BarracksSi
08-25-08, 03:41 AM
Exactly. The reason cars aren't flying down the highway at 100, 120, or 150mph isn't because their drivers have been taught to drive safely;
You're right -- because they haven't.
You're right -- because they haven't.
View Full Version : As a helmet wearing cyclist do you also support helmet use in cars?
mconlonx
08-25-08, 07:30 AM
I didn't wade through six pages of replies, but here's how it works for me:
If mandatory bike helmet legislation is introduced and proponents are arguing with the greater burden to society line, I would go to great lengths to add mandatory helmet use in autos as well. Also, like that one rep in AZ did with a motorcycle helmet law, suggest that any auto accident victim found not wearing a helmet become an automatic organ donor.
Why? To point out how silly the argument is. Car crashes are the leading cause of brain injury, not bikes, not motorcycles, so if you want to make the most impact for what you see as a clear drag on society, demand mandatory helmet use for all road users, including automobile drivers and passengers. If anyone is arguing about paying for the uninsured, they should be esepcially willing to support this.
I don't think there should be helmet laws, not for bikes, motorcycles, or any other activity. I regularly use a helmet while riding either a bike or motorcycle. Pointing out the fallacy of mandatory helmet use by demanding that all motorists use helmets is a good way to get the point across. When you can relate helmet use to motorists by turning their own argument against them, you stand to make some headway, i.e. no one is going to agree to amend a law to cover automobile helmet use, so the argument based on the cost to society falls apart.
If mandatory bike helmet legislation is introduced and proponents are arguing with the greater burden to society line, I would go to great lengths to add mandatory helmet use in autos as well. Also, like that one rep in AZ did with a motorcycle helmet law, suggest that any auto accident victim found not wearing a helmet become an automatic organ donor.
Why? To point out how silly the argument is. Car crashes are the leading cause of brain injury, not bikes, not motorcycles, so if you want to make the most impact for what you see as a clear drag on society, demand mandatory helmet use for all road users, including automobile drivers and passengers. If anyone is arguing about paying for the uninsured, they should be esepcially willing to support this.
I don't think there should be helmet laws, not for bikes, motorcycles, or any other activity. I regularly use a helmet while riding either a bike or motorcycle. Pointing out the fallacy of mandatory helmet use by demanding that all motorists use helmets is a good way to get the point across. When you can relate helmet use to motorists by turning their own argument against them, you stand to make some headway, i.e. no one is going to agree to amend a law to cover automobile helmet use, so the argument based on the cost to society falls apart.
uke
08-25-08, 11:28 AM
You're right -- because they haven't.
Have fun playing dumb. I'm out of here.
Have fun playing dumb. I'm out of here.
closetbiker
08-25-08, 11:34 AM
Have fun playing dumb. I'm out of here.
he's good at it
he's good at it
BarracksSi
08-25-08, 04:38 PM
Go spend time driving in a country that actually teaches their drivers how to drive, come back to the US, and you'll get as pissed as I did by how badly we drive here.
Collectively, we really can't drive. At all. It's friggin' disgusting. It's a huge reason why I got a place to live in the city rather than trying to live for cheaper outside the beltway. Frankly, it's embarrassing -- we're a culture that spent over half of its lifetime creating and accommodating the automobile, and we blew it. We can't stay in our lanes, we don't understand the phrase "passing lane", we eat, put on makeup, and read the damned newspaper at 70 mph, we yell at others when running a red light,...
Face it -- we haven't been taught a damned thing about how to drive. Our driving habits are, habitually, to SUCK at driving.
Collectively, we really can't drive. At all. It's friggin' disgusting. It's a huge reason why I got a place to live in the city rather than trying to live for cheaper outside the beltway. Frankly, it's embarrassing -- we're a culture that spent over half of its lifetime creating and accommodating the automobile, and we blew it. We can't stay in our lanes, we don't understand the phrase "passing lane", we eat, put on makeup, and read the damned newspaper at 70 mph, we yell at others when running a red light,...
