Re: Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

  • Thread starter Steven M. Scharf
  • Start date



S

Steven M. Scharf

Guest
"Chris Phillipo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> When I see soemone without a helmet I an urked by it but when I see

soemone riding towards me on the wrong side of the road I can only think
that Darwinism sure takes a long time to kick in.

It does take a long time.

There are a lot of people that believe that because they've gotten away with
dangerous behavior for a long time, that this is somehow proof that their
behavior is in fact not dangerous, or even proof that their resultant
survival is proof that their behavior enhances their safety.

How many times have you seen (or heard) people say, "I've been doing xyz
(smoking, riding without a helmet, not wearing a seatbelt, running red
lights, cycling without good lights, cycling on the wrong side of the road,
etc) for years and I'm still here," as if that proves anything other than
that they've been extremely lucky for having engaged in such behavior.

My favorite one is when they cite the example of an extremely horrific
accident, where a helmet did not (or would not have) saved the person, as
proof that helmets are worthless.

I don't like holier than thou people that try to tell other people what to
do; I encourage people to look at the facts and make their own informed
decisions. But people that intentionally misinform others, while deluding
themselves, are not my favorite people.

Steve
http://bicyclelighting.com
"Believe what you're told. There'd be chaos if everyone thought for oneself"
World Famous Top Dog Hot Dog Stand, Berkeley, Oakland, San Jose
 
C

Chris B.

Guest
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 16:21:48 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Chris Phillipo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>
>> When I see soemone without a helmet I an urked by it but when I see

>soemone riding towards me on the wrong side of the road I can only think
>that Darwinism sure takes a long time to kick in.
>
>It does take a long time.
>
>There are a lot of people that believe that because they've gotten away with
>dangerous behavior for a long time, that this is somehow proof that their
>behavior is in fact not dangerous, or even proof that their resultant
>survival is proof that their behavior enhances their safety.
>
>How many times have you seen (or heard) people say, "I've been doing xyz
>(smoking, riding without a helmet, not wearing a seatbelt, running red
>lights, cycling without good lights, cycling on the wrong side of the road,
>etc) for years and I'm still here," as if that proves anything other than
>that they've been extremely lucky for having engaged in such behavior.
>
>My favorite one is when they cite the example of an extremely horrific
>accident, where a helmet did not (or would not have) saved the person, as
>proof that helmets are worthless.
>
>I don't like holier than thou people that try to tell other people what to
>do; I encourage people to look at the facts and make their own informed
>decisions. But people that intentionally misinform others, while deluding
>themselves, are not my favorite people.


Contrasting the last paragraph in your post with nearly everything
else I have seen you write, I must conclude that you are doing parody
here.

No one person could possibly contain as much hypocrisy and
self-contradiction as you do.

--
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
robber-barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber-
baron's cruelty may at some point be satiated; but those who
torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they
do so with the approval of their own conscience."

- C.S. Lewis
 
S

Steven M. Scharf

Guest
Chris B. wrote:

>>I don't like holier than thou people that try to tell other people what to
>>do; I encourage people to look at the facts and make their own informed
>>decisions. But people that intentionally misinform others, while deluding
>>themselves, are not my favorite people.

>
>
> Contrasting the last paragraph in your post with nearly everything
> else I have seen you write, I must conclude that you are doing parody
> here.


No parody. On my lighting pages I provide referenced facts, and informed
opinions. The negative comments I've seen posted all use the same flawed
logic I see in the helmet debate: "this is what I do, I've been doing it
for a long time, I haven't had a problem with it, so this proves that
I'm right and everyone should do everything the same way I do it." This
line of reasoning is not logical. These people will refuse to believe
anything that contradicts their beliefs, regardless of the evidence.

I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly
over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the
anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries in
helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies.

Steve
http://bicyclelighting.com

"Let’s pass more laws to make everything safe for everybody" P.J.
O'Rourke, National Lampoon Sunday Newspaper Parody, (c)1978 (and about
to be re-issued on 11/16/04).
 
"Steven M. Scharf" wrote:

> Chris B. wrote:
>
> >>I don't like holier than thou people that try to tell other people what to
> >>do; I encourage people to look at the facts and make their own informed
> >>decisions. But people that intentionally misinform others, while deluding
> >>themselves, are not my favorite people.

> >
> >
> > Contrasting the last paragraph in your post with nearly everything
> > else I have seen you write, I must conclude that you are doing parody
> > here.

