The photo is from a website discussing training disabled athletes for the Special Olympics.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I'm not poking fun at anybody - just using a particularly apt photograph for illustrative purposes. The photo is from a website discussing training disabled athletes for the Special Olympics.
Actually a photo of any of the expensive helmets from any of the retail merchants and modeled by any pretty boy/girl cycling athlete would do. They are almost all built to meet the same low design standards. The slow moving tricycle is appropriate. Maybe Artie Johson (Laugh-In) on his tricycle should be N_C's poster boy.

[randya]

This just in from Seattle:

Safety First: Tips and Techniques for Riding in Traffic
by Kent Peterson, Commuting Program Director, Bicycle Alliance of Washington
http://www.mile43.com/peterson/Safety%20First.html

"...let me spend just a couple of minutes talking about bike helmets.

Now you may or may not know that bike helmets are a huge hot-button issue for some folks. I've got friends who are huge fans of helmets and can cite x number of studies about lives saved by helmets. I've got other friends who are just as strongly opposed to helmet laws and they can cite studies showing the downsides of helmet use and helmet laws. I can guarantee you that this very instant there are people on the Internet who are very busy arguing about helmets right now. Most of these arguments do little to change people's minds and in the interest of brevity (and because I like to think that I'm not a total fool) I'm not going to dive into the battles of the helmet wars. I am, however, going to say a few things about helmets.

First off, the bicycle helmet is not some kind of magical protective device. A helmet may lessen your injuries in some types of accidents but a helmet alone does not make you "safe." In fact, it can be argued (and people do, trust me on this), that the illusion of safety can make people more reckless. If a Hummer H2 going 55 miles per hour collides with a bicyclist going 15 miles per hour an extra inch of foam around the head of said bicyclist is not going to make much of a difference in the overall transfer of energy. Force equals mass times acceleration. I remember that from physics class.

I remember that and a lot of other things because my brain is still basically intact. A couple of times in the past my intact brain has bounced a few inches above the pavement while a thin layer of plastic and slightly thicker layer of foam collapsed in the fraction of a second after a sudden and unanticipated transfer of momentum. I was wearing a helmet on those occasions.

I personally favor helmet use. I wear a helmet when I ride my bike.

I also aware of other opinions and I personally am not in favor of mandatory helmet laws. But as I said this is my personal view and while Thomas Paine and I may feel "that government is best which governs least," the King Board of Health Code (www.metrokc.gov/HEALTH/boh/code/) states in section BOH 9.10.010(A), “Any person operating or riding on a bicycle not powered by motor on a public roadway, bicycle path or on any right-of-way or publicly owned facilities located in King County including Seattle, shall wear a protective helmet designed for bicycle safety.”

So that's the law of the land. And that pretty much ends what I'm going to say about helmets. I do think the one unfortunate thing about the situation with helmets is that for too many people the helmet becomes the main focal point in bicycle safety. The helmet is only plastic and foam. Safety is about riding safely, being aware of your surroundings and what else is happening on the road."

[joejack951]

Re: seatbelts, these have been PROVEN time and again to save lives by keeping the passenger in an automobile, who is surrounded by glass and steel, traveling at high speeds, and subject to huge accelerations in a crash, firmly in place in their seat instead of being thrown at 50mph at the glass and steel that surround them. How much does that situation have in common with your typical bicycle crash in which a helmet might prove effective?

It has also been proven, by the many high speed crashes in automobile racing, that 4, 5 or 6 point harnesses plus a helmet and head restraint can keep the driver even safer. In the super-safe US, anything other than the standard 3 point seatbelt is illegal even though they are safer. Why? I can only assume that it's either because requiring manufacturers to use these more expensive restraints would cost too much or because it might (gasp) reduce motoring because of the added inconvenience.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Can you people drop this ****. It isn't going to happen, so let it go already. Holy christ I have never seen such a bunch of whiners when it comes to opposing something. Let it go & drop it already. No need to beat a dead horse.
N_C you were the only poster so clueless as to think "it" might happen. The problem is what your next stupid idea will be, and to whom you are going to try to apply your "firm hand."

