UK and Europe · Public discussion

Modern Morals Times 2 today

Started by fred2 · · Last activity · 17 posts · 351 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
12 June 2007
Last activity
18 June 2007
Original author
fred2
Posts
17
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
351
Views / 30 days
0
Topics

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–17 of 17
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Joe Joseph
    A colleague cycles to work without wearing a helmet. This upsets me, not
    just because I'm fond of him and would hate to see him injured, but because
    I think it is reckless - to himself, his family and to the NHS, which would
    have to pick up the bill to fix him. Do I have any right to be upset?

    Your workmate is a fool. But the world is full of fools. We are surrounded
    by fools. Often we choose to surround ourselves with fools because fools
    make bright company.

    In an age in which governments interfere so much in our private lives that
    we have come to assume that such snooping and meddling must be their natural
    prerogative, it is important to remind ourselves constantly that people have
    a right to do themselves a mischief without worrying about the approval or
    disapproval of their fellow citizens - providing that what they are doing is
    not illegal. But even here things get hazy: what is, and is not, legal is
    not the result of some divine edict (except in the case of the Ten
    Commandments, obviously). An act that we today deem illegal is often just an
    act that was commonplace before being buried under centuries of
    disapproval - sometimes, rightly so; sometimes puritanically so (this
    process also works in reverse, as acts once deemed punishable, such as
    homosexuality, cease to be so).

    Governments walk a tightrope between protecting us and overprotecting us.
    Should they warn us not to drink too much, or impose legal limits?
    Discourage fatty foods and smoking, or ban them? We should be at liberty to
    exercise free will; even at the cost of our own health. Otherwise who would
    climb Everest, or ski off-piste? And if a skier can expect the NHS to fix
    his broken leg, then why not a cyclist with a broken head? Even if the head
    belongs to a fool?

    --------------------------------------------------------------

    Just for Info !

    Fred

  2. fred2 said:

    Joe Joseph
    A colleague cycles to work without wearing a helmet. This upsets me, not
    just because I'm fond of him and would hate to see him injured, but because
    I think it is reckless - to himself, his family and to the NHS, which would
    have to pick up the bill to fix him. Do I have any right to be upset?

    <sigh>

    This country really is getting totalitarian, isn't it? While the NHS
    argument may or may not be valid, it is up to him and his family what
    risks he and his family take. Nobody else.

    Or is it better to report those not in compliance to "the party"? I
    despair.

    Neil

  3. Neil Williams said:
    fred2 said:

    Joe Joseph
    A colleague cycles to work without wearing a helmet. This upsets me, not
    just because I'm fond of him and would hate to see him injured, but because
    I think it is reckless - to himself, his family and to the NHS, which would
    have to pick up the bill to fix him. Do I have any right to be upset?

    <sigh>

    This country really is getting totalitarian, isn't it? While the NHS
    argument may or may not be valid, it is up to him and his family what
    risks he and his family take. Nobody else.

    Or is it better to report those not in compliance to "the party"? I
    despair.

    Neil

    http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article1916332.ece
    http://preview.tinyurl.com/2bdvcd

    A paper that wants to be one of the best in the country
    should not print this claptrap.

    I have submitted a comment to the page.

    Martin.

  4. Neil Williams said:
    fred2 said:

    Joe Joseph
    A colleague cycles to work without wearing a helmet. This upsets me, not
    just because I'm fond of him and would hate to see him injured, but because
    I think it is reckless - to himself, his family and to the NHS, which would
    have to pick up the bill to fix him. Do I have any right to be upset?

    <sigh>

    This country really is getting totalitarian, isn't it? While the NHS
    argument may or may not be valid, it is up to him and his family what
    risks he and his family take. Nobody else.

    Err. I think the real point here is the unquestioned
    assumption by both questioner (a fiction, presumably)
    and responder that wearing helmets is a Good Thing.

    Whilst the notion that (e.g.) skydiving is dangerous
    is pretty much accepted, the pros and cons of
    helmet wearing are (looks around nervously) "contentious"

    BugBear

  5. in message <[email hidden]>, fred2

    (') said:

    Joe Joseph
    A colleague cycles to work without wearing a helmet. This upsets me, not
    just because I'm fond of him and would hate to see him injured, but
    because I think it is reckless - to himself, his family and to the NHS,
    which would have to pick up the bill to fix him. Do I have any right to
    be upset?

