My contribution to the no comp. helmets campaign - Esp. suited for MPs

[davebee]

Wearing my helemt makes me "feel" safer. A purely individual thing I know, but when I have one on I feel a lot more comfortable in my surroundings. Ok so the debate as to whether they will actually save your life in a major crash is open, but they certainly reduce the effect of smaller crashes in my experience.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> "If "common sense" is all there is to it there's nothing to fear from not having the law, since
> people will wear "
>
> A bit optimistic, isn't it? Let's get real! Your missing the point i alluded to in my first post -
> that of public responsibility in general and Joe Taxpayer be left with the hospital bill
> specifically.

Come on - cycling is no more dangerous than walking. I'm not gonna ban you from popping down the
shops or from receiving hospital treatment if you didn't wear a helmet when you *walked* somewhere!
If riding a bike were dangerous I'd agree with you but I ain't gonna wear a helmet when I go for a
walk so I'm definately not going to wear one when I'm doing something that's safer!

 

[Dave Kahn]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:52:43 GMT, waffle
<[email protected]> wrote:

>A bit optimistic, isn't it? Let's get real! Your missing the point i alluded to in my first post -
>that of public responsibility in general and Joe Taxpayer be left with the hospital bill
>specifically. The whole objection to helmets (which the vast majority of cyclists in Australia
>don't have) appears to stem purely from vanity as far as i can tell. what a flippin joke.

You might be advised to do a little background reading before continuing to display your ignorance.
For a helmet-sceptic view try http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ .

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. Mark Twain

 

[RogerDodger]

Originally posted by waffle

"...go ahead, do what you like - don't wear a helmet. Just don't expect the Joe Taxpayer to foot the bill when your lying in bed for x-months with a cracked melon"
and
"...the point i alluded to in my first post - that of public responsibility in general and Joe Taxpayer be left with the hospital bill specifically. "


Oh how tedious this asinine line is - it's been parroted for over a decade now - please spare me, but, as the saying goes...there's one born (a True Believer) every minute.

Often this asinine line appears in the guise of a question...What if you have an accident and you're not wearing a helmet and suffer a head injury - who pays for it? The implication is pretty obvious that the person asking the question (or should we say making the statement) has, and exudes, a self satisfied and ego involved conceit - that you're not being responsible - and of course s/he is the paragon of responsibility and what's more their duty is to paternalistically berate us "irresponsibles" for our lack of common sense and the burden we put onto them should we suffer such.

Well ,sorry Waffle, but I'll have to burst your smug little bubble.

Your line of argument isn't perspicacious- but asinine - because you've fallen into into parroting a pretty obvious fallacy - I say parroting because a parrot might well be able to make the sounds of a grammatic correct sentence - but has no cognition of the semantic content thereof (by the way - and if you didn't notice - I'll "see" your smug arrogance and raise it...).

The fallacy in Waffles asinine line is called the "fallacy of many questions" also known as "fallacy of complex question"
(Just Zis Guy has teasingly played with it recently). It is the tactic of packing unwarranted presuppositions into a question so that the respondent cannot give any direct answer without being trapped into conceding those presuppositions. Have you stopped beating your spouse?

Admittedly waffles line wasn't a question per se, but rather a challenge which packages a highly contentious presupposition.

Waffle's presupposition, in this case, is that s/he takes it to be granted that the wearing of a cycle helmet would obviate the hospitalisation costs. Funny that - didn't you notice, Waffle, that what you are taking for granted - we are vigorously and substantively contesting? Helmets have not reduced head injury hospitalisations - but "True Believers" will obstinately refuse to acknowledge this in the same way that believers in "Creation Science" reject any proof of Evolution.

Another aspect to Waffles statement is to do with his seeming obliviousness to his/her blinkered selectiveness and inconsistent application of just who needs to be more "responsible".

Does waffle understand what hypocrisy is? Doesn't appear so.
'Fraid so, waffle, the head injury stats show that the vast majority of head injuries are sustained by people in MV's, followed by pedestrians - so if we challenge waffle to hold to what s/he takes for granted (as above - that wearing a helmet obviates head injury & hospitalisation costs) then we should challenge waffle to climb back aboard his/her high moral horse and practise what s/he preaches and wear one in a car and on foot, and direct some of his/her bountiful superciliousness elsewhere - try car occupants for a start - I'm sure they'll appreciate your overweening and magnaminous concern for their welfare. One piece of advice though -never - I repeat, never suggest to them that speed cameras are a good thing.