Face it -- we haven't been taught a damned thing about how to drive. Our driving habits are, habitually, to SUCK at driving.
closetbiker
08-25-08, 06:18 PM
you'll get no argument from me there.
people have been getting away with terrible driving forever.
sales have meant more than safety.
it's about time drivers drove safer.
people have been getting away with terrible driving forever.
sales have meant more than safety.
it's about time drivers drove safer.
lightningcow
08-25-08, 09:42 PM
How about the FREEDOM to choose in all situations. I don't need the government to mandate what I should or shouldn't be wearing for MY OWN safety.
closetbiker
08-26-08, 08:50 AM
Just an extension of my thoughts from yesterday,
if there was a reduction driving speed, the benefits of the lower collision impact speeds would far exceed the protective benefits of everybody wearing helmets.
in a thread about a report from the Australian Government on the benefits of cycling to health (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=452068), the report mentions,
driving at 64 kmh is 17 times more dangerous than driving at 32 kmh.
At 32 kmh, the fatality rate for pedestrians is 5%, @ 48 kmh, it's 45%, and @ 64 kmh, it's 85%.
The report comments these figures show a clear correlation of impact speed and pedestrian fatality. Cyclists, as a similarly vulnerable road user, can expect similar fatality rates. Speed reductions significantly increase safety levels and peoples propensity to walk or cycle.
if there was a reduction driving speed, the benefits of the lower collision impact speeds would far exceed the protective benefits of everybody wearing helmets.
in a thread about a report from the Australian Government on the benefits of cycling to health (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=452068), the report mentions,
driving at 64 kmh is 17 times more dangerous than driving at 32 kmh.
At 32 kmh, the fatality rate for pedestrians is 5%, @ 48 kmh, it's 45%, and @ 64 kmh, it's 85%.
The report comments these figures show a clear correlation of impact speed and pedestrian fatality. Cyclists, as a similarly vulnerable road user, can expect similar fatality rates. Speed reductions significantly increase safety levels and peoples propensity to walk or cycle.
Zeuser
08-26-08, 09:14 AM
You're right -- because they haven't.
Oh really? So you're telling me I'm not a safe driver? You've never even see me drive. :rolleyes:
Oh really? So you're telling me I'm not a safe driver? You've never even see me drive. :rolleyes:
Zeuser
08-26-08, 09:20 AM
How about the FREEDOM to choose in all situations. I don't need the government to mandate what I should or shouldn't be wearing for MY OWN safety.
Some people are too stupid for their own good. Governments must step in and set the rules.
How many crash test dummies must we destroy before people realize: Seat belts work! It's a good thing Government forces people to wear them.
Some people are too stupid for their own good. Governments must step in and set the rules.
How many crash test dummies must we destroy before people realize: Seat belts work! It's a good thing Government forces people to wear them.
lightningcow
08-26-08, 12:05 PM
No offense, but please stay in Canada. I demand liberty. I have the idea that is the United States...it is becoming a rare idea, but I still have it. If a person does not want to use a device that may or may not save their life...it is their decision. Take care of yourself and yours and I'll take care of mine.
Zeuser
08-26-08, 12:10 PM
So long as there is a social cost to your safety, it's not entirely your call.
Or did you think the cops and firemen that respond to an accident are free? Theyr'e not, they come out of you, and your neighbor's tax dollars.
Or did you think the cops and firemen that respond to an accident are free? Theyr'e not, they come out of you, and your neighbor's tax dollars.
lightningcow
08-26-08, 12:33 PM
In my view fire, law enforcement, etc. should be a private enterprise. Competition improves quality and lowers cost. The government which governs least, governs best.
Pig_Chaser
08-26-08, 12:40 PM
So long as there is a social cost to your safety, it's not entirely your call.
Or did you think the cops and firemen that respond to an accident are free? Theyr'e not, they come out of you, and your neighbor's tax dollars.
In my view fire, law enforcement, etc. should be a private enterprise. Competition improves quality and lowers cost. The government which governs least, governs best.
I think you two are going to have to agree to disagree and both stay in your respective countries :lol:
Or did you think the cops and firemen that respond to an accident are free? Theyr'e not, they come out of you, and your neighbor's tax dollars.
In my view fire, law enforcement, etc. should be a private enterprise. Competition improves quality and lowers cost. The government which governs least, governs best.
