Not to go round in circles on this one, but I think I probably do represent "the enemy" as far as your views are concerned.
I suspect that we agree on more than we disagree. The same is possibly true with Tony & Guy. Guy's website shows him on a three person tandem with his two children wearing helmets, and his "Bike Safe" page is full of common sense, although I'd like to see helmets and their correct wearing included in the bullet points.
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 14:37:54 +0100, Gonzalez <[email hidden]> wrote in message <[email hidden]>:
Quoted message said:
God this is hard work.
Certainly is, but we live in hope that you will eventually understand...
Quoted message said:
Cyclists are not singled out for being the only people to use helmets.
So, are child pedestrians being encouraged to wear them? Five times the incidence of head injuries, surely muich greater potential for savings. And as a bonus they will have a helmet already when they come to cycle.
How about child car occupants? Most fatal head injuries involve impacts of a scale beyond the capacity of a Formula 1 helmet, but at leasta child cra occupant could practically wear a Formula 1 helmet. And more children suffer head injuries as car passengers than as road cyclists.
I'd have no problem at all with motorists and their passengers being compelled to wear helmets.
e) suggest that promoting helmet use is irresponsible
I guess a lot of people on the ng don't like the way that they are often promoted by implying or stating that they will save your life, when what they really should be saying is that they may save you from being hurt.
And do you wear a helmet whenever you are around other poeple? You /do/ know that more children suffer head injury due to assault than due to cycling, don't you?
Does that imply that we should not promote safe cycling?
I suspect that we agree on more than we disagree. The same is possibly true with Tony & Guy. Guy's website shows him on a three person tandem with his two children wearing helmets, and his "Bike Safe" page is full of common sense, although I'd like to see helmets and their correct wearing included in the bullet points.
You would find the same on my website. However Mr Martlew opened my eyes. If he had not tried to introduce compulsion I would probably never have taken the time and effort to find and read the research. It opened my eyes and I found that what I had always taken to be self evident was actually counter-intuitive. As a consequence, apart from some specific situations such as when I am riding technical off- road where I believe they still have some benefits in protecting from minor knocks and bumps, I do not wear a helmet any more. So I started out pro-helmet anti-compulsion and ended up anti-compulsion with a personal choice not to wear helmets.
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 14:45:40 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you
know? said:
And do you wear a helmet whenever you are around other poeple? You /do/ know that more children suffer head injury due to assault than due to cycling, don't you?
Does that imply that we should not promote safe cycling?
Only if you are consistent and promote safe social intercourse as well
I guess a lot of people on the ng don't like the way that they are often promoted by implying or stating that they will save your life, when what they really should be saying is that they may save you from being hurt.
Why don't they say than then?
I guess an assumption that all helmet-promoting is based upon exagerating the dangers of cycling, the protective capabilities of the cycle helmet, or provides no information on the levels of risk and protective capabilities.
I suppose that if there is an abscence of a significant positive effect on populations increasing their helmet use, the argument that helmet promotion is a waste of money/time seems justified, particularly if that money could have been spent on something that would have had an impact.
Of course, this ignores the positive, proven and universally acknowledged benefits of helmets to prevent many 'minor' injuries.
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 14:45:40 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you
know? said:
And do you wear a helmet whenever you are around other poeple? You /do/ know that more children suffer head injury due to assault than due to cycling, don't you?
Does that imply that we should not promote safe cycling?
Only if you are consistent and promote safe social intercourse as well
So because I promote safe cycling I should also promote safe interpersonal interaction? I fail to see the logic.
However, I will not tell children, "Don't talk to strangers". The incidence of children being harmed by strangers is *very* rare. If in trouble (lost, hurt etc.) they should go to somewhere where there are lots of people and ask (a stranger) for help.
However, I will not tell children, "Don't talk to strangers". The incidence of children being harmed by strangers is *very* rare. If in trouble (lost, hurt etc.) they should go to somewhere where there are lots of people and ask (a stranger) for help.
Good advice. Tell them not to talk to their family though, they are at far more risk from them than strangers ;-)
Apart from siblings washing eyes out with Vim (I speak from personal experience here) close blood relations are not a danger. Uncles, step dads, mum's boyfriend, vicars, youth group leaders and teachers are far more of a danger.
However, I will not tell children, "Don't talk to strangers". The incidence of children being harmed by strangers is *very* rare. If in trouble (lost, hurt etc.) they should go to somewhere where there are lots of people and ask (a stranger) for help.
Good advice. Tell them not to talk to their family though, they are at far more risk from them than strangers ;-)
However, I will not tell children, "Don't talk to strangers". The incidence of children being harmed by strangers is *very* rare. If in trouble (lost, hurt etc.) they should go to somewhere where there are lots of people and ask (a stranger) for help.
Good advice. Tell them not to talk to their family though, they are at far more risk from them than strangers ;-)
This is another brilliant case where a risk has been percieved by the public to be far greater than it actually is. Given that "most drivers overestimate their skill", and the populace as a whole is good at overestimating risk, it's a wonder the two don't just balance out. :-)
<Mr Bloke Bloke Blokebloke... this is not a windup. I have no wish to delve down that road *again*!>
