Originally Posted by
Six-Shooter
For me, there's no expectation of a bike helmet preventing death, which is what you mention. But certain lacerations, contusions, or concussions?
Which helmets prevent concussions?
Originally Posted by
Six-Shooter
Quite possibly. Barring incontrovertible evidence suggesting that SOME CLAIMED SAFETY DEVICE increase the likelihood or severity of SOME INJURY , for me USING IT will continue to be a simple and easy bit of common sense precaution, akin to wearing shoes and gloves and sunglasses.
(Changed the above to make a point).
Q-Ray bracelets, homeopathic medecines, jockstraps, kevlar vests, shin pads, mega-doses of vitamins, miraculous medals, etc ... All of these things are easily available, are strongly supported by the testimony of their users (on the basis of multiple different belief systems) to be efficacious. Why would you not use them? Have you studied actuarial tables to determine that the injuries they prevent are less likely than the injuries for which you wear your helmet?
Originally Posted by
Six-Shooter
That's what I was saying: one situation doesn't necessarily imply behavior in another, unless your primary object is uniformity or consistency of behavior. Something could fall of a shelf and hit you in the head at home. You presumably don't wear a helmet in your closet. Should you therefore neglect to wear a helmet in other circumstances?
I don't wear a helmet at home, or on a bicycle, because I judge the likelihood of injury to my head in both situations to be incredibly low. *I* try to address accidents that seem more likely to occur. I don't worry about being hit by lightning (more common than you'd think) or being murdered by psychopathic home invaders. I do worry about my physical fitness and I am very careful to look both ways when crossing the street.
Originally Posted by
Six-Shooter
Do you need to study statistical tables and have a cutoff percentage that determines when something is dangerous enough to warrant protective measures?
It could certainly help with wasting energy on avoiding asteroid strikes to the house when I should have been testing the fire extinguishers.
Originally Posted by
Six-Shooter
"Bizarre" is a loaded term. Is it indeed strange to take a precautionary measure in an athletic activity, a measure that imposes no unreasonable physical or financial hardship? (Leaving aside for the moment the question of having this enforced by someone else.)
That's too general a phrasing. Of course taking a precautionary measure is a good idea in a general sense. But, there are two probabilities to consider: 1) the probability that the incident will actually occur (cf meteor strikes, probability of banging head on bike, or probability of banging head at home); 2) the probability that the said measure will actually alleviate the effects of the accidents.
You can find information on both of these fairly easily.
Originally Posted by
Six-Shooter
Nowadays, it's generally acceptable in many sports/athletic activities to wear helmets, pads, cups, gloves, mouth guards, etc. Are these people engaging in "bizarre" or paranoid precautionary behavior since the likelihood of injury might not be as great as in other situations?
Helmet use in hockey, football and other contact sports is increasingly being called into question as it changes the behavior of the participants, inciting into behaviors which increase the likelihood of the very head injuries for which the helmets seem to make no difference: concussions. I do actually find it bizarre that this situation exists. It seems counter-rational to me.