I think you two are going to have to agree to disagree and both stay in your respective countries :lol:
Zeuser
08-26-08, 12:50 PM
In my view fire, law enforcement, etc. should be a private enterprise. Competition improves quality and lowers cost. The government which governs least, governs best.
Typical American Capitalist B.S. :rolleyes:
Private Police. Yeah... that's brilliant.
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTM4MjQ2MjAyNV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNjU3MzI3._V1._SX485_SY324_.jpg
Typical American Capitalist B.S. :rolleyes:
Private Police. Yeah... that's brilliant.
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTM4MjQ2MjAyNV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNjU3MzI3._V1._SX485_SY324_.jpg
BarracksSi
08-26-08, 01:07 PM
As an example --
Where I work, for a motorcyclist to be covered by our insurance, they have to follow the rules that we set -- helmet, riding gear (leather, etc), high-visibility vest, and successful completion of a motorcycle safety course with hands-on training.
If they're in an accident but haven't done those things, insurance won't cover them.
It doesn't even matter what state they're in. Follow the rules we set, and they're good to go; don't, and they're not.
Where I work, for a motorcyclist to be covered by our insurance, they have to follow the rules that we set -- helmet, riding gear (leather, etc), high-visibility vest, and successful completion of a motorcycle safety course with hands-on training.
If they're in an accident but haven't done those things, insurance won't cover them.
It doesn't even matter what state they're in. Follow the rules we set, and they're good to go; don't, and they're not.
BarracksSi
08-26-08, 01:07 PM
Oh really? So you're telling me I'm not a safe driver? You've never even see me drive. :rolleyes:
At least somebody drives better than the norm and has the ability to avoid potential accidents.
At least somebody drives better than the norm and has the ability to avoid potential accidents.
littlewaywelt
08-26-08, 01:18 PM
Typical American Capitalist B.S. :rolleyes:
Private Police. Yeah... that's brilliant.
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTM4MjQ2MjAyNV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNjU3MzI3._V1._SX485_SY324_.jpg
Private police? hahaha, ah yes. It's worked so well for us in warfare security...Blackwater? /sarcasm
I for one am sick of outsourcing core gvt deliverables to the private sector. Like the fact that we now spend 80% of our intelligence dollars on the private sector. Like the fact that roads and HOTs are being privately leased & run. It goes on and on. IMO, the private sector is no better at running these and many other things than a centralized gvt org.
Private Police. Yeah... that's brilliant.
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTM4MjQ2MjAyNV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNjU3MzI3._V1._SX485_SY324_.jpg
Private police? hahaha, ah yes. It's worked so well for us in warfare security...Blackwater? /sarcasm
I for one am sick of outsourcing core gvt deliverables to the private sector. Like the fact that we now spend 80% of our intelligence dollars on the private sector. Like the fact that roads and HOTs are being privately leased & run. It goes on and on. IMO, the private sector is no better at running these and many other things than a centralized gvt org.
seeker333
08-26-08, 02:09 PM
Just an extension of my thoughts from yesterday,
if there was a reduction driving speed, the benefits of the lower collision impact speeds would far exceed the protective benefits of everybody wearing helmets.
in a thread about a report from the Australian Government on the benefits of cycling to health (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=452068), the report mentions,
driving at 64 kmh is 17 times more dangerous than driving at 32 kmh.
At 32 kmh, the fatality rate for pedestrians is 5%, @ 48 kmh, it's 45%, and @ 64 kmh, it's 85%.
The report comments these figures show a clear correlation of impact speed and pedestrian fatality. Cyclists, as a similarly vulnerable road user, can expect similar fatality rates. Speed reductions significantly increase safety levels and peoples propensity to walk or cycle.
To clarify the physics of above cited empirical evidence, F=(M*V*V)/2
The mass M of the vehicle(s) is generally much less critical than their velocity V at impact.
Bullets fired from firearms are deadly due to their velocity (400-4000 feet per second), not their mass (2-10 grams).