>
> No parody. On my lighting pages I provide referenced facts, and informed
> opinions. The negative comments I've seen posted all use the same flawed
> logic I see in the helmet debate: "this is what I do, I've been doing it
> for a long time, I haven't had a problem with it, so this proves that
> I'm right and everyone should do everything the same way I do it." This
> line of reasoning is not logical. These people will refuse to believe
> anything that contradicts their beliefs, regardless of the evidence.


> I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly
> over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the
> anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries in
> helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies.


I guess it would depend on the definition of dangerous, wouldn't it?
How many people are killed on stairs, in the bathtub/shower, walking
on the street. Wearing a motorcyle helmet is as dangerous as not
wearing one; if you have an impact accident, you -may- reduce
the injuries, if you happen to whiplash your head during the accident,
the extra weight of the helmet -can- snap your neck and kill you.

A bicycle helmet is much lighter than a motorcycle helmet, I grant you,
but I still think the choice should rest with the individual, not the
government.

--

-TTFN

-Steven
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:26:26 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly
>over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the
>anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries in
>helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies.


And the sceptics acknowledge both, look at the injury trends for whole
populations (which are necessarily more robust than for the tiny
groups in pro-0helmet observational studies) and conclude that,
overall, if you want to reduce cyclist injuries, helmets are a long
way down the prority list.

A poll of British doctors put it sixth out of six possible
interventions, a study by the Transport research Laboratory put it
tenth of ten possible interventions and a factor of 25 behind the
likely most effective, being traffic calming.

So the logical thing to do is tell all the helmet zealots to butt out
and return to a proper cycle safety agenda.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
S

Steven M. Scharf

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "Steven M. Scharf" wrote:


> > I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly
> > over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the
> > anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries in
> > helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies.

>
> I guess it would depend on the definition of dangerous, wouldn't it?
> How many people are killed on stairs, in the bathtub/shower, walking
> on the street.


None of this is relevant to the bicycle helmet debate.

Some people accept the added risk inherent in not wearing a helmet, because
the risk of being involved in an accident where head injuries are involve
are small. Very few people deny the evidence that shows that helmeted riders
had less severe head injuries in crashes involving head injuries.
 
S

Steven M. Scharf

Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:26:26 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly
> >over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the
> >anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries in
> >helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies.

>
> And the sceptics acknowledge both, look at the injury trends for whole
> populations (which are necessarily more robust than for the tiny
> groups in pro-0helmet observational studies) and conclude that,
> overall, if you want to reduce cyclist injuries, helmets are a long
> way down the prority list.


That is the typical flawed logic we've seen in this thread. The fact that
there are other ways to also reduce injuries, are irrelevant. These other
measures should be taken, but they are not exclusive. The anti-helmet
zealots want to prove that helmets don't prevent injuries, but the facts
speak for themselves. You have to look at how helmeted versus non-helmeted
cyclists fare in crashes, the fact that traffic calming might have prevented
some of the accidents doesn't figure into the equation.
 
P

Paul R

Guest

>
> > > I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly
> > > over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the
> > > anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries

in
> > > helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies.

> >
> > I guess it would depend on the definition of dangerous, wouldn't it?
> > How many people are killed on stairs, in the bathtub/shower, walking
> > on the street.

>
> None of this is relevant to the bicycle helmet debate.
>
> Some people accept the added risk inherent in not wearing a helmet,

because
> the risk of being involved in an accident where head injuries are involve
> are small. Very few people deny the evidence that shows that helmeted

riders
> had less severe head injuries in crashes involving head injuries.
>


Granted. However, the debate here is on mandatory helmet laws. The important
question to be answered is "Will mandatory helmet laws make the streets
safer for cyclists?".

I'm not going to re-hash all my reasons (i've given them in other posts),
but I firmly believe that they will NOT improve the situation.

Paul
 
S

Steven M. Scharf

Guest
Paul R wrote:

> Granted. However, the debate here is on mandatory helmet laws. The important
> question to be answered is "Will mandatory helmet laws make the streets
> safer for cyclists?".


That is not the question. The reason that the mandatory helmet law is
being advocated is because it will reduce the severity of head injuries
when a crash occurs. In Canada, with its universal health care, they
have a vested interest in reducing injuries, due to the cost of treatment.

I am not saying that the MHL is a good idea, but the reasoning behind it
is not to make the streets safer; making the streets safer is desirable,
but a separate issue.

