Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark

  • Thread starter Elisa Francesca Roselli
  • Start date



[email protected] wrote:
>
> In defense of the people who buy the propaganda, this line of thought
> is certainly not unique to cycling helmets. It's now being heavily
> promoted that the ground under a jungle gym must be covered with rubber
> - as if kids never climb trees. Now every surface a toddler may ever
> touch must be padded with rubber and sanitized.


There is the groundswell building slowly that this is all
counter-productive. The European Commission has become concerned that
all the work to remove risk means that children are no longer learning
to deal with danger putting them at greater risk as adults. Its also
emerging that over cleanliness because of perceived risk of illness is
also leading to less strong immune systems and is behind the increasing
problem of childhood asthma. Risk homeostatis in action.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
In uk.rec.cycling Sorni <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:


> I'll just say this: I consider /perceived/ risk of failure, and equip
> myself accordingly. For example, I wear a seatbelt every time I drive, even
> though the chance that I'll "need" it is miniscule. I've had homeowner's
> insurance for 15 years; never submitted a claim. Ridden my road bike over
> 10K miles; haven't fallen once (yet).


> But IF I'm going 45 mph down a steep hill and IF I flat or hit a hole or
> sandy patch, I want to have a helmet on my head when it hits the pavement
> (hard, glancing, sliding, whatever).


You're quite right, it's a question of perceived risk. The reason I
wouldn't wear a cycle helmet going downhill at 45mph is because my
perception is that if I fell off at that speed and hit my head on the
road I'd be more at risk of the helmet giving me a rotational injury
than it saving me from some other injury. I might wear some other kind
of helmet, but IMHO cycle helmets in those circs are worse than
nothing. Unlike some other kinds of helmet, that problem has not been
considered seriously in their design. I'm not against helmets per se,
I just think the current crop of cycle helmets are a con, a marketing
scam.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "The Wogster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> [...]
>> 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 behavior.

>
> Newsgroups modified.
>
> I am very much in favor of the government protecting us from our own
> stupidity. Any other view is a libertarian one and is quite callous as
> well as being wrongheaded.
>
> We are living in very complex societies and amidst technological phenomena
> that none of us have much understanding of. We need laws to protect us
> from our own stupidity, or better, ignorance. I am not about to embark on
> learning everything that it would be necessary for me to know for my own
> safety. I prefer that the government do it for me - and so does everyone
> else whether they realize it or not.
>
> You have not thought through the implications of your statement above. You
> can be either for or against helmets, but it is pointless to be against
> laws regulating their use once it has been established that helmets
> protect us from our own stupidity. Everyone is stupid, only on different
> subjects.
>
> I have heard this Canadian complaint too many times about there being too
> many laws. Must be a Canadian thing. We Americans like lots and lots of
> laws, the more the merrier until they start conflicting with one another.
> Hey, why do you think we have so many lawyers in this country?
>
> The one thing that used to amaze me is that in communist countries you had
> very few lawyers. Good or bad? You tell me!
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>
>


There remains controversy over whether or not helmets 1. Prevent injury, 2.
Discourage cycling (because of mandatory helmet laws).

You can take whatever position you want about helmets but you can't easily
make the controversy go away.

Regarding laws to protect us from ourselves:

We have always been a fiercely independent people who don't like being told
what to do. We tolerate restricting personal liberty when we feel it is for
a good cause, however. It is one thing to say that we should all be allowed
to do whatever we want but in the same breath you must realize that when
things turn out badly, the libertarian may end up being cared for by the
society and thus a burden.

Should tobacco be outlawed? Should eating or drinking to excess? On the
other hand, should drugs be legalized?

I'm not looking for specific answers to the above questions. They merely
serve to point out that the discussion about personal freedom vs. legal
restriction of personal liberty is a complex one.

We have a lot of lawyers because the pay is good. When there are so many
that they must compete by lowering their rates, or if we achieve meaningful
tort reform, then the number of new lawyers will drop. People will always go
where the money is. I can almost guarantee you that most lawyers are not
there because they "love the law", some are, but not most.

Jeff
 
"Jeff Grippe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

[...]
>> I have heard this Canadian complaint too many times about there being too
>> many laws. Must be a Canadian thing. We Americans like lots and lots of
>> laws, the more the merrier until they start conflicting with one another.
>> Hey, why do you think we have so many lawyers in this country?
>>
>> The one thing that used to amaze me is that in communist countries you
>> had very few lawyers. Good or bad? You tell me!

>
> There remains controversy over whether or not helmets 1. Prevent injury,
> 2. Discourage cycling (because of mandatory helmet laws).
>
> You can take whatever position you want about helmets but you can't easily
> make the controversy go away.


If there are laws on the books mandating helmets, then we should obey those
laws. The fact that the laws got on to the books in the first place
prejudices me in favor of them. I do not want to have to decide for myself
whether helmets are good or bad. I want someone else who is expert in the
subject to decide for me.

> Regarding laws to protect us from ourselves:
>
> We have always been a fiercely independent people who don't like being
> told what to do. We tolerate restricting personal liberty when we feel it
> is for a good cause, however. It is one thing to say that we should all be
> allowed to do whatever we want but in the same breath you must realize
> that when things turn out badly, the libertarian may end up being cared
> for by the society and thus a burden.
>
> Should tobacco be outlawed? Should eating or drinking to excess? On the
> other hand, should drugs be legalized?
>
> I'm not looking for specific answers to the above questions. They merely
> serve to point out that the discussion about personal freedom vs. legal
> restriction of personal liberty is a complex one.


We Americans are no longer fiercely independent. You are talking about our
forefathers. Today we have grown lazy and dependent and we want the
government to do as much as possible for us. We really are no different than
the Europeans in that respect.

> We have a lot of lawyers because the pay is good. When there are so many
> that they must compete by lowering their rates, or if we achieve
> meaningful tort reform, then the number of new lawyers will drop. People
> will always go where the money is. I can almost guarantee you that most
> lawyers are not there because they "love the law", some are, but not most.


The question that needs to be answered is why American society has so many
lawyers in comparison to other societies which are not oriented in the same
way as ours. Communist societies for instance have very few lawyers, but
lots and lots of bureaucrats. Does this not tell us something significant
about the differences between the two types of societies.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
In message <[email protected]>, peter
<[email protected]> wrote:

> But it's the advocates of MHLs that are citing all the truly junk
> science case control studies like the ones by Thompson/Rivara. These
> use self-selected population samples and erroniously base their
> conclusions on the *assumption* that the only explanation for different
> injuries between the groups is their choice of head covering.


From my observations helmet wearers are also more likely to:
Wear hi-visibility clothing.
Have 2 independent brakes.
Use lights.
Not ride on the pavement.
Cycle in a safe manner.

I meet a boy once at night who admitted to removing the lights, and since
his rear wheel was bent, the rear brakes as well. He wasn't wearing a
helmet. Other examples are using dim LED lights or a handheld torch on a
unlit road.

I've never seen such reckless cyclists wearing helmets.



--
Member AFFS, WYLUG, SWP (UK), UAF, RESPECT, StWC
OpenPGP key fingerprint: D0A6 F403 9745 CED4 6B3B 94CC 8D74 8FC9 9F7F CFE4
No to software patents! Victory to the iraqi resistance!