Although the mass is defined by the vehicle, the velocity is entirely dependent on the operator's discretion.
if there was a reduction driving speed, the benefits of the lower collision impact speeds would far exceed the protective benefits of everybody wearing helmets.
in a thread about a report from the Australian Government on the benefits of cycling to health (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=452068), the report mentions,
driving at 64 kmh is 17 times more dangerous than driving at 32 kmh.
At 32 kmh, the fatality rate for pedestrians is 5%, @ 48 kmh, it's 45%, and @ 64 kmh, it's 85%.
The report comments these figures show a clear correlation of impact speed and pedestrian fatality. Cyclists, as a similarly vulnerable road user, can expect similar fatality rates. Speed reductions significantly increase safety levels and peoples propensity to walk or cycle.
To clarify the physics of above cited empirical evidence, F=(M*V*V)/2
The mass M of the vehicle(s) is generally much less critical than their velocity V at impact.
Bullets fired from firearms are deadly due to their velocity (400-4000 feet per second), not their mass (2-10 grams).
Although the mass is defined by the vehicle, the velocity is entirely dependent on the operator's discretion.
frymaster
08-26-08, 02:53 PM
In my view fire, law enforcement, etc. should be a private enterprise. Competition improves quality and lowers cost. The government which governs least, governs best.
my private police force can beat up your private police force.
my private police force can beat up your private police force.
uke
08-26-08, 04:42 PM
in a thread about a report from the Australian Government on the benefits of cycling to health (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=452068), the report mentions,
driving at 64 kmh is 17 times more dangerous than driving at 32 kmh.
At 32 kmh, the fatality rate for pedestrians is 5%, @ 48 kmh, it's 45%, and @ 64 kmh, it's 85%.
Just as I suspected. As I said some pages ago, reducing speeds within city limits to 20mph max would turn every city in the country bike friendly overnight. Pedestrian friendly too. Fortunately, we've decided lots of people dying from needless collisions is worth being able to race from one stop sign to the next, over and over again.
driving at 64 kmh is 17 times more dangerous than driving at 32 kmh.
At 32 kmh, the fatality rate for pedestrians is 5%, @ 48 kmh, it's 45%, and @ 64 kmh, it's 85%.
Just as I suspected. As I said some pages ago, reducing speeds within city limits to 20mph max would turn every city in the country bike friendly overnight. Pedestrian friendly too. Fortunately, we've decided lots of people dying from needless collisions is worth being able to race from one stop sign to the next, over and over again.
Allister
08-26-08, 06:08 PM
In my view fire, law enforcement, etc. should be a private enterprise. Competition improves quality and lowers cost.
That's certainly what the zealots of the Free Market Religion would have you believe. I haven't seen much evidence of it, to be honest. As far as I can tell, the primary objective of any business is to get big enough that they can buy out the competition and no longer have to compete.
That's certainly what the zealots of the Free Market Religion would have you believe. I haven't seen much evidence of it, to be honest. As far as I can tell, the primary objective of any business is to get big enough that they can buy out the competition and no longer have to compete.
Allister
08-26-08, 06:10 PM
Some people are too stupid for their own good. Governments must step in and set the rules.
Ah, the birth of facsism.
Why not "Some people are too stupid for their own good. Governments must step in and educate them properly."?
Ah, the birth of facsism.
Why not "Some people are too stupid for their own good. Governments must step in and educate them properly."?
Allister
08-26-08, 06:18 PM
No offense, but please stay in Canada. I demand liberty. I have the idea that is the United States...it is becoming a rare idea, but I still have it. If a person does not want to use a device that may or may not save their life...it is their decision. Take care of yourself and yours and I'll take care of mine.
That's fine as long as you're also prepared to pay for any damages 'you and your's' are responsible for. Freedom always comes with a price.
That's fine as long as you're also prepared to pay for any damages 'you and your's' are responsible for. Freedom always comes with a price.
Six jours
08-26-08, 06:33 PM
That's fine as long as you're also prepared to pay for any damages 'you and your's' are responsible for. Freedom always comes with a price.
The essential trouble is that once we start deciding that we can restrict activities due to "social cost" -- ie. you have to wear a helmet because if you fall off without one I have to pay for it -- is that there's really no limit. Once I get to regulate your activities based on my pocketbook, almost nothing is safe, including the contents of your refrigerator, your choice of sexual partner, etc., etc.
