and yet again

burt wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

rsm.ac.ukj06 04helmets.pdfOpen ↗

Hang on a minute. Just read this bit:

"An important obstacle to wider use of bicycles, however, is
public concern about safety — especially the risk of death
and disability from head injury."

Yep...

"An increasing body of research suggests that the risk of
serious head injury can be substantially lessened by use of
a cycle helmet, and for the past decade cyclists have been
urged to adopt this protective measure;"

Yep, (presumably depending on your definition of serious)

"yet rates of usage in Britain remain disappointingly poor.
Thus, some authorities suggest that the British Government
should follow several other countries and make the use of
cycle helmets mandatory"

Ah, and here I presume is the fatal flaw in the argument.
The concern about safety appears to be misplaced. Cycling as
a form of transport is safer than walking[1]. Thus to allay
fears we need not give them helmets but merely point out how
safe cycling is.

Of course if we're going to introduce legislation because of
the risk of death then we should really start with the most
dangerous ones first. We've done motorcycling, so walking
should be next and only then we can go on to cycling.

[Feel free to point me to some figures showing that cycling
has a far higher risk of serious injury compared to walking
- the only reason I'm anti-compulsion is because a) it's not
needed and b) it hasn't worked. Convince me its needed and
you're halfway there.]

[1] Passenger death rates: by mode of transport:
Social Trends 34

Choose between pretty excel and ugly works with anything
versions: <http://tinyurl.com/ywe9r>

Full url: <statistics.gov.ukssdataset.Open ↗
asp?vlnk=7250 &Pos=&ColRank=1&Rank=272

Dan Holdsworth said:

On 1 Jun 2004 19:47:07 GMT, Mark Thompson
<[email hidden]> was popularly supposed

to have said:

burt wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

rsm.ac.ukj06 04helmets.pdfOpen ↗

Hang on a minute. Just read this bit:

"An important obstacle to wider use of bicycles, however,
is public concern about safety — especially the risk of
death and disability from head injury."

This is a minor concern compared to the potential death-
toll from obesity and lack of exercise, and many people
are put off by having to buy and wear a device of
questionable worth if cycling.

Or to put it another way:

"The possibility that, in Britain, legislation might reduce
cycling from its already low level, is real cause for
concern because the health benefits from cycling greatly
outweigh the risks from head injury."

Quoted message said:

Besides, are we not capable of deciding what is risky
anymore?

As discussed in the section on 'Autonomy'

Why not read his reasoning, and accept it or argue against
it? Just repeating what has already been said doesn't add
much to the debate.

AC