    You're wrong to be upset. Contrary to what one would expect, there is no
    significant difference to the probability of serious injuries whether one
    wears a helmet or not. Helmet wearing is very slightly - but not
    significantly - more dangerous than not wearing a helmet.

    What /is/ foolish is to assume that half an inch of polystyrene foam has
    magic protective powers which the manufacturers of helmets don't even
    pretend they have. Read the leaflet which came with your helmet, and then
    ask yourself whether there's any point in wearing it.

    --
    [email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    ;; When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb.

  6. bugbear bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim said:

    Err. I think the real point here is the unquestioned
    assumption by both questioner (a fiction, presumably)
    and responder that wearing helmets is a Good Thing.

    This is true, though I was going for the other angle that it is really
    none of the business of the person writing to the paper whether anyone
    else chooses to wear a cycle helmet or not, regardless of the view on
    safety or otherwise of doing so or not doing so. (I personally do not
    wear one, and would only do so under protest if it became law to do
    so, and I'm currently in the Netherlands where practically nobody does
    - they don't even wear helmets when riding mopeds or motor scooters
    most of the time).

    Quoted message said:

    Whilst the notion that (e.g.) skydiving is dangerous
    is pretty much accepted, the pros and cons of
    helmet wearing are (looks around nervously) "contentious"

    Indeed. However, I would not consider it my right to determine
    whether or not anyone else went skydiving, BASE jumping, free-climbing
    or whatever. That's up to them.

    Neil

  7. A moral dilemma. At what point does an individual have control over
    his own life and actions and at what stage does the 'state' thinks it
    has the right to intervene?

    Also a moral dilemma for the 'state' - we know tobacco kills thousands
    every year yet the 'state' does not ban it - the reasons are obvious,
    money, lots of it which the 'state' needs to pay its way.

    Who or what is the 'state'? In 64 years no one has ever given me an
    answer I was convinced by.

  8. On Jun 13, 12:08 am, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim>

    Quoted message said:

    Err. I think the real point here is the unquestioned
    assumption by both questioner (a fiction, presumably)

    I think you may be right on that. The original question does sound a
    little too journalistic. That said, they do edit submissions to
    newspapers so that may be partly responsible. However I do think it
    does look like a "let's make up a letter to give me a chance to have a
    little rant" type set up.

    Graeme

  9. fred2 wrote:

    [snip]

    Quoted message said:


    Governments walk a tightrope between protecting us and overprotecting us.
    Should they warn us not to drink too much, or impose legal limits?
    Discourage fatty foods and smoking, or ban them? We should be at liberty to
    exercise free will; even at the cost of our own health. Otherwise who would
    climb Everest, or ski off-piste? And if a skier can expect the NHS to fix
    his broken leg, then why not a cyclist with a broken head? Even if the head
    belongs to a fool?

    Rather misses the point that cyclists are healthier, live longer and are
    less likely to have expensive-to-fix things like dodgy hearts. So
    cycling saves the NHS money even if they do have the occasional head to
    mend.

    Peter

    --
    www.amey.org.uk

  10. fred2 said:

    Joe Joseph
    A colleague cycles to work without wearing a helmet. This upsets me, not
    just because I'm fond of him and would hate to see him injured, but because
    I think it is reckless - to himself, his family and to the NHS, which would
    have to pick up the bill to fix him. Do I have any right to be upset?

    Your workmate is a fool. But the world is full of fools. We are surrounded
    by fools. Often we choose to surround ourselves with fools because fools
    make bright company.

    In an age in which governments interfere so much in our private lives that
    we have come to assume that such snooping and meddling must be their natural
    prerogative, it is important to remind ourselves constantly that people have
    a right to do themselves a mischief without worrying about the approval or
    disapproval of their fellow citizens - providing that what they are doing is
    not illegal. But even here things get hazy: what is, and is not, legal is
    not the result of some divine edict (except in the case of the Ten
    Commandments, obviously). An act that we today deem illegal is often just an
    act that was commonplace before being buried under centuries of
    disapproval - sometimes, rightly so; sometimes puritanically so (this
    process also works in reverse, as acts once deemed punishable, such as
    homosexuality, cease to be so).

