J
Just zis Guy, you know?
Guest
On 16 Dec 2004 01:12:02 GMT, [email protected] (R15757) wrote:
>Cycling is probably not appreciably more dangerous
>than walking or driving in traffic, but it's good
>entertainment when folks try to prove with
>accident statistics that cycling is "not dangerous."
It isn't, unlike driving. There may be a small risk associated with
doing it, but almost all that risk is externally imposed and should by
rights be controlled through measures aimed at the source of that risk
- which source also impacts (far more numerous) pedestrians. Which
brings us right back where we started: what justification is there for
promoting (or indeed compelling) the use of helmets for cyclists and
not pedestrians, who by every measure experience at least the same if
not higher risk, and who are far more numerous?
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 CHS, Puget Sound
>Cycling is probably not appreciably more dangerous
>than walking or driving in traffic, but it's good
>entertainment when folks try to prove with
>accident statistics that cycling is "not dangerous."
It isn't, unlike driving. There may be a small risk associated with
doing it, but almost all that risk is externally imposed and should by
rights be controlled through measures aimed at the source of that risk
- which source also impacts (far more numerous) pedestrians. Which
brings us right back where we started: what justification is there for
promoting (or indeed compelling) the use of helmets for cyclists and
not pedestrians, who by every measure experience at least the same if
not higher risk, and who are far more numerous?
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 CHS, Puget Sound
