On 7 May 2013, at 06:39, Bill <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06/05/2013 9:31 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> While we're at it why don't we start discussions about abortion, gun control >> and the existence of God? (yes, yes and no, fwiw) >> >> For some reason helmets give rise to the same intensity of discussions among >> cyclists (not just on this list btw). >> >> As for me, don't care what any study says I like wearing them and will >> continue to do so. Others can do what they want, don't so much care, as long >> as they're adults it's their personal decision, I won't judge either way. > In general I agree with your attitude, except when it comes to public > liability. In our country, it is costing the public purse more for unhelmeted > riders who conk their noggins. If we had private insurance, I would say it's > between the rider and his insurance company, but in a publicly funded system, > the cards play a little differently. > > bill
It's typical of this type of discussion that the benefits of cycle helmets are overstated, and the disadvantages not mentioned at all. This is important from the public health point of view for at least two reasons. First, the disadvantages have been shown time and again to outweigh the advantages, since making helmet use compulsory - which is what you're proposing - leads to reduced cycling which leads to a reduction in public health and increased health care costs. Second, people take part in all sorts of activities which damage their health one way or another, from driving cars, to eating meat, drinking alcohol, climbing mountains, and taking drugs. These things are all costing the public purse, in many cases far more than cycling does (in fact, cycling is a net contribution to the public purse) and the argument you put forward for cyclists applies equally or in greater measure to many other activities. But nobody suggests similar measures for these activities, so why cycling? In a liberal society people get to chose the risk they live or die with (and cycling is a very low risk activity compared to say driving or motor cycling), and we all contribute to picking up the pieces afterwards - it's a matter of enlightened self-interest, and doctors should stop moralising about it, shut up and get the bandages out. As far as this particular study goes, it's just one study among many, and the overall message is not consistent in either direction. Even if it's true that helmets give some overall measure of protection, the arguments given above don't change. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
