and yet again

burt wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

http://www.rsm.ac.uk/new/pdfs/j06-04helmets.pdf

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:
<http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=7250
&Pos=&ColRank=1&Rank=272>

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:

http://www.rsm.ac.uk/new/pdfs/j06-04helmets.pdf

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.

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

--
Dan Holdsworth PhD [email hidden]
By caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, By the beans of Java
do thoughts acquire speed, hands acquire shaking, the shaking
becomes a warning, By caffeine alone do I set my mind in motion

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:

http://www.rsm.ac.uk/new/pdfs/j06-04helmets.pdf

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