• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 200.00 credit to your HoP account.
 
Page: 12345
Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:So in the last week, I have seen two children in horrible bike accidents. Neither was wearing a helmet.

One is 15. He's going to need some occupational therapy and he's going to be confused for a while (it's been about a week now). But he'll probably be more or less back to his baseline. He was an honors student.

The other honors student is a 10yo boy who I was kind of hoping would die. His brain looks like someone scrambled it with a fork. The swelling is so bad that they've had to remove a piece of his skull. He has a shear injury to his brainstem and can't even control his body's temperature correctly. He's going to be severely mentally and neurologically disabled if they ever get him out of this. The rest of his body is totally fine save a dislocated ankle. And yeah... horrible. From his school picture he was a really adorable kid. And he was an honors student. frown

Folks, please wear your helmets for biking and skating and climbing. I know they're uncomfortable, but severe brain damage is far worse. And parents, the rule with your kids should be: "If I ever catch you riding or skating without a helmet, you will do neither for one year."


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete Topic

Dentrassi
Dentrassi

ZORT!
Location: Brisbane
Member Since: 9th Apr 2003
Total posts: 3044
Posted:Ive looked at the stats and evidence by both the pro-compulsary helment lobby and those against....

and all it really proves to me is that most people dont understand how statistics works. ubbrollsmile


"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Well said Lightning. I dont think we will agree on the compulsory seat belts or helmets, but at least agree that they both save lives.

Certainly the Australian experience, where it is compulsory to were seat belts and helmets (in most States), has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that both these measures have been extremely effective in saving lives. Sure, there was some resistance at first, but these days most would feel naked if they didnt buckle up before they started their car or got on their bike. And I certainly don't think we live in a "nanny state" (stops before turning that one into a rant).

I think some of these personal liberty issues may have been relevant back in the 1950s, but populations have grown dramatically, and there are many, many more vehicles using the road these days. As a consequence, safety standards have to be lifted, people need to take more care, and shock horror actually own some responsibility for their safety.

OWD, I agree that helmets should not be the first line of defense, but rather the last. Personally, I dont see how cyclists can be taken seriously if they dont support safety helmets. I suppose it would not be necessary to introduce compulsory measures if there was a high adoption rate of helmets by cyclists, but comments here suggest most cyclists see helmets as an infringement on the personal liberties. In fact, this whole "nanny state" argument comes across like people who wear helmets are wusses, and hey, real men don't need helmets.

As a side issue, but not unconnected, we have driver drug and alcohol testing. Now, this measure was, and still is very unpopular, but no one can deny that it has been extremely effective in slashing road carnage.

Bottom line Helmets Save Lives. If people arent smart enough to realize that, and continue to put fashion issues like "helmet hair" above saving lives, then its only a matter of time before helmets become mandatory.

Dentrassi spank


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Groovy_Dream
Groovy_Dream

addict

Member Since: 26th May 2005
Total posts: 449
Posted:Something a lot more constructive that the government could do is implement more bicycle lanes, or even better, bike tracks along rivers and railways or elsewhere completely off the road. Thinking about the number of times i've nearly been flattened by a car or worse, a bus or truck, makes me a little bit faint hearted. And if you're run over by a truck, i'm afraid it doesn't really matter whether you're wearing a helmet or not. And it's pretty easy to stuff up: you have no rear vision mirror so you can't really tell whats approaching behind except by the sound of something that you're well aware may kill you (especially if the driver is drunk or hates cyclists). And you get lots of people driving close just to unnerve you. Also lets not mention the Bernoulli effect: the air pressure of trucks and buses stuck you in towards them... You have to know exactly what the traffic is doing, in all directions and at all times, and know all the traffic laws including ones that allow motorists to accidentally smush a cyclist (eg. motorists often turn off a main street or do a U-turn without checking the bike lanes for cyclists), all the while putting up with immense noise and smog, and checking the surface in front of you for hazards like broken glass or a stormdrain vent.



As for riding off the road, on dedicated bike tracks, the chances of having an accident are pretty small unless you're doing something stupid (probably about the same chance as falling over walking).


Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by :

As outlined in the March 2005 issue of the Health Promotion Journal of Australia (PDF 88kb), the number of regular cyclists in Western Australia almost doubled between 1982 and 1989 from 220,000 to 400,000. During this time, the numbers of cyclists admitted to West Australian hospitals and reported deaths and serious injuries per 10,000 regular cyclists fell by 48% and 33% respectively.

