Warning: H*lm*t content

Discussion in 'Australia and New Zealand' started by Euan, Aug 21, 2005.

  1. Bleve

    Bleve Guest

    Gemma_k wrote:

    > > Stackhats went out in, oh, 1980? Modern helmets are light, well
    > > ventilated and comfortable.
    > >

    > You miss the point. It doesn't matter how good a helmet is to wear, or how
    > safe you feel in one, or how many vents there are or what kind of hairstyle
    > you have. It's all about the choice of whther you WANT to wear a helmet,
    > rather than mandating that you do....


    Sure, I don't believe that helmets (or seatbelts) should be compulsory,
    but if you choose not to wear one, you're an idiot.

    History shows that there's rather more idiots in the world than
    is ideal. A society that does its best to look after everyone (free
    healthcare in particular) has a choice. Either make some level of
    safety equipment compulsory - and hopefully reduce the bills we all
    have to pay for healthcare through tax, or say "if you don't
    wear this/use this etc, then you void your healthcare privs."

    It's never an easy choice, it's always a "where do you
    draw the line" issue. Such are the joys of living in the real world.
     


  2. EuanB

    EuanB New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    877
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're implying that I'd break the law. I wouldn't.

    While it's law in this country to wear a helmet, I'll wear one. Depending on the cricumstances of my cycling I may choose to wear a helmet if there was no compulsion, as I've said it's a handy place to put lights. There'd certainly be occaisions when I'd choose not to wear a helmet.
     
  3. HellenWheels wrote:
    > On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:41:54 +1000, [email protected] (Peter
    > McCallum) wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>That article is a load of shit.
    >>>
    >>>* start with some stats (uncited) and draw a reasonable correlation between
    >>>cyclist numbers and injuries "the more cyclists there are, the more
    >>>motorists are aware of them and the more carefully they drive"
    >>>* and then drive to a conclusion that helmet legislation is the cause
    >>>(shouldn't it be the motorists not being careful enough)
    >>>
    >>>The only link is that mandatory wearing of helmets, at one point in time,
    >>>discouraged cyclists, reducing cyclist numbers. I think everyone is over
    >>>that by now - does it really discourage anyone anymore?

    >>
    >>I've been wearing a helmet since about 1979 but I did notice a
    >>considerable drop in cycling numbers in Mackay after the mandatory use
    >>was enforced. Prior to enforcement of the law, around one in ten
    >>cyclists here wore a helmet (initially in Queensland it was a legal
    >>requirement to wear a helmet but there was no fine if you didn't). To
    >>me, that indicates reluctance from most cyclists.
    >>
    >>I still haven't seen the number of cyclists return to pre-helmet
    >>proportions. The law has been enforced very strongly in Mackay, in fact
    >>there is no traffic law that is more heavily enforced here.
    >>
    >>One issue that has come up recently here is that schools are banning
    >>kids from wearing caps under their helmets. Aparently they don't want
    >>kids bringing caps to school. So under the North Qld sun (which is
    >>intense), wearing a helmet rather than a shady hat can be very
    >>uncomfortable.
    >>
    >>P

    >
    >
    > What? Banning kids from wearing cycling caps at school? What's the purpose
    > of that.


    Probably trying to enforce/force attitudes and keep out all those evil
    influence from caps/video games/pin ball machines/snooker tables/bicycle
    clubs/buggies/....

    > You can't ban an idea.


    Yes, but educational authorites keep trying despite the centuries of
    evidence to the contrary.
     
  4. Peter McCallum wrote:

    > At my daughter's school there's a policy that students must wear the
    > correct coloured shoelaces, and it's strictly enforced. Obviously
    > shoelace colour has some bearing on educational outcomes.


    Yes, Peter it does. {:)

    By enforcing conformity and brain numbing, your daughter is given the
    best chance of being a counter bunny, or burger flipper at Maccas when
    she finishes school. This increase the percentage of students that get
    jobs after school, which increases the educational standing of her
    educational institution (from reading the latest rating system results).
     
  5. ritcho wrote:

    > Dr Robinson is a well known anti-helmet law campaigner and does some
    > pretty good research. However, I'm concerned that her pre-determined
    > conclusions undermines her work.


