The law reports have many examples of a kind of case, usually catoragized under "nuisance", involving low risk, but high damage situations: people who keep bears or tigers as pets in urban settings, the guy who manufactures liquid rocket fuel in his garage, the list is endless. Someone claiming they are endangered by the pet or hobby files suit. The defense usually is something like "I've had this bear for 15 years and he's never got out or harmed anyone." The courts regularly rule for plaintiffs reasoning that while the risk of harm (given the defendant's track record) is small, if things do go south - the bear gets out, the rocket fuel explodes, etc.- the damage can be very severe and monetary damages would be inadequate. One does not have the right generally to expose one's neighbors to great, though unlikely to happen, risk, if the activity is unusual for the neighborhood. I feel this way about helmets. I've been riding bikes for a long time and I have had numerous falls and a few encounters with cars. I've had several broken bones and other injuries. In all that time, I've only hit my head once. But it was a pretty hard blow right on my temple. I was wearing a helmet. Would I have survived without the helmet? Would I have suffered some disabling injury? I don't know but certainly there was that possiblilty. People die or suffer severe brain injuries all the time in ordinary, non catastrophic, falls. Brain injuries are different from broken bones in one's arms or legs. Brain injuries can and frequently do result in death or permanent disability. Wearing a helmet makes good sense to me even if the probability of my needing it is quite small. GeorgeS
On Mar 16, 11:10 am, Jan Heine <[email protected]> wrote: > > to get people on bicycles, you don't want to force them to wear a helmet > > and imply that they are doing something more dangerous than driving. > > The same arguments were made when Preston Tucker wanted to include > seatbelts in his cars. His board thought it implied that Tucker cars > were unsafe. (Instead, it was Volvo who introduced seatbelts. I guess > they weren't afraid that their cars might be considered unsafe.) > > Today, most of us use seatbelts, because we are aware of the risks of > driving. Seatbelts don't keep people from driving. It seems to make > little sense to pretend that riding bikes is risk-free. Do we really > want to foster a teenage-like feeling of invincibility in cyclists? > (Like my neighbor 20 years ago, who took up cycling in middle age. > She loved it, riding against the flow of traffic, helmet-free on an > old bike with no real brakes.) > > The bigger issue that nobody addresses is simple: A seatbelt or a > helmet is your last line of defense. Accident avoidance through > competent driving/riding is a much more important component of your > safety. With cars, our focus on technology over driver education has > had the U.S. slip from the safest country for drivers to one of the > least safe. (However, that statistic in the NY Times was per driver, > not per miles, and Americans drive more... so one might want to > correct for that.) > > At Bicycle Quarterly, we are considering looking at the statistics > and figuring out whether helmets make riding safer, whether risk > compensation really is a factor, etc. I believe there is a need for > real data, rather than opinion, on the subject. It's not that hard to > figure this out, especially when you compare different countries and > populations. But of course, like most quasi-religious topics, it > would be a hotly debated issue. What do you guys think? > > Jan Heine > Editor > Bicycle Quarterlyhttp://www.bikequarterly.com > > Follow our blog athttp://janheine.wordpress.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
