I've changed the subject line to more accurately reflect the content.
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:13:57 -0400, Stephen Harding <
[email protected]> wrote:
>Rick Onanian wrote:
>> What does that have to do with wearing a helmet while bicycling?
>
>You seemed to imply that since this is a bike group, helmet wars are centered on bikes.
>
>I simply point out that no such wars occur on the motor vehicle group I read. Doubt they occur on
>hiking groups. Perhaps on scooter/rollerblade groups.
Why are you concerned with other groups?
>In short, it seems the "helmet or death" claimants concentrate only on bicycle helmets. Equal or
>more dangerous activities get no attention.
I'm glad that I'm not a "helmet or death" claimant.
>> >Do you only injure your head when you ride your bike?
>>
>> No, although my worst injury ever would have been reduced to about as bad as any other had I worn
>> a helmet at the time.
>
>Don't follow this, but it probably doesn't matter. No head injury, but a helmet would have
>reduced/eliminated some other type injury?
No, my worst injury ever was a head injury. I was off-road, and took a dive; one side of my face was
torn up, and I needed stitches in my eyelid. A helmet, through it's thickness, would have offset
that injury just enough so it wouldn't have bothered my eye -- and I would have been able to keep
riding and not go to the emergency room. Afterwards, my eye crusted up with icky pus and stuff for a
few weeks.
Take a look at the picture, if you dare (I'm ugly enough without scabs...):
http://members.cox.net/thc/BrokenFace.jpg
>Yes but my inquiry was focused on why people think helmet use on a bike is necessary while not on
>any other type activity (walking/motoring)? Why a head injury from a car is somehow less a concern
>than from a bike?
>
>That's what I meant by fixate
Okay. However, I don't see why other activities are a concern.
Personally, my injury rate on a bicycle is much, much higher than in a car -- that is, injuries per
hour or per mile. For other people who ride off-road, the numbers are probably similar. For on-road,
I imagine that it's closer, but even that depends on how they ride (given that they all ride
carefully) -- maybe one person rides relaxed to spend time enjoying scenery, while another is riding
as hard as he can for fitness or excitement. Either way, they depend on others around them to drive
safely, and are much more vulnerable than those others for any given accident.
>> The intent of the law is to punish racing, AFAIK, not a visibility/hearing issue (although
>> there's a good argument against mandatory motorcycle helmets). However...you know, while nobody
>> has argued it, we've all (apparently) taken it for granted that this is true.
>
>If you think helmets are a good idea while bicycling, I find it difficult to believe you would
>think not wearing one on a motorcycle would be OK.
Not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle is OK. Not wearing a helmet on a bicycle is OK. It's a good
idea on either one, though. I am, however, against mandatory helmet laws for either one. None of
that was my point above, though.
My point was, if you find yourself in an argument against MHLs for motorcycles, the decreased
visibility/hearing issue would be a good argument to use (and I'm sure that it gets used).
>Personally, I always wore a helmet when I rode a motorcycle, even in states where they were not
>mandatory. Felt naked without one.
Good choice.
>> Why are laws so hard to find? They should be so easy to find that anybody can find them in under
>> a minute. How are we supposed to obey them when we don't know them?
>
>Some states have laws on the web, or at least a selected subset of them. I've found laws relative
>to bicycling for quite a few states via Google.
Indeed, my state (RI) has laws on the web, but it's difficult to search them, and I'm not at all
sure that they're complete.
>SMH
--
Rick Onanian