Ian said:Simon Brooke must be edykated coz e writed:
Quoted message said:Ian said:At the risk of getting flamed, I always recommend the use of helmets, but still think it should
be down to choice above the age of 16, I am all for compulsory helmet use for the under 16's.
Not a flame, but why? What good do you think it would do?
I think it would save some injuries.
Well, it might. Wrapping the kids in cotton wool and hanging them on the wall might, too. When I was
a kid we rode far further on our bikes than kids do now, and I can't recall anyone who suffered
_any_ serious injury in a push-bike accident. None of us wore helmets, or cycling gloves.
The only injury I've *ever* suffered in a push-bike accident (in over forty years of cycling) was a
badly gashed thumb that needed stitching[1], and a helmet would not have made a happence worth of
difference to that. So we're not talking, here, of mitigating a menace which is decimating the cream
of the nation's youth. We're talking about a measure which might - might - save a couple of deaths,
and ten times that number of injuries a year, but would be highly likely to greatly reduce the
number of people cycling (as, for example, such legislation has been shown to have done in
Australia) thus increasing the obesity of children and thus the number of early deaths from diabetes
and heart disease.
In other words, the net saving of life is likely to be nil and may well be negative, and the impact
on general health is certain to be negative. There seems to me _every_ reason to oppose this
legislation.
[1] Humpback bridge followed by a sharp right hand bend; my wheels didn't touch the ground in time
to take the bend.
--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗
There are no messages. The above is just a random stream of bytes. Any opinion or meaning
you find in it is your own creation.