I don't expect Canadian teenagers to understand that, but there's still hope for Australian grown-ups, I hope. :p
The essential trouble is that once we start deciding that we can restrict activities due to "social cost" -- ie. you have to wear a helmet because if you fall off without one I have to pay for it -- is that there's really no limit. Once I get to regulate your activities based on my pocketbook, almost nothing is safe, including the contents of your refrigerator, your choice of sexual partner, etc., etc.
I don't expect Canadian teenagers to understand that, but there's still hope for Australian grown-ups, I hope. :p
pueblonative
08-26-08, 06:42 PM
In my view fire, law enforcement, etc. should be a private enterprise. Competition improves quality and lowers cost. The government which governs least, governs best.
Why not just go back to feudalism while we're at it and let all the rich boys and girls hire their own private armies. Hell, let's make armies a private enterprise.
Seriously I don't think most rational capitalists would take such a "view" (and I use that term in the loosest possible term). Governments are created for certain functions, and law enforcement and safety are two of those essential functions. Moreover, in order to function and create a society that any of us want to inhabit they have to provide services for all regardless of ability to pay (or are you going to wait until that fire or crime streak reaches the suburbs before you do anything about it?). That pretty much rules out private enterprise for them.
Why not just go back to feudalism while we're at it and let all the rich boys and girls hire their own private armies. Hell, let's make armies a private enterprise.
Seriously I don't think most rational capitalists would take such a "view" (and I use that term in the loosest possible term). Governments are created for certain functions, and law enforcement and safety are two of those essential functions. Moreover, in order to function and create a society that any of us want to inhabit they have to provide services for all regardless of ability to pay (or are you going to wait until that fire or crime streak reaches the suburbs before you do anything about it?). That pretty much rules out private enterprise for them.
Allister
08-26-08, 06:54 PM
The essential trouble is that once we start deciding that we can restrict activities due to "social cost" -- ie. you have to wear a helmet because if you fall off without one I have to pay for it -- is that there's really no limit. Once I get to regulate your activities based on my pocketbook, almost nothing is safe, including the contents of your refrigerator, your choice of sexual partner, etc., etc.
Which is exactly why the 'take care of yourself and yours and I'll take care of mine' attitude is such an unhealthy one. Making it a choice between socialism and liberty is a false one. I'm a big supporter of public health, and have no problem with tax money being spent on people that may have injured themselves due to their own stupidity. It's called basic human compassion. I also don't agree with MHL. Figure that one out.
Which is exactly why the 'take care of yourself and yours and I'll take care of mine' attitude is such an unhealthy one. Making it a choice between socialism and liberty is a false one. I'm a big supporter of public health, and have no problem with tax money being spent on people that may have injured themselves due to their own stupidity. It's called basic human compassion. I also don't agree with MHL. Figure that one out.
Six jours
08-26-08, 07:36 PM
Which is exactly why the 'take care of yourself and yours and I'll take care of mine' attitude is such an unhealthy one. Making it a choice between socialism and liberty is a false one. I'm a big supporter of public health, and have no problem with tax money being spent on people that may have injured themselves due to their own stupidity. It's called basic human compassion. I also don't agree with MHL. Figure that one out.
Well, we're going to have to disagree on this off-topic tidbit. "Basic human compassion" is a wonderful thing, but forcing party A to pay for party B's medical care -- or anything else -- isn't my idea of compassion. I don't support a complete dismantling of public health services, but there is truth in the idea that when you make something "free" demand will always increase: there will always be people who "slip through the cracks". The question is what is the acceptable number, and how much are we willing to pay to get to it?
Well, we're going to have to disagree on this off-topic tidbit. "Basic human compassion" is a wonderful thing, but forcing party A to pay for party B's medical care -- or anything else -- isn't my idea of compassion. I don't support a complete dismantling of public health services, but there is truth in the idea that when you make something "free" demand will always increase: there will always be people who "slip through the cracks". The question is what is the acceptable number, and how much are we willing to pay to get to it?
Zeuser
08-27-08, 09:00 AM
Ah, the birth of facsism.