[randya]

He's already posted his next idea here: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=194263

As usual, he pre-harangues his audience, then asks for their opinion. :rolleyes:

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I think I speak for all of us when I say YAY FOR POKING FUN AT THE DISABLED.
Totally OT, but a heart warming story (Given a Chance to Be Little Ballerinas, and Smiling Right Down to Their Toes) in yesterday's NYT about doing right by disabled children can be found at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/05/nyregion/05ballet.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

It is a wonderful story with an associated slide show. Makes you appreciate your own children and the people who really do good things for children. Much better reading than the activities of know nothing Busybody Meddlers

If you don't want to register on the NYC site to read it, don't.

[0_emissions :=)]

Here the law says that all persons under 18 need a helmet, and ALL people riding in provincial parks need one. I remember there was a little bit of protest from the sikh's, because wearing a helmet would obviously interfere with turban wearing. Well, saftey first, they said, the law's the same for everybody.

[SirMike1983]

Well I called & spoke with the safety education person in the district. I was told the only way they could impliment such a policy is if it was on the books as a state law that the state board of education has to follow first. Since it is not state law then there is nothing they can do. I am not about to try to make it state law. It has been tried in the past, not by me, though I did agree with it, & has failed miserably.

Howver if it was state law & it was violated the principal would have the power to take action at his or her discretion. I did find out that students who drive & do not wear seatbelts & because Iowa has a seatbelt law, their priviliges of driving to & from school are revoked.

I imagine if there was a state wide bicycle helmet law somethign similar would apply. The principal would probably revoke the privilage of the student riding his or her bike to school.

Because Iowa does not have a law about wearing a helmet when you walk the same applies. Again it has to be a state mandated policy or law before the school districts can do anything about it.

The only thing I can continue to do is the safety education. and hope that natural selection works well enough to stop this at this generation.

So you opposition nazi's out there should be happy with this.

His approach to getting this regulation enacted via some special proposal smacks of the classic "I know best what is good for you and I'm going to enforce it". The fact that a state bill on the matter failed is evidence that this little venture was nothing more than an attempt to force a regulation on the people after having failed in normal political process. This sort of approach attempts to enact what is, in effect, a law, without the consent of the voting public. If this is the "opposition" then how are they "nazis"? It appears more than anything that this is simply the democratic majority who voted against it in the state government and who have opposed it here. It is the real "nazi" who attempts to undermine the democratic process by using these behind the back means to regulate the lives of the public.

[Daily Commute]

N_C must have been embarrassed by his posts, because he has deleted them.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

N_C must have been embarrassed by his posts, because he has deleted them.
Maybe he deleted them because they reveasled more about himself than he intended.

[Daily Commute]

Well I called & spoke with the safety education person in the district. I was told the only way they could impliment such a policy is if it was on the books as a state law that the state board of education has to follow first. Since it is not state law then there is nothing they can do. I am not about to try to make it state law. It has been tried in the past, not by me, though I did agree with it, & has failed miserably.

Howver if it was state law & it was violated the principal would have the power to take action at his or her discretion. I did find out that students who drive & do not wear seatbelts & because Iowa has a seatbelt law, their priviliges of driving to & from school are revoked.

I imagine if there was a state wide bicycle helmet law somethign similar would apply. The principal would probably revoke the privilage of the student riding his or her bike to school.

Because Iowa does not have a law about wearing a helmet when you walk the same applies. Again it has to be a state mandated policy or law before the school districts can do anything about it.

The only thing I can continue to do is the safety education. and hope that natural selection works well enough to stop this at this generation.

So you opposition nazi's out there should be happy with this.

His approach to getting this regulation enacted via some special proposal smacks of the classic "I know best what is good for you and I'm going to enforce it". The fact that a state bill on the matter failed is evidence that this little venture was nothing more than an attempt to force a regulation on the people after having failed in normal political process. This sort of approach attempts to enact what is, in effect, a law, without the consent of the voting public. If this is the "opposition" then how are they "nazis"? It appears more than anything that this is simply the democratic majority who voted against it in the state government and who have opposed it here. It is the real "nazi" who attempts to undermine the democratic process by using these behind the back means to regulate the lives of the public.
Why are people "nazis" if they ask for some sort of evidence before using the power of government to intrude into a parent's right to raise their own children?

Did you delete the thread because you admit you were wrong about trying to force your parenting choices on other parents? Or did realize that your Nazi comment just went too far?