Now there's a line - with just a slight variation on waffles:

"...go ahead, do what you like - EXCEED THE SPEED LIMIT WITH IMPUNITY . Just don't expect the Joe Taxpayer to foot the bill when your lying in bed for x-months with a cracked melon"
and
"...the point i alluded to in my first post - that of public responsibility in general and Joe Taxpayer be left with the hospital bill specifically. "

Off you go now waffle - go and sort out the rest of the world - tell 'em to follow your good example and get responsible...

Dammit - we need responsibility in this world.

Lots of love
Roger

What - was I waffling??

Engaging in debate with proponents of "Creation Science" is futile - and it seems that debate with helmet law zealots is similarly so.

 

[RogerDodger]

Originally posted by waffle

"...go ahead, do what you like - don't wear a helmet. Just don't expect the Joe Taxpayer to foot the bill when your lying in bed for x-months with a cracked melon"
and
"...the point i alluded to in my first post - that of public responsibility in general and Joe Taxpayer be left with the hospital bill specifically. "


Oh how tedious this asinine line is - it's been parroted for over a decade now - please spare me, but, as the saying goes...there's one born (a True Believer) every minute.

Often this asinine line appears in the guise of a question...What if you have an accident and you're not wearing a helmet and suffer a head injury - who pays for it? The implication is pretty obvious that the person asking the question (or should we say making the statement) has, and exudes, a self satisfied and ego involved conceit - that you're not being responsible - and of course s/he is the paragon of responsibility and what's more their duty is to paternalistically berate us "irresponsibles" for our lack of common sense and the burden we put onto them should we suffer such.

Well ,sorry Waffle, but I'll have to burst your smug little bubble.

Your line of argument isn't perspicacious- but asinine - because you've fallen into into parroting a pretty obvious fallacy - I say parroting because a parrot might well be able to make the sounds of a grammatic correct sentence - but has no cognition of the semantic content thereof (by the way - and if you didn't notice - I'll "see" your smug arrogance and raise it...).

The fallacy in Waffles asinine line is called the "fallacy of many questions" also known as "fallacy of complex question"
(Just Zis Guy has teasingly played with it recently). It is the tactic of packing unwarranted presuppositions into a question so that the respondent cannot give any direct answer without being trapped into conceding those presuppositions. Have you stopped beating your spouse?

Admittedly waffles line wasn't a question per se, but rather a challenge which packages a highly contentious presupposition.

Waffle's presupposition, in this case, is that s/he takes it to be granted that the wearing of a cycle helmet would obviate the hospitalisation costs. Funny that - didn't you notice, Waffle, that what you are taking for granted - we are vigorously and substantively contesting? Helmets have not reduced head injury hospitalisations - but "True Believers" will obstinately refuse to acknowledge this in the same way that believers in "Creation Science" reject any proof of Evolution.

Another aspect to Waffles statement is to do with his seeming obliviousness to his/her blinkered selectiveness and inconsistent application of just who needs to be more "responsible".

Does waffle understand what hypocrisy is? Doesn't appear so.
'Fraid so, waffle, the head injury stats show that the vast majority of head injuries are sustained by people in MV's, followed by pedestrians - so if we challenge waffle to hold to what s/he takes for granted (as above - that wearing a helmet obviates head injury & hospitalisation costs) then we should challenge waffle to climb back aboard his/her high moral horse and practise what s/he preaches and wear one in a car and on foot, and direct some of his/her bountiful superciliousness elsewhere - try car occupants for a start - I'm sure they'll appreciate your overweening and magnaminous concern for their welfare. One piece of advice though -never - I repeat, never suggest to them that speed cameras are a good thing.

Now there's a line - with just a slight variation on waffles:

"...go ahead, do what you like - EXCEED THE SPEED LIMIT WITH IMPUNITY . Just don't expect the Joe Taxpayer to foot the bill when your lying in bed for x-months with a cracked melon"
and
"...the point i alluded to in my first post - that of public responsibility in general and Joe Taxpayer be left with the hospital bill specifically. "

Off you go now waffle - go and sort out the rest of the world - tell 'em to follow your good example and get responsible...

Dammit - we need responsibility in this world.

Lots of love
Roger

What - was I waffling??

Engaging in debate with proponents of "Creation Science" is futile - and it seems that debate with helmet law zealots is similarly so.

 

[Graeme]

RogerDodger <[email protected]> wrote in news:E%IRb.12570
[email protected]:

> Engaging in debate with proponents of "Creation Science" is futile - and it seems that debate with
> helmet law zealots is similarly so.