As reported in March 2007 and based on data from Western Australia, Queensland and Victoria, the number of Australian children walking or riding a bicycle to school has plunged from about 80% in 1977 to the current level around 5%. The data on this website confirms that in Western Australia, the massive decline in cycling (and children's health and safety) began around 1991 when the helmet law was enacted.




from:

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/bicycle_numbers.html

(There's plenty more on that page)

Pretty much sums up what the pro-choicers are talking about.

This is not just a personal liberty issue, it's about forcing cyclists to engage in an act (helmet wearing)which, they believe, makes cycling more risky.

 Written by :


Personally, I don’t see how cyclists can be taken seriously if they don’t support safety helmets.




How insulting!

For cyclists who may be very sincere and very focused on safety (cos they know their lives could depend on it) and who've gone to the trouble to dig out the real facts on helmets- they're to be dismissed in such a flippant manner on the grounds that they choose not to wear a helmet.

This is exactly the kind of junk that politicians wanting to impose helmet legislation, will direct to the non-cycling public.

Who, having no experience or knowledge of the issue will fall into the easiest POV, which is that 'of course, a helmet protects the head and therefore will cut the injury rate'.

While remaining completely oblivious to the arguments expressed above which claim to show that forcing cyclists to wear a helmet actually increases head injuries.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:I'm pretty sure if you'd notice Stone, those of us who have commented about the nanny state and opposed legislation requiring adults to wear helmets have all fully endorsed them, and say we use them ourselves.

#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:PsyRush, good points on bike tracks along rivers and railways or elsewhere completely off the road. Seeing with your ears is a also good point, but hey, why dont you have a rear vision mirror???



I like the Bernoulli effect, and I know a lot of cyclists use it to get a tow, but its a bit dangerous because you have to get very close to a truck to slipstream wink



I agree, you have to know exactly what the traffic is doing, in all directions and at all times; welcome to the road. That includes anticipating what other road users are doing, included cyclists. Id suggest doing one of those road survival courses. Dentrassi also brought up this point, and I can tell you that you can learn a lot of stuff, that you think you know, and it may save your life.



Be safe, Be Seen.



 Written by OWD

How insulting!





Hey, Im a cyclist. Sorry, you find cycle safety insulting.



 Written by OWD

I'm not going to personally comment on this.





Well, for someone who states they are impartial, you seem to have picked up some speed in this discussion.



 Written by

cyclehelmets.org is the website of an international coalition of people with an interest in cycling and the damage being caused by the mandatory wearing of bicycle helmets.





Give me a break on the propaganda. As you said:



 Written by

Again, any pro-helmet choice cyclists, are going to ask whether an organisation called the 'bicycle helmet safety institute' are necessarily going to be impartial on this issue.





So, how impartial is that site on this issue?



 Written by OWD

This is not just a personal liberty issue, it's about forcing cyclists to engage in an act (helmet wearing) which, they believe, makes cycling more risky.





Well Id say the pro-choicers are wrong. In my experience of mandatory helmet laws, helmets dont make cycling more risky. Ive been there on the helmet laws, done that on the helmet laws, and lived because of the helmet laws. Have you or any of the pro-choicers done that?



Your argument, and the pro-choicers argument seems to be more about - I don't want to and dont tell me what to do, rather than cycle safety. Its all in the words you use. Like it's pro-choice and not "pro-safety".



You points are mostly about choice, which has nothing to do with reducing injury or saving lives. Its more about being seen as a nanny state and the implications of anti-terrorist laws rather than any real issues about cycle safety.



You can take it or leave it, Helmets Save Lives.





 Written by Lurch

I'm pretty sure if you'd notice Stone, those of us who have commented about the nanny state and opposed legislation requiring adults to wear helmets have all fully endorsed them, and say we use them ourselves.





So, your saying you fully endorsed helmet laws? Good one Lurch clap









wink


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:I may have opposed mandatory bicycle helmet laws when they were being discussed locally but I didn't because before those laws were passed, I had a serious accident ( just like Mand's ) and i wasn't wearing a helmet.

I was going about as fast as you can go on a racing bike, I had brand new chain rings, chain, and cluster on, a strong tailwind and a desire to keep my speed up as I approached a busy intersection anticipating the stoplight changing to green just as I got there.

So there i was, racing up between lanes of cars waiting for the light to change, when suddenly, some guy in a car decides he wants to change lanes.

I hit him at full speed, and all I could think of was a poster published by a local insurance company.

The poster showed a silhouette of a rider upside down, flying through he air over the hood of a car ( just like I was doing ) and the caption at the bottom read " A bicycle helmet seems like a good idea right about now"

I pulled a full 360 in the air, landed facing forward on my outstretched hands and tried to slide on the palms of my hands ( this is why I mentioned gloves in the other thread ) on my gloves before the momentum of my legs, and the bike that was still attached to my feet with the toe clips bent my spine an an unnatural angle ( yikes, that chain ring to the back of the head description of Mand's has etched some rather freaky imagery into my head ) before forcing me to drop my shoulder to take the force of the impact on it, rather than my head, as the bike came over, slammed into the ground and I spent the rest of my momentum sliding along the road on that oily strip down the center of the lane that motorcyclists fear with good reason.

I considered myself lucky that i didn't end up either dead, or in some institution somewhere wearing a pair of depends with a drool bucket under my chin.

Once the dust had settled with the insurance company and they'd okayed buying me a new bike ( the top tube and sloping tube were bent beyond repair , but for some strange reason the front wheel survived intact ) I made a pact to never, ever, get on a bicycle again without wearing a helmet.

So when mandatory helmet laws wee being discussed, I couldn't muster up any steam to oppose the requirement of something that at a particular instant in my life I had wished for more than anything else.

I still have that front wheel, and a permanently deformed shoulder as mementos of this event


Delete

natasqi
natasqi

addict
Location: Perth
Member Since: 4th Jul 2007
Total posts: 489
Posted: Written by :onewheeldave



While remaining completely oblivious to the arguments expressed above which claim to show that forcing cyclists to wear a helmet actually increases head injuries.



.. I've been trying to follow this thread but I think I missed something... Who posted an article saying helmets increase head injuries?

Are you trying to dispute that helmets are NOT effective in reducing head and facial trauma as a result of an accident, or are you saying because of risk compensation (i.e. those wearing helmets feel safer so have more risky behaviour) there is no net effect on the 'safeness' of a rider?

Or something else?


Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:For full details read my previous posts which elaborate on this, but, as a very concise summary-

1. Compulsory helmets=less cyclists on the roads

Perhaps the single biggest factor that increases safety for cyclists, is that, all other things being equal-

2. more cyclists=more safety

So, where those factors are concerned, compulsory helemts=roads less safe for cyclists

I'll point out that this is not my argument, it's the argument of many groups made up of cyclists who are far more experienced in cycling than me. I say this because, once again, Stone seems to have got confused-

 Written by : Stone


 Written by OWD

I'm not going to personally comment on this….



Well, for someone who states they are impartial, you seem to have picked up some speed in this discussion.





Stone, it's perfectly normal for a person to put forward an argument without having personally decided whether it is sufficiently valid to become their actual point of view; hence why I stressed it was not my own argument.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by :Stone




 Written by OWD

This is not just a personal liberty issue, it's about forcing cyclists to engage in an act (helmet wearing) which, they believe, makes cycling more risky.



Well I’d say the pro-choicers are wrong. In my experience of mandatory helmet laws, helmets don’t make cycling more risky. I’ve been there on the helmet laws, done that on the helmet laws, and lived because of the helmet laws. Have you or any of the pro-choicers done that?






In your experience of mandatory helmet laws, helmets don't make cycling more risky??

How would you tell? How did you tell? Was it anything more than a safe feeling you got from wearing a helmet?




 Written by :Stone




 Written by OWD

This is not just a personal liberty issue, it's about forcing cyclists to engage in an act (helmet wearing) which, they believe, makes cycling more risky.



Well I’d say the pro-choicers are wrong. In my experience of mandatory helmet laws, helmets don’t make cycling more risky. I’ve been there on the helmet laws, done that on the helmet laws, and lived because of the helmet laws. Have you or any of the pro-choicers done that?

Your argument, and the pro-choicer’s argument seems to be more about - I don't want to and don’t tell me what to do, rather than cycle safety. It’s all in the words you use. Like it's “pro-choice” and not "pro-safety".

You points are mostly about choice, which has nothing to do with reducing injury or saving lives. It’s more about being seen as a “nanny state” and the implications of anti-terrorist laws rather than any real issues about cycle safety.

You can take it or leave it, Helmets Save Lives.




Helmets quite possibly do save lives- when made compulsory though, they also probably lead to other lives being lost.

Let's be clear on one thing- some cyclists may not wear helmets cos of their hair, or cos or personal liberty- but not all.

Some, often very experienced cyclists,oppose compulsory helmets because of the argument, and the stats, which show that compulsory helmets make cycling more dangerous.

Disagree with them if you want, but don't make out that they don't believe what they're saying.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted: Written by OWD

Some, often very experienced cyclists, oppose compulsory helmets because of the argument, and the stats, which show that compulsory helmets make cycling more dangerous.



Disagree with them if you want, but don't make out that they don't believe what they're saying.