The government is misguided in its effort because the absolute number of
injuries (or reduction in severity of injuries) that the helmet law will
impact (no pun intended) is very small. They are taking an emotional
response to a couple of accidents where helmets would likely have made a
difference between life and death. I'm not saying that anyone dumb
enough not to wear a helmet deserves death, but it was their choice to
take the risk, and they have to accept the consequences. Maybe the
province should simply insert a provision into the health care laws that
they will not treat bicycle related injuries that would have been
prevented by the wearing of helmet; treatment will be at the patient's
expense.

Steve
http://bicyclelighting.com

"Let’s pass more laws to make everything safe for everybody"
P.J. O'Rourke, National Lampoon Sunday Newspaper Parody, (c)1978
(wll be re-issued on 11/16/04).
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:06:46 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Very few people deny the evidence that shows that helmeted riders
>had less severe head injuries in crashes involving head injuries.


But many deny the evidence - robust though it is, and colected by
traffic statistics programmes which have existed for decades - that
helmets have no measurable effect at the population level.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:12:51 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> And the sceptics acknowledge both, look at the injury trends for whole
>> populations (which are necessarily more robust than for the tiny
>> groups in pro-0helmet observational studies) and conclude that,
>> overall, if you want to reduce cyclist injuries, helmets are a long
>> way down the prority list.


>That is the typical flawed logic we've seen in this thread. The fact that
>there are other ways to also reduce injuries, are irrelevant. These other
>measures should be taken, but they are not exclusive. The anti-helmet
>zealots want to prove that helmets don't prevent injuries, but the facts
>speak for themselves. You have to look at how helmeted versus non-helmeted
>cyclists fare in crashes, the fact that traffic calming might have prevented
>some of the accidents doesn't figure into the equation.


Steven, please introduce me to an anti-helmet zealot some time. I
have never met one. I have met one person who is anti-helmet (in two
years of active campaigning at a national level), but he is an
academic and absolutely not a zealot of any description.

The logic is not flawed. Mention cyclist safety in almost any public
context and helmets will be the first ting mentioned. The reason for
that is that helmet zealots are obsessed with them. They put up
posters, they have websites, they lobby parliaments, they write bills
which sometimes become law, they fill the medical press, they are in
the newspapers and on TV. When was the last time you saw any
large-scale campaign on cycle safety which was not primarily focused
on helmets?

There is simply no justification for this monomania. We know that in
New Zealand %HI for peds and cyclists trended identically through a
period where helmet use went from the mid 40s percent to the high 90s.
We know that head injury risk per cyclist in the USA increased by 40%
as helmet use rose from 18% to 50%. We know that the two safest
cycling countries - Netherlands and Denmark - have negligible helmet
wearing rates. We know that the countries with the worst cyclist
safety records have high helmet wearing rates.

Any remotely sane approach to cyclist safety cannot help but view
helmets as a controversial irrelevance, a sideshow. The known bad
effects - portraying cycling as dangerous and thus deterring
participation; and giving an exaggerated view of the benefit of
helmets - make even promotion a risky business, let alone compulsion.

I can't immediately think of any other area of public policy where the
glare of legislative attention is focused so brightly and so
relentlessly on so obviously the wrong target.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
S

Steven M. Scharf

Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> But many deny the evidence - robust though it is, and colected by
> traffic statistics programmes which have existed for decades - that
> helmets have no measurable effect at the population level.


But that is not the data that is being used to push through the MHLs.

The MHL proponents look at the comparative injury data of helmeted
versus non-helmeted cyclists. This data is compelling on its own. Also,
since they measure and report the severity of the injuries, a lot of
injuries that would be classified as minor on a non-helmeted rider show
up in the statistics, while the helmeted rider would not even go into
the ER for treatment.

I agree that they should look at the overall data, not just the
comparative severity of injury data when injuries occur. No law is
needed. They'd be better off finding another way to encourage helmet
use, i.e. charging for emergency care to non-helmted cyclists involved
in crashes where helmets would have an effect.
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:17:46 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>That is not the question. The reason that the mandatory helmet law is
>being advocated is because it will reduce the severity of head injuries
>when a crash occurs.


And the people advocating it are in denial about the possibility that
the likelihood of crashing in the first place will increase.

And about the fact that helmets are not designed to withstand impacts
with motor vehicles.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:42:01 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> But many deny the evidence - robust though it is, and colected by
>> traffic statistics programmes which have existed for decades - that
>> helmets have no measurable effect at the population level.