Well Off Topic, but yes, I agree on both points there. A friend's husband is a creationist. The
"discussions" stopped when it was suggested that my questioning attitude was being driven by the
devil and I responded with "Fair enough, I can live with that." >

When you get people from two completely different ends of an ideological spectrum (pro/anti helmet
compulsion, creationist/atheist) then the common ground needed for some form of agreement seems to
get smaller and smaller.

Cheers,

Graeme

 

[Graeme]

waffle <[email protected]> wrote in news:7wjRb.74617
[email protected]:

> Vanity?? give me a break.

Certainly, any particular bone you'd prefer? Skull fracture maybe? ;-)

>the general perception amongst australian cyclists regarding helmets (at least in sydney, anyway)
>is that it's just something you do

Well in Perth, the cyclists I've chatted to have largely accepted that it is something you *have to*
do, but not neccesarily something that they think they *should* have to. Many feel that if they are
going to cycle and put on a helmet, then it is almost an afterthought and is often worn in a totally
non-functional way (strapless, on the back of the head etc.).

It is very hard to see how mandatory helmets would *not* reduce cycling in a place where
temperatures regularly reach 40+ degrees. Sticking an insulating polystyrene lump on top of a heat
generating body in such temperatures is insane. It's certainly one of the main factors putting me
off getting on my bike and cycling into the city.

Cheers,

Graeme

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"waffle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> The whole objection to helmets (which the vast majority of cyclists in Australia don't have)
> appears to stem purely from vanity as far as i can tell.

No, the whole objection is that in the countries where it's been tried (which include Australia, New
Zealand, parts of the US and Canada) the result has been (a) a substantial drop in numbers cycling
and (b) no drop in cyclist head injury rates.

If you plot the head injury rate in New Zealand over a period which includes the year their law was
introduced, which increased wearing rates from around 43% to over 95%, you can't see fromt he graph
which year the helmet law was introduced.

That's mainly because the Liddites like to pretend that their claimed "88% of injuries saved" figure
(which was, incidentally, revised substantially downwards by its authors in 1996) applies to all
head injuries. There is no mechanism by which helmets can prevent subdural heamatoma (SDH) and
diffuse axonal injury (DAI), the two major causes of serious brain injury.

They also repudiate the idea of risk ocmpensation, but without advancing any alternative explanation
of why often substantial increases in helemt usage rates have never been accompanied by matching
reductions in injury rates.

This is further confounded by the fact that half of cyclist deaths are recorded as "head injury" -
but on investigation most of those cyclists are found to have other mortal injuries as well.

Helmets appear to work well against trivial injuries, but they are neither designed nor proven to be
effective in crashes above 12mph, or crashes involving motor vehicles. Their role in these
circumstances is at best marginal. The best estimate Ihave seenw hich accounts for the above
factors, which came I think from RoSPA, was a saving of two lives per annum if helmets were
universally worn in the UK. That takes no account of the likely life years lost if fewer people
cycle - cycling is recognised as one of the more beneficial forms of exercise, and estimates of up
to ten additional life years accrued by regular cycling are not uncommon.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"davebee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Wearing my helemt makes me "feel" safer.

Risk compensation in action. What do you do when wearing a helmet that you would be reluctant to try
without? And is it risky?

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Simon Brooke]

"Spencer Bullen" <[email protected]> writes:

> Greetings,
>
> personally, since I have been regularly commuting through London traffic for the past 5 years or
> so, I have always worn a helmet. I've been wiped out twice by cagers, and on each occasion (both
> times over the handlebars) I am confident that a helmet has saved me from more serious injury.
>
> Whilst, as a police officer myself, I feel that ticketing cyclists for a lack of helmets would be
> a waste of time and resources, I feel the rabid hatred of helmets displayed by some posters to
> this NG is wrong, and the encouragement of safe cycling should include a push for all to wear
> helmets.

Two answers to that. The first is that I would challenge you to find even one post by anyone on this
group which displays a 'hatred of helmets'. There's a great deal of concerned skepticism about the
utility of helmets, but that's an entirely different thing.

The second is that there is little evidence that hemlet wearing increases safety, and quite a lot of
evidence that it actually increases risk. If encouraging helmet wearing actually kills and injures
people (and there's a fair bit of evidence that it does) we should not encourage it without finding
out a lot more about how and why.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

to err is human, to lisp divine ;; attributed to Kim Philby, oddly enough.