Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Helmet efficacy test
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2025 12:58:54 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <anqquj92lo442076rb1v7ls71deutdb42b@4ax.com>
References: <vrt0d6$24h8c$2@dont-email.me> <2fp4uj55n6mfnmn75jk6ocvuuivrkno6em@4ax.com> <vruduc$3fet8$4@dont-email.me> <vruh2i$3i4m5$1@dont-email.me> <vrvnkh$j8eo$4@dont-email.me> <vs134m$1ri3r$4@dont-email.me> <vs1ba2$26f3u$1@dont-email.me> <vs1ng4$26rhh$5@dont-email.me> <vs2j7t$3dp6l$1@dont-email.me> <vs3g67$44vf$3@dont-email.me> <vs4muc$19l8m$3@dont-email.me> <7UbHP.1505439$OrR5.1361772@fx18.iad> <vsji0r$222r6$1@dont-email.me> <vsjpis$28mef$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2025 18:58:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0a99fe0d6d76622852bb7169f4bd1f01";
	logging-data="2468512"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/q23HrTvPWuQb8NzAAGZBI6wMHweeOLk4="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:my/obM56zZAYa6DdiBhTz2Sy+CU=

On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 12:45:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 4/2/2025 10:36 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>> Am 02.04.2025 um 16:32 schrieb cyclintom:
>>> On Thu Mar 27 19:28:12 2025 Frank Krygowski  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So explain. You now seem to say they would work for other causes
>>>> of TBI. And you say bicycling is not a very important or serious
>>>> risk of TBI. But you still tell people just riding on roads that
>>>> they should wear helmets. Apparently you don't do the same for
>>>> people walking near roads, despite evidence of greater risk. Nor
>>>> for people riding in cars, who dominate the TBI statistics for
>>>> transportation.
>>>
>>> Frank, why are you so fixed in convincing people that they shouldn't
>>> wear helmets? Exactly what business of yours what they do?
>> 
>> Frank any myself mostly wish to ensure that people aren't pressurized to 
>> wear helmets.
>> 
>> Making bicycling look like a dangerous activity is likely to reduce the 
>> attraction of cycling as a mode of transport.
>
>Right, that's my main motivation, although there are other details. I've 
>long been disturbed by the false propaganda portraying ordinary 
>bicycling as some high risk activity. I'm also astonished that so very 
>many avid cyclists are so committed to furthering that false propaganda. 
>As I've said, I don't see that schizoid behavior from avid runners, 
>drivers, swimmers, etc. It's just weird.
>
>Some details: Even if cycling were more dangerous than, say, walking in 
>a city, I don't think do-gooders should be nagging cyclists to attempt 
>to protect themselves with foam hats. People would rightfully be 
>offended if they got nagged every time they consumed a hot dog or 
>something sweet and carbonated. We don't see government funds telling 
>people not to try rock climbing, skateboard tricks, flying in light 
>aircraft or even skydiving, all of which are probably far more risky 
>than simply bicycling bareheaded.
>
>So why do we accept government or Usenet posters telling us to never 
>ride without a helmet, 

Very few governments do that, and Usenet posters are easy to
ignore....

>or never let our kids ride without helmets? 
>People should have the personal freedom to choose their own risks, and 
>to allow reasonable risks for their kids. (Safe Kids Inc. used to urge 
>parents to forbid letting their kids climb trees!)

Governments have an obligation to see that children are protected from
parental abuse and neglect. Whereas governments (schools) have an
obligation to keep parents informed as to their children's behavior,
it's up to the government to determine what constitutes parental abuse
and neglect, and what to do about it.

--
C'est bon
Soloman