    Umm, I thought that all scientific work was that; "I believe that this
    causes this and now I will go out a find evidence that supports my theory"
     
  6. Gemma_k

    Gemma_k Guest

    "till!" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Gemma_k Wrote:
    > >
    > > You miss the point....It's all about the choice of whther you WANT to
    > > wear a helmet,
    > > rather than mandating that you do....

    > Not at all true, I mean there is no mandate that requires you ride a
    > bike.


    Which is the whole point. A lot of people have been lost to cycling because
    of this mandate, they would prefer not to ride at all because the system has
    become more onerous. Many more drivers now do not know what it's like to
    ride a bike. These same drivers see cyclists a lot less on the roads and do
    not know what to do when they do see one. The fact the government makes you
    wear a helmet makes cycling look inherently dangerous.

    For those that do not understand Robinson's research, just think about what
    would happen to cycling if, say, fluorescent and reflectorized vests and
    flags were made mandatory at all times for cycling.

    If people really wanted to save lives and injuries, then why don't they stop
    dicking around with the 1%ers in road safety and look at the entire health
    system, and then outlaw things like smoking.....
     
  7. Bleve

    Bleve Guest

    Euan wrote:
    > >>>>> "Bleve" == Bleve <[email protected]> writes:

    >
    > >> Absolutely. It's a hot and smelly inconvenience which is
    > >> off-putting to the fashion conscious.

    >
    > Bleve> Stackhats went out in, oh, 1980? Modern helmets are light,
    > Bleve> well ventilated and comfortable.
    >
    > On a hot summer's day they most certainly aren't as comfortable as a
    > decent sun hat.


    Agreed.

    > >> It's a bit of baggage that you need to lug around and there is no
    > >> proof that helmets provide any benefit whereas there is
    > >> substantial proof that helmets are detrimental.

    >
    > Bleve> "any" benefit? If I wasn't wearing mine a few months ago
    > Bleve> when I crashed into an oncoming bike on a bikepath, I'd
    > Bleve> probably be a vegetable (more than I am now!). I'd certanily
    > Bleve> have done significan injury. As it is, I had to buy a new
    > Bleve> helmet and was a bit dizzy for a couple of days.
    >
    > At age five I rode head face in to a concrete lamp post (I sneezed,
    > opened my eyes, saw lamp post and grabbed the front brake with
    > predictable results.) I required two stitches but other than that,
    > fine.
    >
    > At at age 12 I went sailing over the bonnet of my geography teacher's
    > car. Many bruises and abrasions but guess what? My skin and bone
    > healed up.
    >
    > At fourteen my tennis racket holder (a clamp which fitted on the front
    > forks which could hold a tennis racket) worked loose and jammed in the
    > spokes with rather spectacular results. Again, battered and bruised but
    > I recovered.
    >
    > I wasn't wearing a helmet. I hit my head. I'm here and not a
    > vegetable.


    My crash had me land on the back of my head, from 2m, head first.
    That's the sort of concussion that can lead to brain damage and
    neck injury.

    As a kid, I had loads of "offs", without a helmet. Yeah, I
    got away with them. My head's a mess of scars from all sorts of
    minor bingles. None of them were crashes where I landed head-first. I
    think I was pretty lucky, as most kids are (or rather, not unlucky,
    we get away with all sorts of stuff that if the dice rolled the
    wrong numbers, would make us vegetables, as kids)

    > >> There is no proof that helmets are beneficial.

    >
    > Bleve> Heh, I refute this thus; I can still read.
    >
    > I refute your refute, I can still read to after several cycling
    > accidents which resulted in a bump on the head. I fully suspect that if
    > you had not been wearing a helmet in your accident you'd still be able
    > to read as well.


    Not given the nature of the crash and how I landed.

    > This is the thing about helmets, you have an accident and see the damage
    > done to the helmet. ``Oh thank goodness I was wearing a helmet, that
    > impact would have left me with brain damage.'' That's a very unlikely
    > scenario. People have been falling on their bonce since the beginning
    > of time and it is the minority of those cases which result in brain
    > injury.


    It's not actually, it's only recently that humans have been
    traveling at an elevated height along concrete surfaces. A fall onto
    a natural surface (grass, dirt etc) is usually fine. A fall onto
    an unyielding surface is not to kind to our relatively fragile
    heads.


    >
    > If you're convinced of the properties of cycling helmets then I hope you
    > wear one when walking and driving a car (I know you wear a motorcycle
    > helmet ;-) ).


    As with all things of this nature, it's a "where do you draw the line"
    game. I'm constanly aware of the head-injury disaster area that is the
    inside of motor vehicles, and when I raced them, you bet I wore a
    helmet.
    and when we rolled, and the helmet got trashed from hitting the
    rollcage,
    I was mighty glad I was wearing it! The inside of cars (especially
    older
    ones) is trecherous.

    But, as a pedestrian, the likelyhood of a fall where I land head-first
    is pretty low.

    Now, "convinced of the properties of cycling helmets", duh. They
    reduce impact forces. That's *all* they do (cycling helmets don't
    have to pass any intrusion test, unlike Snell etc, AFAIK?). But,
    that's what they do. There's no convincing or otherwise. It's a fact.
    Hearts pump blood. That's all they do too. I still want mine :)

    Do helmets make riding safer? No, as they don't reduce the
    likleyhood of an accident. Do they make some classes of
    accident less likely to cause serious injury? Yes.

    > Bleve> It is a fact that in
    > >> every country that has helmet compulsion cycling has decreased
    > >> significantly which has a far greater impact on cyclist safety.

    >
    > Bleve> It may have temporarily reduced numbers, but is there any
    > Bleve> evidence to suggest that the change lasted a generation?
    >
    > If the numbers hadn't reduced it's quite possible we'd have a lot more
    > cyclists today.


    Maybe. That happened a generation ago though. Kids still ride
    bikes, they want independant transport. I think more
    people drive these days because they live further from work and
    cars are too affordable, but with the rising cost of petrol,
    that is changing. When I was a kid, people rode bikes because
    cars were expensive - most families I knew had one car, not two (or
    more!). Nowdays, Joe Average lives 20km+ from work and wants to
    get home in time to watch the dodgey tradesman getting busted on
    Ch 7. He'd rather sit in a comfortable, air conditioned car with
    a stereo (in a traffic jam!) than ride a bike into a headwind or
    catch a train to a station that's miles from home and is crowded,
    full of drunks and loonies (or at least, perceived to be) and doesn't
    let him stop at the stupormarket to go shopping on the way home.

    And then, I have to ask, are there actually less cyclists today than
    there was 20 years ago? In terms of percentages or base numbers?
    The bike shop industry is thriving.

    > Helmets may work in very limited scenarios, they do not make a
    > significant contribution to cyclist safety that warrants compulsion.


    That's your opinion. It's what counts as a significant contribution
    that is where the argument lies here. For me, wearing a helmet
    made a significant contribution to *my* safety.

    > Compulsion is a barrier to cycling, a barrier to cycling reduces cycling
    > numbers and increases the risk per cyclists. It's not a good trade off.


    Maybe, but I doubt it makes a significant difference these days.

    > Wear a helmet or don't, I just don't agree with compulsion.


    Noted. I don't like compulsion either. But, here we are in
    that real-world thing where we all have to make compromises.
     
  8. flyingdutch <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Peter McCallum Wrote:
    > >
    > > At my daughter's school there's a policy that students must wear the
    > > correct coloured shoelaces, and it's strictly enforced. Obviously
    > > shoelace colour has some bearing on educational outcomes.
    > >
    > > P
    > > --
    > > Peter McCallum
    > > Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

    >
    > bwahahahah. opened up The Age today to discover my eldests' proposed
    > highschool is introducing tie and Blazer.
    > Daughter's response...
    > "Can i burn it?"


    well it is called a blazer after all. of course ties are useful for
    joining together to escape over the razor wire.