OWD, I am a extremely experienced cyclist, who has gone through the mandatory helmet process. Perhaps, you should listen what Im saying. I was vehemently opposed to helmets laws, now Im saying Im I was wrong, and can now see that helmets save lives. I even stopped riding for while, but I'm over that. I'd suggest the most accurate stats out there are from the Monash Uni Accident Prevention Centre, and while cycle numbers initially declined in under 16 years olds they have increased again.



Sure, change is difficult and resistance is expected. Its a process - Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Testing and finally Acceptance. I think you find that after a one or two years the level of cyclists on the roads will increase again to pre-law levels.



Anyhow, whats the relationship between less cyclists on the road and an increased increase accident rate? Safety in numbers perhaps?



 Written by OWD

How would you tell? How did you tell? Was it anything more than a safe feeling you got from wearing a helmet?





I still have a pulse, Im alive.



Did you read Stouts post? He went to a lot of trouble to share his first hand experience.



 Written by

Helmets quite possibly do save lives- when made compulsory though, they also probably lead to other lives being lost.





That seems to be a contradiction.



 Written by OWD

Stone, it's perfectly normal for a person to put forward an argument without having personally decided whether it is sufficiently valid to become their actual point of view; hence why I stressed it was not my own argument.





I admit, I'm finding it difficult to believe that you don't have an opinion and are impartial in this discussion.

EDITED_BY: Stone (1213316741)


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

ElectricBlue
ElectricBlue

Now with extra strawberries
Location: Canberra
Member Since: 11th Feb 2002
Total posts: 810
Posted: Written by

Some, often very experienced cyclists,oppose compulsory helmets because of the argument, and the stats, which show that compulsory helmets make cycling more dangerous.





Where are these stats that you keep mentioning?



 Written by

1. Compulsory helmets=less cyclists on the roads





If you are refering to the stats quoted earlyer about Western Australia. How do you know?? there are many reasons that kids don't ride to school any more. In the same time frame as the mandetory helmet laws in australia there were also massive stranger danger campains and rules brought in that said that children chould not be on school ground more than 1 hour before school started this led to a lot more children being droped at school rather than riding. Also if you look at the general rate of physical activity at those times you will probably find it decresses just like the rate of people riding to school.

EDITED_BY: Blueberry (1213316574)


I {Heart} hand me downs and spinning in the snow.<br /><br />

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:But here's the thing: I don't care if mandating helmet use reduces injury rate. As long as wearing a helmet protects only the person wearing the helmet (barring freak accidents), it shouldn't be compulsory.

I view this as the first step down a slippery slope. If I can mandate that you wear a helmet or a seatbelt, then can I mandate that you can't smoke pot? Can I mandate that you can't eat fast food? Can I mandate that you take high blood pressure medication? How far can I mandate your own personal behavior to modify your own personal safety?

I would rather educate people than mandate their behavior towards themselves.

Now, when it comes to their children, I do not believe that a parent has the ultimate last say in how their children are raised. I do believe that all children (individuals under the age of majority, usually 18) have a right to protection and safety. I do believe that children should be "nannied" because they are children. However, adults do not need nannies. We do have to decide on a given age where magically at midnight a "child" becomes an "adult," even though no such age could ever be perfect. But at that age, I oppose any mandate that adults mind their own personal safety in society.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Dentrassi
Dentrassi

ZORT!
Location: Brisbane
Member Since: 9th Apr 2003
Total posts: 3044
Posted: Written by :stone



spank Dentrassi







hey that was a valid comment - here an example:



 Written by :onewheeldave



As reported in March 2007 and based on data from Western Australia, Queensland and Victoria, the number of Australian children walking or riding a bicycle to school has plunged from about 80% in 1977 to the current level around 5%. The data on this website confirms that in Western Australia, the massive decline in cycling (and children's health and safety) began around 1991 when the helmet law was enacted.







This a classic example of statistics on the internet...

So the fraction of kids cycling have been decreasing since 1977.

- did they decrease up till 1991 when helmets were still optional?

- Did cycling decrease because of factors other that helmets? perhaps more kids live unrealistic distances from school? urban sprawl? busier roads? more road rage? more protective parents? Kids inceasingly chaffuered from piano lesson to soccer practise by pushy parents? kids too fat to get on bikes? just brainstorming here...

- What was the rate that kids cycling decreases from 1977 to 1991, then from 1991 to 2007 - then you might be able to cancel the effect of other factors - but maybe not.

-"The data on this website confirms that " well - you have 2 time-based data points from 3 states from an online newspaper, and a law change which happened in western australia the middle. thats a long way from a watertight proof.

