🚀 go-pugleaf

Steve Peringer (peringer@interlog.com) wrote:

>To preface: I wear a helmet as a matter of personal choice.  I don't
>believe it is within the government's duties to force anyone to wear
>helmets, and I don't preach about what anyone should or shouldn't wear
>on their heads.  On with the message...
> Avery Burdett wrote:
>>None of these injuries is exclusive to cycling. Helmet advocates
>>continually dodge the issue of whether they advocate helmets for
>>pedestrians and motorists. Nigel Perry reported that this question
>>came up in Melbourne, and although risks are higher for pedestrians
>>and about equal for motorists (with certainty, the absolute numbers
>>are much higher), helmet advocates were unable to see the hypocrisy
>>of not wearing helmets themselves in these other situations.

>>And their opponents use this as some kind of evidence proving that the
>helmet advocates must be entirely wrong.  

No just evidence of hypocrisy. Take it at face value.

>>The question here isn't about whether helmets save lives; it's about
>>whether it's within the government's duties to create laws requiring
>>cyclists (or motorists, or pedestrians, or one-armed jugglers...) to wear
>>helmets.

You are right it's about Big Brother. But helmet zealots don't separate the
two. Big Brother gets heavily lobbied by people making outrageous claims
about the efficacy of helmets. For example, Dr. Robert Cushman, a prominent
local helmet zealot, claimed on TV that mandatory helmet legislation would
prevent 75% of cycling fatalities (on the basis that 75% of cyclist
fatalities result from head injuries). So he meant all of those who die from
a bang to the head. He made this claim even though cyclists are dying with
helmets on their heads, just like in OZ. Cycling fatalities are rare in
Ottawa, but four of the last six cyclists killed here in the past 3 years were
wearing helmets. 
And as Nigel has posted, in NZ pro-helmet researchers are concerned about the
overselling of helmets, saying that there is no epidemiological evidence
to show that helmets save lives.

>>Any standard white front and red rear lights, combined with a flat
>>red rear reflector is sufficient in urban areas. Additional power
>>in the front may be required on unlit roads. Lighting up like a
>>christmas tree is unnecessary and draws attention to the paranoic
>>condition of the cyclist. 

>You call it paranoic; others call it the "better safe than sorry"
>philosophy. 

Only the four in Ottawa weren't safe, but may have been led to believe they
were. 

Hey, but if you want to try and protect yourself against every
conceivable accident or mishap, you won't get any objection here. 
--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario