Jack Bennett
While I appreciate people's concerns for our liberty, I humbly submit that you're looking at the wrong Washington as the problem. The truly important liberties in this country -- freedom of speech, trial by jury, protection against unreasonable search and seizure ... you know the drill -- are in real danger these days.
I think it's misguided to get all upset about your right to turn yourself into a bloody pulp at others' expense. Requiring you to wear a helmet as an intrusion on your freedom pales beside warrantless wiretapping, arbitrary classification of people as enemy combatants, Guantanamo Bay, etc. You're concerned about liberty? Direct your energy at the real problem.
Jack
gschreckchat@comcast.net wrote: Well, I have five broken helmets that seem to demonstrate a viable link. Two of them were broken into separate pieces when I went over the top of my bars and one had and entire side shaved down from sliding along the road. The other two were more "minor" in the they only had a crack up the side so I might have survived in some way with some general motor function.
These arguments against brakes and helmets seem very silly, as if taking laws that attempt to mitigate the risks in certian activities violates our liberty. Sorry, but stupidity is not a fundamental right. The costs and benefits are balanced, and in this case the cost of requiring helmets and brakes seems minor compared to the potential injuries. The fact is that society passes laws all the time with respect to products and activities to protect us and it always adds some cost. Some we like and some we do not.
--
George Schreck
gschreckchat@comcast.net
(503) 502-0425
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Jess Mace"
> Michael-
> I work in the public health and epidemiology realm and this is the main
> problem with helmet advocacy...there is NO real data concerning head
> trauma in the ED and helmet usage...
> this is because it is extremely unethical to establish a well powered
> epidemiologic study as it would require slamming people's head into the
> ground with and without helmets in a prospective
> cohort study or double blind randomized control study at various rates
> of speed...would you sign up to be in it?
>
> This fact is what opponents of helmet legislation use on a regular
> basis, without recognizing the fact such data is impossible to collect
> or accurately measure. all we have in anecdotal accounts and some
> times in public health policy, that is enough to swing the tide.
>
> There are a few studies out there regarding decreased traumatic brain
> injuries in children after helmet laws are enacted, but they're not
> widely referenced due to measurement errors and biased selection
> criteria if I remember correctly...the authors recognize that it is a
> VERY difficult thing to measure (too many variable to enact a TBI).
>
>
>
>
>
> Jess C. Mace
> Clinical Outcomes Research Coordinator
> for Timothy Smith, MD, MPH
> Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
> Oregon Health & Science University
> 503.494.5886
>
> >>> "Michael O'Hair" 2/26/2008 6:37 PM >>>
> I'll add my two cents to this.
>
> I have seen many, many "family groups" where the kids are wearing
> helments and one or more a dults are not. I believe this sets up an
> image problem: helmets are for kids. I have told a couple of grown ups
> that it's hard to be a parent when you've taken a serious hit in the
> head.
>
> On the other hand, I have seen far too many people who have donned
> their helmet and obviously equated it with some sort of magic armor that
> allowed them to ride between traffic and parked cars at 4 MPH, blithely
> unaware of their surroundings and the physics behind getting run down by
> a 4000 pound car.
>
> It is my opinion that the term "skid lid" definitely applies to bicycle
> helmets. They are good for minor accidents, but when the plastic hits
> the asphalt at speed (30 MPH or more), not even a Snell Approved
> motorcycle helmet can guarantee much beyond "..Well, it would have been
> worse without a helmet."
>
> The problem is simply one of common sense: riding in traffic raises
> the risk of wrecks, therefore wearing a helmet helps shave the odds a
> bit. Unfortunately, legislatures do no deal in common sense. Case in
> point, Hawaii was going to outlaw 2-piece wheels on cars until someone
> pointed out that almost all cars came equipped with 2-piece wheels.
>
> Who out in OBRA-land has the actual data? How many people on bicycles
> suffer non-superficial head injuries (defined as requiring admission to
> a hospital) with and without helmets?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: john
> To: obra@list.obra.org
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 5:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Helmets will be mandatory in Vancouver, WA
>
>
> I know this is just a sliver of arguments for and against but
> personally i think we should require helmet use for any sort of vehicle
> because most auto accidents invol ve head injury to the occupants. Plus I
> know when i slap on a helmet and drive, I feel more secure and safe
> (subconsciously or not) and so i drive a little more
> reckless(subconsciously or not).
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org _______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
.................................
Jack Bennett
bennett.jack@yahoo.com
.................................
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.