>But that is not the data that is being used to push through the MHLs.


No indeed, the data used to push helmet laws is very selectively
chosen to exclude that which proves helmet laws don't work. There's
probably a reason for that :)

>The MHL proponents look at the comparative injury data of helmeted
>versus non-helmeted cyclists. This data is compelling on its own.


"compelling on its own" in the sense of "coimpelling when viewed in
isolation from balancing data", I suppose. Although if it was /that/
compelling the proponents wouldn't need to make quite such a big deal
about the 1989 Thompson, Rivara and Thomspson study whose authors have
since published much lower estimates following criticisms of their
methodology. It's almost as if the problem is not big enough if you
use current data.

In the UK the proponents also find it necessary to exaggerate the
numbers involved. For example, we recently had them claim that 50
children a year die and 22,500 are hospitalised for cycling related
head injuries. The real numbers are 10 and 2,000, both figures easily
checked and in the public domain.

And they also feel it necessary to drag in fatalities, despite the
fact that almost all cyclist fatalities are in road trafic crashes
involving motor vehicles, whch vastly exceed the protective
capabilites of helmets.

Oh, and they engage in gratuitous shroud-waving. In the UK they
paraded the case of a boy who "would have been saved" by a helmet
after riding off the pavement into thepath of a car while riding a
biek with defective brakes. Only a true zealot can see this as a
justification for a helmet law, particularly since the child had
already broken the laws on maintenance and pavement cycling, so was
not much of a one for spontaneous compliance.

>since they measure and report the severity of the injuries, a lot of
>injuries that would be classified as minor on a non-helmeted rider show
>up in the statistics, while the helmeted rider would not even go into
>the ER for treatment.


If you read Dorothy Robinson's critique of TR&T 1989 you will see
where that falls down.

>I agree that they should look at the overall data, not just the
>comparative severity of injury data when injuries occur. No law is
>needed. They'd be better off finding another way to encourage helmet
>use, i.e. charging for emergency care to non-helmted cyclists involved
>in crashes where helmets would have an effect.


No, actually they would be better off looking at cycle safety n the
round, and realising that helmet use is just a sideshow. Tinkering at
the margins.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
F

Frank Krygowski

Guest
Steven M. Scharf wrote:

> The fact that
> there are other ways [besides helmets] to also reduce injuries, are irrelevant. These other
> measures should be taken, but they are not exclusive. The anti-helmet
> zealots want to prove that helmets don't prevent injuries, but the facts
> speak for themselves. You have to look at how helmeted versus non-helmeted
> cyclists fare in crashes, the fact that traffic calming might have prevented
> some of the accidents doesn't figure into the equation.


First: In engineering, people are generally trained to expend resources
where they're most efficient or effective. If, for example, convincing
all cyclists to ride on the proper side of the road would prevent 35% of
bike traffic fatalities & serious injuries; and if convincing all
cyclists to wear polka-dotted jackets would prevent 1%, then its logical
to go with the 35% benefit.

What we currently have is, as Guy indicated, plenty of impartial
analysis showing that universal helmet use makes little difference, but
an almost total fixation on helmets as the be-all of bike safety. Even
if you're convinced helmets have significant value, the current
overemphasis on helmets makes no sense. There are better ways.


Second: If a person limits themselves to looking at how helmeted versus
non-helmeted cyclists fare in crashes, they _must_ be sure that the
presence of a helmet is the only difference! This isn't an academic
point; one of the common shortcomings of helmet promoting studies is to
assume that only the helmet is different.

The most quoted figure on helmet effectiveness is "85% benefit" - most
quoted precisely because it's the highest, so it's the best for selling
helmets. Yet that benefit has never been seen in large populations of
helmeted cyclists.

Why the discrepancy? The tiny study that produced that figure compared
two groups: essentially white, middle class kids wearing helmets who
fell riding on bike paths or soft surfaces, versus black low income kids
riding helmetless on streets and experiencing harder crashes. (Yes, the
division wasn't absolute, but those differences were significantly present.)

There are _many_ reasons those low-income kids appeared to fare worse.
Just as an example, it's likely the wealthier parents took their kid to
the ER "just to be sure" (since insurance covers the visit anyway).
It's likely that poor kids go to the ER much more reluctantly - that is,
only if the kid's seriously hurt. ER costs money if you don't have
insurance.