    Governments walk a tightrope between protecting us and overprotecting us.
    Should they warn us not to drink too much, or impose legal limits?
    Discourage fatty foods and smoking, or ban them? We should be at liberty to
    exercise free will; even at the cost of our own health. Otherwise who would
    climb Everest, or ski off-piste? And if a skier can expect the NHS to fix
    his broken leg, then why not a cyclist with a broken head? Even if the head
    belongs to a fool?

    --------------------------------------------------------------

    Just for Info !

    Fred

    Ask him why he doesn't wear a helmet?

    If your as fond of him as you say, buy him a helmet for Birthday/Xmas,
    and ask him out for a date.

    Luckily as many would say, we still have a choice in the UK as to what
    advice we follow...

  11. "fred2" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Joe Joseph
    A colleague cycles to work without wearing a helmet. This upsets
    me, not just because I'm fond of him and would hate to see him
    injured, but because I think it is reckless - to himself, his
    family and to the NHS, which would have to pick up the bill to fix
    him. Do I have any right to be upset?

    The national death rate remains what it always was - one each.
    Surely we have an obligation to fellow taxpayers to die in a cheap a
    way as possible, and perhaps an obligation to minimise pension
    expenses as well.

    Better a bump on the head than expensive cancer treatment, or years
    in a home with Alzheimers

    Jeremy Parker

  12. In article <[email hidden]>,
    "The other view point, there is one you know..."

    Quoted message said:


    If your as fond of him as you say...

    ...we still have a choice in the UK as to what
    advice we follow...

    Including the basic rules of English, apparently.

    --
    Sara

    The teeth are free at last! Fly free, young teethies!

  13. Martin Dann wrote on 12/06/2007 16:55 +0100:

    Quoted message said:


    http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article1916332.ece

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/2bdvcd

    A paper that wants to be one of the best in the country should not
    print this claptrap.

    I have submitted a comment to the page.

    An interesting bit of data in the comments posted:

    "INRET (the French equivalent of TRL) studied 5459 casualties that were
    hospitalised after serious road crashes. The study noted the proportion
    of road users that suffered more than 24 hours' unconsciousness
    following the crash. The results were:
    pedestrians 4.2%
    motorcyclists 3.9%
    cyclists 2.3%
    car occupants 1.3%. "

    Bit of Googling finds it comes from Ramet M, Vallet G. Typologies des
    accidentes du trafic routier a partier de 5459 dossiers. Rapports
    INRET/LCB Aug 1987 so in the days before helmets and therefore not
    attributable to them.

    --
    Tony

    "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
    is no good evidence either way."
    - Bertrand Russell

  14. Sara Kirk said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    "The other view point, there is one you know..."

    Quoted message said:

    If your as fond of him as you say...

    Quoted message said:

    ...we still have a choice in the UK as to what
    advice we follow...

    Including the basic rules of English, apparently.

    --
    Sara

    Oh what a shame, you couldn't add anything to the thread. Keep in
    there i'm sure you will get the hang of it.

  15. In article <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven
    [email hidden] says...
    <snip>

    Quoted message said:

    Bit of Googling finds it comes from Ramet M, Vallet G. Typologies des
    accidentes du trafic routier a partier de 5459 dossiers. Rapports
    INRET/LCB Aug 1987 so in the days before helmets and therefore not
    attributable to them.


    IIRC helmets were widely available in 1987 - the common ones were
    polystyrene with a lycra cover, microshells were just becoming
    affordable and the Bell hardshell thing cost about £90. I doubt the
    French were wearing many though.

  16. Rob Morley said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven
    [email hidden] says...
    <snip>> Bit of Googling finds it comes from Ramet M, Vallet G. Typologiesdes

    Quoted message said:

    accidentes du trafic routier a partier de 5459 dossiers. Rapports
    INRET/LCB Aug 1987 so in the days before helmets and therefore not
    attributable to them.

    IIRC helmets were widely available in 1987 - the common ones were
    polystyrene with a lycra cover, microshells were just becoming
    affordable and the Bell hardshell thing cost about £90. I doubt the
    French were wearing many though.

    I bought my first helmet (a Bell V1-pro) in 1987. It was much less
    than 90 quid.
    Giro helmets were the expensive ones.

    ...d

  17. In article <[email hidden]>, David
    Martin
    [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:

    I bought my first helmet (a Bell V1-pro) in 1987.

    That's the one.

    Quoted message said:

    It was much less than 90 quid. Giro helmets were the expensive ones.


    I did say 'IIRC'. :-) Maybe it was earlier that they were that sort of
    price.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.