There is so much to be learned from the helmet debate - not about
helmets, but about typical thought processes.
There can be no doubt that in a hundred accidents involving head
impacts to helmeted riders, and a hundred accidents involving head
impacts to unhelmeted riders, the average injury to a helmeted ride
will be less serious.
A similar argument could be made about arm injuries to people wearing
long or short sleeves. If the accident happens, protection will
usually reduce the consequences, even if in a small number of special
cases it exacerbates the consequences.
There can be little doubt that wearing protection makes the average
person less risk averse. Therefore, the helmeted (or gloved,
wrist-guarded, knee-padded, elbow-padded, or back-protected) rider is
more likely to have an accident, and need the protection. This applies
to many, but not all riders.
There is rather more doubt that third parties react differently to
whether or not someone is wearing a helmet. Most third party accidents
are caused by carelessness and lack of observation, lack of hazard
awareness, and lack of hazard management.
The absence of the awareness means that it is incredibly unlikely that
someone will see the helmet, factor it into his hazard assessment and
decrease his margin for error accordingly. The typical motorist is
more worried about damage to his car than injury to the cyclist.
Professionally, I once spoke to a lady who had hit and killed a
cyclist. She had not seen the cyclist at any time before the impact.
It was on a straight main road with no junctions or pavement (US =
sidewalk)and she was overtaking the cyclist when she hit him. She had
too main points to make to
me:
- That it must have been the cyclist's fault.
- That she did not think she should lose her no claims discount.
She had killed a young man, and was arguing about her no claims within
48 hours. (A psychologist might call that displacement activity, but I
found it nauseating.)
The real argument about helmets is about compulsion, and all the
arguments about the limited number of special circumstances in which
they might increase the risk are really people arguing against
compulsion.
Just say it. It's a legitimate point of view - and one that I share.
Compulsion is not justified, even though on average, helmets will do
more good than harm.
It's like arguing against fox hunting on the basis of rural economics.
Nonsense - just say that you don't believe it should be banned because
it is an issue about freedom; that is a legitimate opinion, although I
personally don't share it.
--
Mikefule
Never ride faster than your guardian angel can fly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mikefule's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/879
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/60807
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