-"childrens health and safety" what? we're talking about a numerical analysis cycling to school? classic use of emotive words to sway the argument. sure child health and safety stats are slight more complicated than just looking a the fraction of kids riding to school



Im not saying that the hypothesis is disproven by the numbers... just saying that care needs to be taken when translating stats into conclusions. perhaps theres some more data somewhere they havent mentioned? then again perhaps there isnt. its a very human error to end up proving what you set out to prove in the first place.



I looked at a bunch of other stats on that website - any theres several other examples where the raw data isnt as overwhelmingly decisive as the conclusions make it out to be, an forgets some critical assumptions. But i wont go into that because any more stats because everyone will start falling asleep and drooling on the keyboard.



i see the same type of thing with pro-helmet camp.



ill just go back into by little mathematical box in the corner...

EDITED_BY: Dentrassi (1213321799)


"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Now that's a valid point.

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

natasqi
natasqi

addict
Location: Perth
Member Since: 4th Jul 2007
Total posts: 489
Posted: Written by :onewheeldave


For full details read my previous posts which elaborate on this, but, as a very concise summary-

1. Compulsory helmets=less cyclists on the roads

Perhaps the single biggest factor that increases safety for cyclists, is that, all other things being equal-

2. more cyclists=more safety

So, where those factors are concerned, compulsory helmets=roads less safe for cyclists





Oh.. so you're against compulsory helmets.. not helmets themselves.

Do you think that everyone should wear helmets? (not that helmets should be compulsory, but that everyone, because helmets make riding safer, should chose to wear one)?


Delete

natasqi
natasqi

addict
Location: Perth
Member Since: 4th Jul 2007
Total posts: 489
Posted: Written by :Doc Lightning


I view this as the first step down a slippery slope. If I can mandate that you wear a helmet or a seatbelt, then can I mandate that you can't smoke pot? Can I mandate that you can't eat fast food? Can I mandate that you take high blood pressure medication? How far can I mandate your own personal behavior to modify your own personal safety?

I would rather educate people than mandate their behavior towards themselves.




I'm all for mandating then educating.
"We are bringing this law in place, this is why"

And I don't think it's for that person's personal safety.. I think it's for the burden on the health system, for the ambulance officers who have to see the splattered brains on the sidewalk, the surgeons who have to stay up late for PREVENTABLE accidents.

I don't want to grow up and only treat hypertension, obesity, diabetes, IHD, high cholesterol etc etc, which is becoming the trend in General Practice. I can't feel any empathy for people like that when I could be working in Africa curing people of things that fat white people haven't exerienced for 50 years.

And yeah, if I was making the laws, the doors on MacDonalds would only be 60cm wide, and those who can't fit, can't eat there...

So, yes, tell the population that so our hospitals aren't full of preventable things, you can't ride without a helmet, you can't smoke pot, you can't eat fast food to excess...
I know the slippery slope argument... soon they'll say firedancing is banned because it leads to preventable burns etc
But the slippery slope works the other way too.
Why protect people's safety at all? Let people drive around the roads in personalised cars that have no crunch zones with no seatbelts.
We wear gloves in hospital as universal standards to stop the wearer coming in contact with blood. This is a personal risk, why regulate this? The impact on the healthcare system?


Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by :natasqi


And I don't think it's for that person's personal safety.. I think it's for the burden on the health system, for the ambulance officers who have to see the splattered brains on the sidewalk, the surgeons who have to stay up late for PREVENTABLE accidents.



OK. Then let's ban:

1) Any fireplay
2) Skiing
3) Biking (period)
4) Rollerblading
5) Smoking
6) Drinking
7) Meat
8) Sex outside of marriage
9) Skydiving
...where does it stop?


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:I know of no *law* that requires EMS to wear PPE (personal protective equipment). Those things are more by policy, and for liability reasons. The same way by law teachers and school officials have the same power to use physical force for discipline as a parent, but by policy, for liability reasons they don't/can't.

Frankly I don't care if someone eats fast food all the time. I don't really care if they smoke pot, unless they're DUI, or selling to kids. How does the slippery slope work the other way? You're giving up your freedoms and your right to *choose* what you want to do with your body and your life.

I'm pro helmets, I think they're a wonderful tool that have helped many people. But I'm definitely anti-helmet laws.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:I side Mike when he says that kids need guidance (nannying) - and that many parents today feel incapable of keeping up with the resistance they face from their children when trying to enforce rules (heck I've been a pain in the neck myself).

Which is why we make rules to protect them (from themselves).

Thanks for the links to big helmets - you might recall that the size has been *one out of three* major reasons why I oppose helmets for my personal use - subsequently leading me to oppose all helmet enforcement laws.

I understand that in a welfare society where everybody enjoys free healthcare and rehab, rules are put up as to protect *that society* from unnecessary abuse. Which is why I bow to the regulations where they get enforced.

Yet I feel we're following a one sided approach.