    --
    Peter McCallum
    Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA
     
  9. Terry Collins <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Peter McCallum wrote:
    >
    > > At my daughter's school there's a policy that students must wear the
    > > correct coloured shoelaces, and it's strictly enforced. Obviously
    > > shoelace colour has some bearing on educational outcomes.

    >
    > Yes, Peter it does. {:)
    >
    > By enforcing conformity and brain numbing, your daughter is given the
    > best chance of being a counter bunny, or burger flipper at Maccas when
    > she finishes school. This increase the percentage of students that get
    > jobs after school, which increases the educational standing of her
    > educational institution (from reading the latest rating system results).


    ROFLMAO

    Thankyou for your enlightened insight. I must ask her to obtain a
    principal's report on her uniform standard so that she can be assured a
    place at the University of Hamburgerology (even if I have to buy her
    one).
    --
    Peter McCallum
    Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA
     
  10. EuanB

    EuanB New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    877
    Likes Received:
    0
    I disagree. It means they've come to a different conclusion than you have. That doesn't make them an idiot.

    Who are you to say otherwise? Show me the data that head injuries have decreased per kilometer cycled as a result of compulsion and you may have a point. Current data points to the opposite trend.

    So who's the idiot? The ones demanding helmet compulsion thereby slashing cycling numbers and increasing the risk per kilometer cycled or the ones who leave it to the individual o make the choice?

    Noting that you're not for compulsion which is a different argument from whether one should or not.
     
  11. "Bleve" <[email protected]> writes:

    > Gemma_k wrote:
    >
    >> > Stackhats went out in, oh, 1980? Modern helmets are light, well
    >> > ventilated and comfortable.
    >> >

    >> You miss the point. It doesn't matter how good a helmet is to wear, or how
    >> safe you feel in one, or how many vents there are or what kind of hairstyle
    >> you have. It's all about the choice of whther you WANT to wear a helmet,
    >> rather than mandating that you do....

    >
    > Sure, I don't believe that helmets (or seatbelts) should be compulsory,
    > but if you choose not to wear one, you're an idiot.
    >
    > History shows that there's rather more idiots in the world than
    > is ideal. A society that does its best to look after everyone (free
    > healthcare in particular) has a choice. Either make some level of
    > safety equipment compulsory - and hopefully reduce the bills we all
    > have to pay for healthcare through tax, or say "if you don't
    > wear this/use this etc, then you void your healthcare privs."


    Option 1: Compulsory xyz
    Option 2: Refuse healthcare

    Unfortunately, both your options are unChristian.

    The first is unChristian because it involves the use or threat of
    violence (nothing can be "compulsory" unless one is ultimately
    prepared to use physical violence, such as imprisonment, to make it
    so[*]).

    The second is unChristian because it involves withholding from a
    person what he needs, which is something Christ would never do ("Give
    to those who ask.")

    >
    > It's never an easy choice, it's always a "where do you
    > draw the line" issue. Such are the joys of living in the real world.
    >


    The real world does not have to be unChristian.


    David

    [*] Though, in reality, even this is not compulsion. Compulsion could
    only conceivably occur through the use of what you would have to call
    mind-control techniques, such as, for example, the use of drugs and
    torture to induce dissociative identity disorder and a programmable
    mental state.

    Barring the possibility of such techniques, there is no such thing as
    compulsion, and when people tell you they "had" to do this or "had" to
    do that because it was "compulsory" or the "law", they are either
    lying or delusional (or mind controlled), since they are denying their
    own free will to choose to do the right thing.

    Nearly everything that is called "compulsory" is actually not. What
    people mean is that they are giving in to coercion of one type or
    another. In fact, what it normally comes down to is that they are not
    willing to lose their possessions in order to live according to
    ethical principles. This is how possessions (a) cause or encourage
    moral corruption; and (b) are deliberately used by governments to
    corrupt people by making them passive and obedient through fear of
    losing their "stuff".

    There is an inverse relationship between spiritual freedom and
    accumulated stuff.


    --

    David Trudgett
    http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

    [Luis] Castro told Arab News: "A lieutenant in charge of the [United
    States] military police told me, 'My men are like dogs, they are
    trained only to attack, please try to understand'."