Why not "Some people are too stupid for their own good. Governments must step in and educate them properly."?
So is mandatory seatbelt laws Facism?
Why not "Some people are too stupid for their own good. Governments must step in and educate them properly."?
So is mandatory seatbelt laws Facism?
closetbiker
08-27-08, 09:22 AM
... I'm a big supporter of public health, and have no problem with tax money being spent on people that may have injured themselves due to their own stupidity...
... like helping the people looking down on perceived trauma risk, even if those taking that perceived risk are lowering their odds of brain injury though the leading method of reducing that brain injury, while taking part in sedentary activities that lead to the vast majority of brain injuries?
... like helping the people looking down on perceived trauma risk, even if those taking that perceived risk are lowering their odds of brain injury though the leading method of reducing that brain injury, while taking part in sedentary activities that lead to the vast majority of brain injuries?
Twitchy
09-02-08, 04:37 AM
Let's get everybody wearing their damn seatbelt and turning off their cell-phone once they get behind the wheel before we try and get them into helmets...one step at a time, ok?
closetbiker
09-02-08, 06:25 AM
... and how about slowing them down?
PaulH
09-02-08, 06:32 AM
Given a choice of air bags and helmets, I would have preferred helmets in cars.
Paul
Paul
chipcom
09-02-08, 06:51 AM
Given a choice of air bags and helmets, I would have preferred helmets in cars.
Paul
I'm thinking since cyclists have to be all decked out like racers to be considered 'safe', perhaps drivers should be all decked out like Nascar drivers...helmet, harness, roll cage, etc. Anyone who drives without these basic necessities on our DANGEROUS roadways is a potential organ donor and Darwin candidate. :D
Paul
I'm thinking since cyclists have to be all decked out like racers to be considered 'safe', perhaps drivers should be all decked out like Nascar drivers...helmet, harness, roll cage, etc. Anyone who drives without these basic necessities on our DANGEROUS roadways is a potential organ donor and Darwin candidate. :D
StrangeWill
09-02-08, 12:50 PM
What is funny is that in a car, a neck brace would probably be at least 10,000x times more appropriate than a helmet.
Six jours
09-02-08, 04:48 PM
What is funny is that in a car, a neck brace would probably be at least 10,000x times more appropriate than a helmet.
Let's not forget the recent news story of the age-grade triathlete who fell while descending a hill a week or so ago, and died from a broken neck. Her helmet obviously did not help, but one of the downhill-type neck braces likely would have. Why do so many folks consider a helmeted cyclist "safe", despite so much evidence to the contrary? And why aren't the "Even if it might make me safer..." types all gung-ho for neck braces?
Let's not forget the recent news story of the age-grade triathlete who fell while descending a hill a week or so ago, and died from a broken neck. Her helmet obviously did not help, but one of the downhill-type neck braces likely would have. Why do so many folks consider a helmeted cyclist "safe", despite so much evidence to the contrary? And why aren't the "Even if it might make me safer..." types all gung-ho for neck braces?
I-Like-To-Bike
09-03-08, 08:34 AM
Given a choice of air bags and helmets, I would have preferred helmets in cars.
Paul
Given that there is zero public interest or support for helmets in passenger cars, nobody needs to be concerned about ever making that choice. The OP is just a rhetorical question/troll-poll about "support" for the OP's conjured issue.
Paul
Given that there is zero public interest or support for helmets in passenger cars, nobody needs to be concerned about ever making that choice. The OP is just a rhetorical question/troll-poll about "support" for the OP's conjured issue.
JeffS
09-03-08, 08:38 AM
What is funny is that in a car, a neck brace would probably be at least 10,000x times more appropriate than a helmet.
A functional neck brace would require a helmet.
A functional neck brace would require a helmet.
Zeuser
09-03-08, 11:47 AM
Cars would have to be redesigned to use helmets. Every try backing up while wearing a helmet? I did!
Cars have airbags and seatbelts which make helmets pretty useless in every day conditions.
FYI: Racing cars, even amateur events like Solo2, require helmets!
Cars have airbags and seatbelts which make helmets pretty useless in every day conditions.