Bikers (usually) don't kill - they (usually) do get killed

As a car/ truck driver it's easy to say: Let's make helmets compulsory - but I'll continue speeding and turning, underestimating anything that moves on two (wheels).

That IMO is an unbalanced approach.

Personally I do go fast on a bicycle - I don't use these high tech foot traps but the good old fashioned baskets. I enjoy less traction way over the opportunity to liberate my feet from the bike. I had a number of accidents, only one involved my head. Above all I believe in the ability to break fast, to look well ahead and not to insist on my right to use the road/ right of way.

And I believe in the maxime that unless I endanger your personal safety or pose a direct threat to your property you have no right to tell me what to do with my life.

Otherwise we should all have compulsory health care, compulsory comprehansive damaga insurance and - life insurance.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:
Non-Https Image Link


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by :Stone







Anyhow, what&#8217;s the relationship between less cyclists on the road and an increased increase accident rate? Safety in numbers perhaps?









Could be any number of things- my opinions are that-



1. the more cyclists there are, the more motorists get used to their presence

2. the more understanding occurs between the two groups

3. the more the two groups come to see themselves as, not enemies, but, fellow road-users



 Written by :





 Written by OWD

How would you tell? How did you tell? Was it anything more than a safe feeling you got from wearing a helmet?





I still have a pulse, I&#8217;m alive.







Sorry mate- but that is laughable.



Think of the multitudes of non-helmet wearers who also have a pulse and are alive- they could use your exact reasoning to prove their (opposite) argument.





 Written by :







 Written by OWD

Stone, it's perfectly normal for a person to put forward an argument without having personally decided whether it is sufficiently valid to become their actual point of view; hence why I stressed it was not my own argument.





I admit, I'm finding it difficult to believe that you don't have an opinion and are impartial in this discussion.





Well, you'll just have to call me a liar then won't you? smile



Fact is, I am well capeable of putting forward a coherent line of reasoning without carrying an 100% conviction that the conclusion the reasoning points to is necessarily, definitly true.



In this case, my lack of certainty is due, not to any faults in the reasoning, but, because they point to some stats and, as others here have pointed out, stats are always a weak point.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted: Written by :onewheeldave


Could be any number of things- my opinions are that-

1. the more cyclists there are, the more motorists get used to their presence
2. the more understanding occurs between the two groups
3. the more the two groups come to see themselves as, not enemies, but, fellow road-users




Absolutely second that and like to point at the traffic in Amsterdam in that context - also in India there is a lot more understanding and respect between motorists and (motor)bike traffic. One reason for that being is that most ppl did/ do ride a (motor)bike themselves.

Further I would like to stress that by far there are not enough designated bike-baths in any city I have visited so far. As petrol gets more and more expensive there should be more designated bike paths available.

IMHO it's not enough to make helmets compulsory (for children).


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

natasqi
natasqi

addict
Location: Perth
Member Since: 4th Jul 2007
Total posts: 489
Posted: Written by :Doc Lightning


 Written by :natasqi


And I don't think it's for that person's personal safety.. I think it's for the burden on the health system, for the ambulance officers who have to see the splattered brains on the sidewalk, the surgeons who have to stay up late for PREVENTABLE accidents.



OK. Then let's ban:

1) Any fireplay
2) Skiing
3) Biking (period)
4) Rollerblading
5) Smoking
6) Drinking
7) Meat
8) Sex outside of marriage
9) Skydiving
...where does it stop?



Sadly, the 'slippery slope' argument is a fallacy.
"It suggests that an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later without establishing or quantifying the relevant contingencies." - From Wiki because I don't have my "Philosophy: Art of Critical Thinking" textbook with me.

So to make your argument, you must define and prove the relevant steps that are key to your argument that by regulating helmet use, not only will it lead to other regulations come in place, but these legislations will be detrimental to society on a social or 'freedom' level, whichever your point is...


Delete

Dentrassi
Dentrassi

ZORT!
Location: Brisbane
Member Since: 9th Apr 2003
Total posts: 3044
Posted:ubblol classic!

i always wondered what you looked like tom wink

D>


"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by :natasqi


Sadly, the 'slippery slope' argument is a fallacy.

So to make your argument, you must define and prove the relevant steps that are key to your argument that by regulating helmet use, not only will it lead to other regulations come in place, but these legislations will be detrimental to society on a social or 'freedom' level, whichever your point is...



It is and it isn't a fallacy. We've seen that over time, increasing regulations on personal behavior have been the trend.

Natasqi, let me give you a little lesson from physician to student. It's frustrating at times to see patients suffer from preventable conditions. If only he hadn't eaten steak and eggs three times daily. If only she'd taken her blood pressure medicine. If only he'd taken his diabetes meds. If only she hadn't smoked...

It's maddening and there were times when I considered supporting various laws and regulations governing personal behavior. But ultimately, as physicians, our job is not to pass judgement and it is not our job to control our patients. Our job is to make recommendations and to educate our patients on what decisions will have the healthiest outcome.

If the patient who just had a myocardial infarction and triple CABG has his wife bring him a McDonald's Big Mac while he's recovering, then he has a right to do that, even though it's stupid. If the patient who just had a laryngectomy wants to continue to smoke through her stoma, then she has a right to, even though it's stupid. This is the ethical concept of patient autonomy; the patient has the right to refuse therapy and to not follow physician's recommendations as long as they are of sound mind. Even when we think that their actions embody the height of idiocy.

The idea is that we have to let people look out for their own best interests and make decisions for themselves as competent adults. But we should let them make their own decisions. You can make arguments about costs to society and money and blah blah, but there is no price tag for liberty.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Additionally, natasqi, Lightnings reply isn't necessariy the 'slippery slope' arguement.



You said-



 Written by :



And I don't think it's for that person's personal safety.. I think it's for the burden on the health system, for the ambulance officers who have to see the splattered brains on the sidewalk, the surgeons who have to stay up late for PREVENTABLE accidents.







the implication being that any personal choice actions that can lead to needing repairing by the medical services, are prime targets for legislation to prevent people making those choices.



Lightning simply provided a list of other activities which, if your implication was correct, would similarly be up for legislation using the exact same reasoning.



Seen like that, it's nothing to do with 'slippery slopes'.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

natasqi
natasqi

addict
Location: Perth
Member Since: 4th Jul 2007
Total posts: 489
Posted: Written by :onewheeldave


Additionally, natasqi, Lightnings reply isn't necessarily the 'slippery slope' arguement.

You said-

 Written by :


And I don't think it's for that person's personal safety.. I think it's for the burden on the health system, for the ambulance officers who have to see the splattered brains on the sidewalk, the surgeons who have to stay up late for PREVENTABLE accidents.




the implication being that any personal choice actions that can lead to needing repairing by the medical services, are prime targets for legislation to prevent people making those choices.

Lightning simply provided a list of other activities which, if your implication was correct, would similarly be up for legislation using the exact same reasoning.

Seen like that, it's nothing to do with 'slippery slopes'.



smile It's not up to me to define the outcomes of Doc's point... I can't define and argue for him...

Regarding his list, he has suggested some activities which may fall under the same reasoning, but not why it would be LIKELY for these legislations to be passed, or even why these changes would be detrimental to society...

The slippery slope is when you say "if this event happens, then other events are going to happen and somewhere down the line, these events become harmful, and because these harmful events shouldn't happen, the first event shouldn't happen." But people don't provide evidence that once the first event happens, the next one is inevitable... or that if the next one happens, the next will.

"We've seen that over time, increasing regulations on personal behaviour have been the trend."
So.. it's not that regulating helmets is CAUSING the trend? So if fact, this trend could continue without Helmets being one of the steps? So that the helmets argument should be looked at for it's own merit and not what is happening around it?
Also, I'm only 22, haven't been around that long, so if you could provide some evidence of the trend?? :P

Helmets are required in WA.. and no other legislation has been passed from your list...(excluding smoking in pubs/clubs and on hospital premises) though I don't know what time frame you're talking about...

So, Doc hasn't indicated if my reasoning, the healthcare side, is in fact his argument, or whether he is arguing against legislating for personal protection.

(I participate in these discussions to improve my critical thinking and discussion skills... but nobody plays by the rules... :P It makes it hard... I don't usually have an agenda or particular affiliation for the point I adopt, just a desire to be able to prove a point, regardless of what it is... a hobby I guess :P)


Delete

natasqi
natasqi

addict
Location: Perth
Member Since: 4th Jul 2007
Total posts: 489
Posted: Written by :Doc Lightning


Natasqi, let me give you a little lesson from physician to student.
...
But ultimately, as physicians, our job is not to pass judgement and it is not our job to control our patients. Our job is to make recommendations and to educate our patients on what decisions will have the healthiest outcome.

...

The idea is that we have to let people look out for their own best interests and make decisions for themselves as competent adults. But we should let them make their own decisions. You can make arguments about costs to society and money and blah blah, but there is no price tag for liberty.



It's not frustrating, it's infuriating.

Regarding lung transplants, they won't transplant smokers. Because they don't do as well because of the damage to their blood vessels etc and the fact they can just damage the lungs again.
Here, we are saying "this lung will go to someone else because ?
a) you don't deserve it?
b) the treatment would do more for someone else than it will for you?"
c) something else?

Are we rationalising medical resources? Or making an ethical and moral judgement?

Interview/article with a lung transplant surgeon if anyone is interested
http://www.abc.net.au/am/stories/s243710.htm

Is smoking seen as worse than obesity because environmental smoke (second hand) harms others and obesity doesn't (can't think of any way it does...)?

Why can we make a judgement on this and not other things?
Obese people sometimes get rejected for surgery because the risks are too great. Are we taking away their choice?

I know some other people will get shocked/disgusted by my views since I am going to work in the medical profession and as such I am expected to be an angel who loves all people and is here because I want world peace "bats eyelashes" but in truth, I'm just a person.

I'm a person that gets frustrated when I spend three hours with a patient discussing how smoking will harm their unborn baby, them agreeing with everything I say and making the choice to change and then find them puffing away outside an hour later. (on hospital grounds which IS illegal)

I was a carer for a 7XL sized man for two years and got through to him VERY VERY slowly that he doesn't need two McD's icecreams a day... slowly getting him down to one, and then we'd go without, finding healthy options for snacks, then after one week with another carer, he'd ignored all my advice and had bought Lardy Mc Lard burgers for lunch.

He was blind. His mother bought all his food, and on the doctors advice, put him on a shake diet.
Was she taking away his freedom? Well I guess so. but ultimately, he lost 20kg (though not a large percentage of his wght) and felt so much better about himself. He started to buy 6XL shirts, and one size smaller shorts, and could breathe a bit easier and do more at the gym.

And then he was MOTIVATED and lost more weight. and is a much happier person now. he feels like he has control of something in his life, that he has a future...

If someone is 7XL... they are unfit. I know it is possible for people to be overweight and fit. But 7XL... no, that's very unfit. And surgery is just, not possible. Anything happens emergency wise and they'd have such a lower chance of surviving...

In this case... WHY is not legal to force a diet/exercise program on this person.
We have so much legislation already to regulate people's lives. But we don't feel restricted because this is the environment that we've grown up in.

Making these people go to... "exercise camp"? for 6 months. I don't think I've met one person (though I know they exist) who is obese who says "I like being this size" they all say, it's too hard and i've tried everything and the diets don't work or it's genetic etc etc. They give excuses, but if you said, I can wave a magic wand and you'd lose 20kg, they'd all agree.

It's just the fact they're busy, and don't have time, and it's too much effort.

If it's forced upon them. a 6 month program. 4kg a month, 24kg.
I wonder how many would come out a new person. How many would be relieved and thank you after it...

But it's all just a dream. It will never happen. People are very strongly attached to their idea of freedom. But is it freedom from or freedom to?
How much liberty would you give up to let everyone live off more than $5 a day?
How much liberty would you give up for all the easily accessible vaccines of the west to be made freely available for developing countries?
How much liberty would you give up so that all the preventable causes of diseases in the world to be eradicated?

I'm not 100% stuck to my current view of liberty.

If I knew that by bringing in legislation that all women must wear headscarfs (just hair, not full face, and no restrictions on other clothes) would definitely prevent anyone anywhere to be raped ever again, I would wear one.

If by banning fast food joints, we knew that no-one would surpass a BMI of 30, I'd be all for it.

But everyone has different ideas of freedom... many USAns would be outraged if someone tried to take away their guns (or the right to have them in public), where as in Aus, because my generation hasn't been brought up with this right, we don't miss it or see it as something we lack.

Just as girls in my generation look at Arab countries that stone women for taking to a strange man out in public and think "That's terrible! How could they! That's a basic human right!" while the females in those countries may say "but I am free of being seen as a sex object, free from dirty looks, free from rape, free to serve HIM as I please, how could you live a moral life while wearing hipster jeans?"

Wow, rant... So in conclusion, I wish that I had this power, as a physician to help people, or control health. but I don't.

But as a PERSON, not as a health profession related person... I would welcome legislation that could increase the general health of the population, even if it may take some of my liberty.

The end (this is what happens when I have weekends off! and no babies being delivered...)


Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:The idea is that there is a logical line of reasoning that runs from forcing people to perform a self-protective behavior to forcing people to perform others. The idea of taxing junk food has been bandied about. Not sure how I feel about it.

-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Page: 12345

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [bike helmet*] we found the following similar topics.
1. Learn > Hoop > Mini hoop > Emergancy helmet *help/resource
2. Forums > Bike Helmets [147 replies]
3. Forums > Bike chain and fire breathing [9 replies]
4. Forums > Bike messengers on crack [10 replies]
5. Forums > bike lights [4 replies]

     Show more..