    -- http://globalresearch.ca/articles/GHA304A.html
     
  12. Bleve

    Bleve Guest

    Terry Collins wrote:
    > ritcho wrote:
    >
    > > Dr Robinson is a well known anti-helmet law campaigner and does some
    > > pretty good research. However, I'm concerned that her pre-determined
    > > conclusions undermines her work.

    >
    > Umm, I thought that all scientific work was that; "I believe that this
    > causes this and now I will go out a find evidence that supports my theory"


    Nope, or at least, that's not all of it.

    Scientific method works in one of two ways, usually;

    Observation of phenomena, hypothesis as to why/how, testing of
    hypothesis with core and edge cases.
    Hypothesis becomes theory if it passes tests. It's not
    really a case of looking for supporting evidence, but failing to
    find evidence that disproves the hypthesis.
     
  13. eddiec

    eddiec New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think that an option being 'unChristian' makes it invalid, especially when we're dealing with a society/population which generally is not... Might be good principles, but i think they're better framed as 'unethical' rather than 'unChristian'...

    And while I appreciate your comments re consumerism, I think using them as an argument against mandatory helmet laws (or any law for that matter) is odd and an awfully long bow.

    Eddie(Christian - not that there's anything wrong with that..)c
     
  14. sinus

    sinus New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unfortunately the people who count want to A) be re-elected, B) build a large super fund, or C) both of the above. Saving lives is a non-proveable outcome, within any 4 year period. Doing something that supports A) and B) is more important, so minimising negative impact on majority of voters is their real goal. Case in point is mobile phones and driving. Ah, I have become so cynical.

    PS. an interesting anomaly for me is the increase in bike sales (more bikes are sold than cars). Is this due to more disposable nature of bikes, or are we on the brink of seeing a turnaround in numbers cycling?
     
  15. EuanB

    EuanB New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    877
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think it's more that some people think they can buy fitness. The same sort of person who buys that ab exerciser off of the infomercials etc. They've done something for their fitness, they've spent money on something that will make them fit.

    Problem is that there's only one way to get fit and that's to work, which is why most bicycles end up in the back of the garden shed rusting away in to nothingness.

    Now I'm depressed. Excuse me while a buy a Dr. Phil book.
     
  16. sinus

    sinus New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whoah. I hardly think it is appropriate to bring religion into this. The discussion is not spiritual, it's about helmets. Same sort of issues impact us whether Christian, Jew, Moslem, anything else. You do your brethren no favours by attempting to align them with your particular point of view.
     
  17. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    Bleve wrote:
    > Euan wrote:


    >> At age five I rode head face in to a concrete lamp post (I sneezed,
    >> opened my eyes, saw lamp post and grabbed the front brake with
    >> predictable results.) I required two stitches but other than that,
    >> fine.
    >>
    >> At at age 12 I went sailing over the bonnet <snip>


    >> I wasn't wearing a helmet. I hit my head. I'm here and not a
    >> vegetable.


    So you say.:)

    > My crash had me land on the back of my head, from 2m, head first.
    > That's the sort of concussion that can lead to brain damage and
    > neck injury.


    >> I refute your refute, I can still read to after several cycling
    >> accidents which resulted in a bump on the head. I fully suspect
    >> that if you had not been wearing a helmet in your accident you'd
    >> still be able to read as well.

    >
    > Not given the nature of the crash and how I landed.


    You would need to do it again without the helmet to make any claims about
    what would have happened.

    > It's not actually, it's only recently that humans have been
    > traveling at an elevated height along concrete surfaces. A fall onto
    > a natural surface (grass, dirt etc) is usually fine. A fall onto
    > an unyielding surface is not to kind to our relatively fragile
    > heads.


    As a kid, I did most of my falling off bicycles on brick or cobblrstone
    surfaces, and, like Euan, I'm not a vegatable either.

    > As with all things of this nature, it's a "where do you draw the line"
    > game. I'm constanly aware of the head-injury disaster area that is
    > the inside of motor vehicles,


    But you want to have the liberty of deciding for yourself whether to wear a
    helmet in a car, and, in your daily car travel, you choose not to.