FYI: Racing cars, even amateur events like Solo2, require helmets!
Six jours
09-03-08, 05:10 PM
Cars have airbags and seatbelts which make helmets pretty useless in every day conditions.
Maybe you should consult your oft-referenced paramedic buddy about head injuries and car accident victims. He -- if he's not as imaginary as I suspect he is -- will be happy to explain to you just how stupid your opinion is.
Maybe you should consult your oft-referenced paramedic buddy about head injuries and car accident victims. He -- if he's not as imaginary as I suspect he is -- will be happy to explain to you just how stupid your opinion is.
chicharron
09-09-08, 08:59 AM
:deadhorse2:I remember the discussions about mandatory helmet laws for bicyclist.
NO, I don't think that motorist need to wear helmets.
I wear a helmet when I am on my bicycle, but am opposed to mandatory anything.
NO, I don't think that motorist need to wear helmets.
I wear a helmet when I am on my bicycle, but am opposed to mandatory anything.
chicharron
09-09-08, 09:02 AM
<So is mandatory seatbelt laws Facism?>
yup
yup
Zeuser
09-09-08, 09:18 AM
<So is mandatory seatbelt laws Facism?>
yup
:roflmao2: :lol: :rolleyes:
yup
:roflmao2: :lol: :rolleyes:
hotbike
09-09-08, 01:23 PM
The poll must be closed, but if I had voted, I would say:
"Own Automobile, always ride with helmet, and Agree."
Drivers of small cars like mini's, VW bugs, Yugo's, Smart cars ... should wear a helmet for protection.
Drivers of the big SUV's like Expedition's, Escalade's etc, should wear a helmet in case they fall from the car while boarding/deboarding.
"Own Automobile, always ride with helmet, and Agree."
Drivers of small cars like mini's, VW bugs, Yugo's, Smart cars ... should wear a helmet for protection.
Drivers of the big SUV's like Expedition's, Escalade's etc, should wear a helmet in case they fall from the car while boarding/deboarding.
StrangeWill
09-09-08, 02:28 PM
A functional neck brace would require a helmet.
Alas a helmet alone just makes it worse.
Let's not forget the recent news story of the age-grade triathlete who fell while descending a hill a week or so ago, and died from a broken neck. Her helmet obviously did not help, but one of the downhill-type neck braces likely would have. Why do so many folks consider a helmeted cyclist "safe", despite so much evidence to the contrary? And why aren't the "Even if it might make me safer..." types all gung-ho for neck braces?
Head injuries exist in like what, 70% of fatalities? (Was given in another thread a few days back), they're less common.
It's safer just by a physics standpoint, but not safe (really cruising on a bike can never be completely safe, nor can being a car, on a plane, etc.), much like someone wearing a shoulder equipped seat belt is safer than one with just a lap one, both will (generally) keep you from flying around the car, but one will do it better.
It's generally just an attempt in the battle of minimizing damage when something does go wrong.
Alas a helmet alone just makes it worse.
Let's not forget the recent news story of the age-grade triathlete who fell while descending a hill a week or so ago, and died from a broken neck. Her helmet obviously did not help, but one of the downhill-type neck braces likely would have. Why do so many folks consider a helmeted cyclist "safe", despite so much evidence to the contrary? And why aren't the "Even if it might make me safer..." types all gung-ho for neck braces?
Head injuries exist in like what, 70% of fatalities? (Was given in another thread a few days back), they're less common.
It's safer just by a physics standpoint, but not safe (really cruising on a bike can never be completely safe, nor can being a car, on a plane, etc.), much like someone wearing a shoulder equipped seat belt is safer than one with just a lap one, both will (generally) keep you from flying around the car, but one will do it better.
It's generally just an attempt in the battle of minimizing damage when something does go wrong.
Six jours
09-09-08, 02:35 PM
Alas a helmet alone just makes it worse.
Head injuries exist in like what, 70% of fatalities? (Was given in another thread a few days back), they're less common.
It's safer just by a physics standpoint, but not safe (really cruising on a bike can never be completely safe, nor can being a car, on a plane, etc.), much like someone wearing a shoulder equipped seat belt is safer than one with just a lap one, both will (generally) keep you from flying around the car, but one will do it better.