So, as usual, the issue is more complicated than many people believe.
For this reason, the most reliable indication of helmet effectiveness
really is the time-series study, especially when it involves nearly the
entire population of cyclists in a country.

And of course, those studies show the least benefit to widespread helmet
use.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
 
F

Frank Krygowski

Guest
Steven M. Scharf wrote:

> Maybe the
> province should simply insert a provision into the health care laws that
> they will not treat bicycle related injuries that would have been
> prevented by the wearing of helmet; treatment will be at the patient's
> expense.
>


If this makes sense, then the province should also treat heart attacks
only in people who are not overweight and who exercise at least half an
hour daily. Anyone for that? ;-)

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
 

waxbytes

New Member
Aug 4, 2004
188
2
18
I don't want any more laws, however well intentioned, that infringe on my choices. I wear a helmet when cycling, not because it is the law here in BC, but because I choose to. I think cycling helmets are are an excellent idea. I oppose the mandatory helmet use law here in BC. It would seem that many people oppose the helmet law here as well judging by all the helmetless people I see riding around. Which brings up my final point, if the cops don't enforce the helmet law, and usually they don't, It just creates further contempt for law in general.
 
F

Frank Krygowski

Guest
Steven M. Scharf wrote:

>
> There are a lot of people that believe that because they've gotten away with
> dangerous behavior for a long time, that this is somehow proof that their
> behavior is in fact not dangerous...


I'm probably guilty of that. Quite a lot, in fact.

I've always gotten away with taking walks. Sometimes I even take long
walkks. In fact, I often take walks at night! When there's snow on the
ground! Sometimes, even in the rain!

Now I know there are people who say walking can be dangerous. But I've
been doing this for about 50 years now, and - I admit it - just because
of that, I feel taking walks is safe!

I've _tried_ to see the error of my ways, but darn it, I just can't
figure it out. 50 years worth of taking walks makes walking seem safe
to me!


Oh - and I can say exactly the same thing about 48 years of cycling.

;-)

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
F

Frank Krygowski

Guest
Steven M. Scharf wrote:

> No law is
> needed. They'd be better off finding another way to encourage helmet
> use, i.e. charging for emergency care to non-helmted cyclists involved
> in crashes where helmets would have an effect.


This thinking is interesting!

Scharf's faith in helmets is strong enough that he wants to punish
anyone who disagrees. No, not by enacting a law; by making them pay
extra for medical treatment.

Seems to me helmets would have an effect in motor vehicle crashes, too.
And I'm not alone in that feeling. See
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/carhelm.html

So why not impose the same penalty on unhelmeted motorists? It makes
more sense. Those folks are about 50% of serious head injuries! Think
of the money savings!


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
"Steven M. Scharf" wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > "Steven M. Scharf" wrote:

>
> > > I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly
> > > over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the
> > > anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries in
> > > helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies.

> >
> > I guess it would depend on the definition of dangerous, wouldn't it?
> > How many people are killed on stairs, in the bathtub/shower, walking
> > on the street.

>
> None of this is relevant to the bicycle helmet debate.


Yes it is, the issue is having a law shoved on the population to
protect people from harm, regardless of how the people feel
about it. Ok, then let's ban stairs, people are killed on them
also. Motorists lose control of their vehicles and kill
pedestrians and bicyclists, let's ban cars; or restrict them
to certain streets and not allow pedestrians or bicyclists
on those streets. Increase bicycle safety? Ok, no more
two wheel bicycles, people fall down without having a third or
fourth wheel. Mandatory knee pads, elbow pads, heavy clothing
to prevent road rash. Excessive speed? Gee, there goes all those extra
gears, now they won't ride so fast they speed into an accident.
Sound silly? Think of the how many people would be saved from
harm by those laws. When you make laws to protect
people from harm where do you stop? Helmets should be a
choice for the individual.



> Some people accept the added risk inherent in not wearing a helmet, because
> the risk of being involved in an accident where head injuries are involve
> are small. Very few people deny the evidence that shows that helmeted riders
> had less severe head injuries in crashes involving head injuries.


And it would be nice for the mandatory helmet crowd to admit that wearing
a helmet does not guarantee safety, or survival in case of an accident.
Your whole life is a risk. How much of it are you willing to give up to
government regulation?


--

-TTFN

-Steven
 

Similar threads

F
Replies
44
Views
1K
Road Cycling
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
J
Replies
0
Views
314
Road Cycling
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
S
Replies
19
Views
668
Road Cycling
Just zis Guy, you know?
J