    > Do helmets make riding safer? No, as they don't reduce the
    > likleyhood of an accident. Do they make some classes of
    > accident less likely to cause serious injury? Yes.


    Have head injuries to cyclists reduced since the introduction of helmet
    compulsion?

    >> Helmets may work in very limited scenarios, they do not make a
    >> significant contribution to cyclist safety that warrants compulsion.


    > That's your opinion. It's what counts as a significant contribution
    > that is where the argument lies here. For me, wearing a helmet
    > made a significant contribution to *my* safety.


    So because of this perception of yours, you think it's fair to compel
    everyone to wear one? I have a perception people would be safer in cars if
    they all wore helmets. I would be happy for the government to compel you to
    wear one. :)

    Theo
     
  18. Hi Eddie,

    Thanks for your comments.


    eddiec <[email protected]> writes:

    > I don't think that an option being 'unChristian' makes it invalid,


    If a person adheres to a religion[*] in which violence against people is
    OK (the end justifies the means[**]), and in which it is OK to deny
    medical care to those who need it (whether through their own stupidity
    or not), then that person should feel free to ignore my comments.

    On the other hand, Christians (still quite a few of us) can't ignore
    my comments.

    [*] And yes, +everyone+ adheres to a religion, even "atheists".

    [**] An ethical principle we are all taught as children to abhor, yet
    we find it everywhere in society; and most of us find that
    unremarkable.


    > especially when we're dealing with a society/population which generally
    > is not...


    Actually, our whole society is imbued with "Christian" principles at
    some level (some would say "contaminated"). Even those who profess no
    particular organised religion still hold "religious" beliefs (whether
    they realise it or not), and by default, many of those beliefs and
    values can be traced to Christianity (in the case of Western society).

    Meanwhile, a Christian does not need to apologise for promoting
    Christian values, whether to Christians or non-Christians. Of course,
    this does not imply the desire to force (impossible anyway) beliefs,
    values and practices onto the unwilling (as many "Christians" and
    adherents to other "faiths" would want to do). A Muslim or a Christian
    theocracy (forcing religious rules onto a whole "nation"), for
    example, must be abhorrent to all people who value human dignity and
    freedom (which a true Christian does).



    > Might be good principles, but i think they're better framed as
    > 'unethical' rather than 'unChristian'...


    An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is ethical and just. That is
    the rule of law in which retribution is taken for offences
    committed. Christianity is beyond "ethics", and that's why it was and
    still is so revolutionary. Even today, most people do not realise that
    Christianity is not simply a system of ethics. Although Christians are
    "ethical", Christianity cannot be reduced to a system of ethics.

    No philosopher has been able to define a system of ethics that is both
    (a) universal, and (b) not based on absolute Christian (or other
    religious) principles; and that is not from want of trying. Such
    attempts at ethical humanism will be forever condemned, in my opinion,
    to the hell of moral relativism, which ultimately means that one may
    do whatever one wishes, so long as the ends are perceived as "good" or
    desirable.

    So, ethics, in the sense the scientific humanist understands, is no
    protection against the likes of, for example, Hitler's nazism or
    Mussolini's fascism, or the secret policies of their present day
    followers who are hiding today in plain sight.


    >
    > And while I appreciate your comments re consumerism, I think using them
    > as an argument against mandatory helmet laws (or any law for that
    > matter) is odd and an awfully long bow.


    The answer must then be that my comments regarding the properties
    of... property... were not intended to be an argument against
    mandatory helmet laws. They were, in fact, intended to show a more
    general point about how people compromise their own ethical standards
    through fear of losing what they think they "own". Bosses, for
    instance, just love it when their employees have mortgages to pay,
    because it makes them so much easier to control (because the employee
    will do things that contradict their ethical values, and rationalise
    it by their "need" to look after their family).

    What has that got to do with helmet laws? Any law (of the type we are
    discussing) is backed by the threat of violent coercion. In our
    society, that means the threat to steal one's property, or to
    imprison. In other countries[***], state violence extends to torture
    and terrorism. We now know that this is the case in the United States,
    for instance.