It's generally just an attempt in the battle of minimizing damage when something does go wrong.
IOW, the helmet is just one spot on the "safe/not safe" continuum. Yet for some reason many cyclists speak/act as though that one spot on the continuum is the appropriate one for all cyclists. That, essentially, is the problem.
Head injuries exist in like what, 70% of fatalities? (Was given in another thread a few days back), they're less common.
It's safer just by a physics standpoint, but not safe (really cruising on a bike can never be completely safe, nor can being a car, on a plane, etc.), much like someone wearing a shoulder equipped seat belt is safer than one with just a lap one, both will (generally) keep you from flying around the car, but one will do it better.
It's generally just an attempt in the battle of minimizing damage when something does go wrong.
IOW, the helmet is just one spot on the "safe/not safe" continuum. Yet for some reason many cyclists speak/act as though that one spot on the continuum is the appropriate one for all cyclists. That, essentially, is the problem.
njkayaker
09-09-08, 03:43 PM
IOW, the helmet is just one spot on the "safe/not safe" continuum. Yet for some reason many cyclists speak/act as though that one spot on the continuum is the appropriate one for all cyclists. That, essentially, is the problem.
And a common argument of the "anti-helmet" side, is that, since a helmet isn't perfect (ie, there exists accidents where it did no good), it is not useful (or even harmful).
And a common argument of the "anti-helmet" side, is that, since a helmet isn't perfect (ie, there exists accidents where it did no good), it is not useful (or even harmful).
Six jours
09-09-08, 03:51 PM
I rarely if ever see/hear that argument. It certainly is rare enough on these boards to be almost non-existent, and I am not aware of anyone here who is actively making it.
The argument, again, is that helmets are not nearly as effective as the more ardent pro-helmet folks claim, and is, in fact, so little better than nothing that it makes a statistically irrelevant difference in the rates of death and brain injury among adult cyclists. Therefore, while any given individual may find helmets worthwhile on the "anything is better than nothing" line of thought, there is no justification for aggressively pushing helmets for all cyclists, let alone mandating them by law.
The argument, again, is that helmets are not nearly as effective as the more ardent pro-helmet folks claim, and is, in fact, so little better than nothing that it makes a statistically irrelevant difference in the rates of death and brain injury among adult cyclists. Therefore, while any given individual may find helmets worthwhile on the "anything is better than nothing" line of thought, there is no justification for aggressively pushing helmets for all cyclists, let alone mandating them by law.
JeffS
09-09-08, 04:04 PM
And a common argument of the "anti-helmet" side, is that, since a helmet isn't perfect (ie, there exists accidents where it did no good), it is not useful (or even harmful).
I personally take exception with the statement that there's an anti-helmet "side". The pro-helmet "side" seems intent on imposing their will on everyone. I've yet to run across anyone who chooses not to wear a helmet and so much as cares what other people do. And yes, there are plenty of helmet wearers who also couldn't care less what others choose to do.
Pointing out someone's faulty arguments or lack of statistics on a messageboard does not make a person anti-helmet.
I personally take exception with the statement that there's an anti-helmet "side". The pro-helmet "side" seems intent on imposing their will on everyone. I've yet to run across anyone who chooses not to wear a helmet and so much as cares what other people do. And yes, there are plenty of helmet wearers who also couldn't care less what others choose to do.
Pointing out someone's faulty arguments or lack of statistics on a messageboard does not make a person anti-helmet.
chipcom
09-09-08, 06:40 PM
And a common argument of the "anti-helmet" side, is that, since a helmet isn't perfect (ie, there exists accidents where it did no good), it is not useful (or even harmful).
Please cite at least one post from somebody, anybody in these forums who has tried to convince someone not to wear a helmet, which would make them 'anti-helmet'. Who is this 'anti-helmet' side...I'm thinking they also killed JFK and were responsible for 9-11.
Please cite at least one post from somebody, anybody in these forums who has tried to convince someone not to wear a helmet, which would make them 'anti-helmet'. Who is this 'anti-helmet' side...I'm thinking they also killed JFK and were responsible for 9-11.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.