SMS wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> If you're basing your whole anti-helmet-compulsion
>> argument on an assumption that cycling is not dangerous,
>> you're always going to have trouble getting over that
>> hurdle. I would ditch it and move on, as it is not essential
>> to the rest of the argument.
>
>
> There are two valid anti-compulsion arguments. First is the personal
> freedom issue. Second is the fact that statistically, the number of
> injuries and fatalities that would be prevented by increasing helmet use
> by compulsion, would be very small.
Your correct in that, and there may be other ways of reducing the
injuries and fatalities, even more, such as reducing automotive speeds,
better driver training (that includes bicycles in the curriculum), and
better cyclist training WRT traffic. The fact that you need to be
taking motor vehicle operator training, before needing to know the rules
of the road, is part of the problem.
> Countering the medical establishment's position on helmets is difficult
> because they have much more respect by the public and the politicians
> than people that rant about murder rates, walking helmets, gardening
> accidents, etc. The key is to not try to use junk science to fight
> helmet laws. Some people may be taken in by cute anecdotes, but those
> aren't the people making the laws.
How many doctors really know, even trauma doctors? Doctors often go by
logic, rather then actual medical facts. They see the result of the
accident, but not the mechanics of the accident, even the investigating
police officer, only sees the result. To determine the mechanics, you
would need a reconstruction team, to determine exactly what happened.
Even if provided with this information, it would be hard for an ER
doctor to provide anything better then an educated guess.
However the real question, is not whether helmets are effective or not,
and in some situations they are, in other situations they are not. If
you pop a wheelie and over compensate, and fall off the back of the
bike, and hit your head, the helmet probably helps, although it might
make a neck fracture worse. Another example if a 1500 tonne steam
roller runs over you, it's unlikely anything short of a full set of 5cm
thick cast iron body armour would really be effective.
The real question is, should we legislate against stupidity? Let me
explain, manditory seatbelt use, for motor vehicle operators is a good
idea, it keeps the operator at the controls as long as possible,
allowing them to possibly take evasive action to prevent further injury
and property damage. Laws against drunk or stoned driving, also a good
idea, as those people often injure innocent bystanders, and damage the
property of others.
Both of these laws are designed to protect others, the fact that the
operator often gains some benefit is a side issue. However legislating
seatbelt use for others in a vehicle, other then the operator, is simply
legislating against stupidity. I consider bicycle helmets in the same
category, mandatory helmet laws, are only legislating against someone's
own foolish behaviour.
W