    Since most people seem to be somewhat lacking in the fortitude
    department, or otherwise overly attached to their possessions and
    comfortable way of life, it is apparent that the mere threat to steal
    one's possessions is sufficient to keep most people in line, without
    having to resort to imprisonment and torture.

    Let's have a look at a hypothetical situation in a hypothetical time
    and place. (Yes, that means this example is entirely fictitious,
    though based on plausible elements.)

    Person A (P[a]) has a religious belief about head coverings that rules
    out wearing a helmet. He therefore rides his bicycle without a helmet
    and is booked several times by the police. He refuses to pay the fines
    for several reasons: (1) he will not pay a fine for following his
    religious beliefs; (2) his government sent troops to help kill people
    overseas who were defending their country from foreign invasion, and
    therefore paying a fine voluntarily would be providing material
    assistance to a criminal, terrorist organisation; and (3) he will not
    pay a fine for refusing to abdicate his personal responsibility for
    deciding what is the best thing to do in his own personal circumstances.

    As a result, P[a] was taken to court, where a judgement was made that
    his car would be taken from him by force, and his driving licence
    cancelled (in this place, unbelievably, you might think, people
    actually have to have permission to operate a motor vehicle,
    regardless of their abilities to do it safely).

    There was no practical way that P[a] could get to work without driving
    a vehicle, so he lost his job, and lost his house. Luckily, he found
    another job within cycling distance, though it barely paid enough to
    pay the rent. Unfortunately, he was booked several more times for
    riding without a helmet.

    The second time before the courts, he was found to have nothing worth
    stealing, so he was imprisoned. In prison, he was abused in countless
    ways by prisoners and prison officers alike, with no possibility of
    redress, because nobody is interested in the plight of a criminal.


    Now, Person B (P) on the other hand, also has a religious belief
    about head coverings that rules out wearing a helmet. He, however,
    does not own a car, and must cycle to work to support a wife and
    fifteen children. But wearing or not wearing a helmet is such a
    trifling matter, he reasons, especially compared with clothing and
    housing a family. So, although he knows that wearing a helmet is wrong
    (because his sincere religious beliefs tell him so), he nevertheless
    compromises his religious and ethical beliefs and wears a helmet while
    cycling. P, now a hypocrite because of fear of losing possessions,
    continues to live a plentiful life as the shell of a human being.


    I hope you enjoyed this fairy tale! :) I hope the exaggeration
    explains what possessions, and the fear of losing them, has to do with
    helmet laws (or any other law which purports to take away an
    individual's inalienable right to choose for herself what is right
    according to her own conscience).



    [***] And possibly secretly even in our own.

    >
    > Eddie(Christian - not that there's anything wrong with that..)c
    >


    Well, you know, that Bush guy claims to be Christian, too... ;-)


    Catchya.

    David


    --

    David Trudgett
    http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

    All these men who were going to murder or to torture the famishing and
    defenseless creatures who provide them their sustenance had the air of
    men who knew very well that they were doing their duty, and some were
    even proud, were "glorying" in what they were doing.

    -- Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You"
     
  19. sinus <[email protected]> writes:

    > David Trudgett Wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> Unfortunately, both your options are unChristian.
    >>
    >>

    > Whoah. I hardly think it is appropriate to bring religion into this.


    Whoah. I don't think it appropriate to exclude religion from
    life. Religion *is* life, you know.

    Bye for now,

    David



    --

    David Trudgett
    http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

    You wu hun cheng
    Xian tian di sheng.

    -- Laozi, Dao De Jing, Chapter 25

    Trans:

    "There was something in a state of fusion
    Before the heavens and the earth came into existence."
     
  20. flyingdutch

    flyingdutch New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Messages:
    5,700
    Likes Received:
    0
    if you think more people wearing helmets hasnt decrease head-injuries arriving in emergency departments acroos the country i think you have lost me (and applying 'convenient ignorance' )

    replace 'helmet' with 'safety belt'. what's the difference? they are compulsory too after initially not being so.
    This helmet debate is done and dusted in Oz. There 'may' have been some fallout initially, but then there was against new cars that had seatbelts installed too when they were intro'd.
    just buy that Surly and ride :D
     
Loading...
Loading...