Sorni wrote:
> The Wogster wrote:
>
>>Sorni wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sorni wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>gds wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>OK but how does that effect your personal helmet wearing behavor?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I used to wear one almost all the time. Now I rarely wear one.
>>>>>>I've literally never come close to needing it.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Only takes once.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yep. It only takes once tripping while going down a set of stairs,
>>>>too.
>>>>
>>>>But I'm still not going to wear it. How about you, Bill?
>>>
>>>
>>>If I went up & down stairs at 30-40 mph for 20, 30, or 60 miles in
>>>the vicinity of even-faster-moving two-ton machines? Definitely!
>>>
>>
>>The illustration is still valid, there are dozens of places where your
>
>
> Please learn the difference between your and you're. You do that a LOT.
> (Someone had to say it; sorry! )
Yeah, I know, my thoughts often get ahead of my fingers, and then I pick
the wrong form of a word (my bad).
>
>
>>likely to fall and give yourself a severe case of head trauma. People
>>trip and fall on stairs all the time. I often use a radio scanner,
>>and listen to local transit communications (best traffic report in the
>>city). If you listen for 3 hours, your likely to hear at least one
>>report of a fall on stairs, or getting on a bus (stairs there too,
>>often).
>
>
>>The real issue, is that by saying ONLY cycling is dangerous enough to
>>require helmets,
>
>
> Bzzzt. Straw man. (DOUBLE, in fact.) I don't advocate MHLs at all, and
> that wasn't the topic when I jumped in this endless thread AFAIK. And I
> certainly never said and don't think that "only cycling is dangerous...".
I didn't say you specifically did, however the MHL's imply that cycling
is so dangerous, that certain safety equipment is required, and then
sets such a low standard for that equipment that it's mostly useless
anyway. Two circumstances, recently getting into the car, I didn't
stoop low enough, and whacked my head on the frame, and my head hurt, so
that's a head injury, better require helmets to get into cars as well.
>>your (!) saying that cycling is much more dangerous, then
>>those other activities, like going up and down stairs, so the real
>>question is, is it more dangerous to bike 10 kilometers, or to go up
>>and down 10 flights of stairs.
>
> The main differences are speed, obstacles, proximity to fast-moving heavy
> things, chances of operator error, etc.
>
Forget speed, it's a poor argument, look at helmet standards, they are
so low, that a helmet isn't going to protect you much in a high speed,
multiple vehicle collision.
>>One of the real issues here, is that there are a bunch of bicycle
>>based activities, touring, road cycling, off roading, free riding,
>>urban riding, and some of those are much more likely to result in a
>>fall then, others. For example I average about 10,000km on road
>>between unplanned dismounts, for off-road it's more like about 25km. MHL's
>>do not differentiate, between different cycling based
>>activities. As for fast moving 2 ton machines, a twisty down-hill
>>section of single-track is much more likely to leave you dismounted, then
>>any car that is
>>reasonable control by it's operator ever will.
>
>
> I, too, mountain bike quite a bit. (Or at least used to; predominantly
> roadie nowadays.) I fell literally hundreds of times while learning, and
> still do now and then. (Haven't had the pleasure on the road yet, over
> 10,500 miles.) I've banged my head off rocks a few times -- hard at least
> twice -- and bashed into/off of branches and boulders many more times. I
> also wear eye protection. "Risk Compensation"...or Common Sense?!?
Common sense would dictate, that you reduce your chances of injury as
much as possible, that is why, if your working on a light switch in the
upstairs hallway, you turn off the circuit breaker, and put a piece of
duct tape over it, so nobody turns it back on.
I am against MHL's but I actually have a helmet, and use it when riding,
for a couple of reasons, one is that most people know what a bicycle
helmet is, and figure if your wearing one, your probably on a bicycle,
they can often see your head, even when the bicycle itself is not visible.
Here in Ontario, Canada a MHL for adults, has been defeated, for the
second time. They actually simply let it die on the order paper. The
reason, some low income people can afford an old bicycle, and it is
their primary transportation, but they can not always afford a helmet,
so forcing them to purchase a helmet for cycling, removes the bicycle as
a means of transportation, forcing them onto more expensive means of
transportation, like the under funded city transit system, which then
would want more money.....
W