Helmets!

"Champ" wrote in message
...
| On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:45:48 +0100, "PG"
| wrote:
|
| mega snip
|
| So, can you explain again why a racer without a helmet (who seems to
| be in a minority) is setting a bad example?

You've got to be kidding...

"PG" wrote in message
...

"Ace" wrote in message
news | On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 06:14:37 +0100, "PG"
| wrote:

| I hope you explained this to her, in order to broaden your mature mind
| even further, and hopefully help her be able to make decisions for
| herself later in life.

Fortunately I don't need to explain to her the immaturity of making
patronising assumptions about other people before she meets them, Ace
;-)

I suppose that means that you told her it is OK provided you put a smiley
after it.

| I'm sure that any comfort-based decision would be weighed up against
| any safety concerns.

Doesn't seem to handicap the majority of elite slalom racers that do
wear a helmet while they carry on winning World Cup events.


What's that got to do with comfort? Somehow I don't think that any of the
things that would weigh against helmets for ordinary skiiers are relevant to
racers e.g.

Comfort.
Cost.
Feeling less connected to the big outdoors.
Looking like a sissy.

"PG" wrote in message
...

"Ace" wrote in message
news | On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 06:17:40 +0100, "PG"
| wrote:
||
| Rip out all the safety belts and let's teach everyone to drive more
| carefully, shall we? LOL.
|
| Don't be daft. It's all about perspective - there's no real debate
| about seatbelts - they decrease injury count and severity with
| practically no downside.

The counter argument referred to the nanny state, and personal choice
issues. It is therefore not so daft an analogy.

Yes it is. As the poster said there is practically no downside to seatbelts
so I wear a belt but not a helmet.

Note that if it were not the law then there could be a (small) cost downside
to belts that might persuade some people not to wear them. Personaly I would
give people the right to chose on that one too.

The other difference is that skiing is a volountary sport whereas driving is
an almost unavoidable method of transportation.

| Champs' point[1], and one with which I wholly concur, is that
| partaking of risky sports activities is a choice, and one where we
| should all make positive efforts to understand the inherent dangers
| therein. He's not suggesting that you should _not_ wear a helmet, or
| that your children shouldn't, just that the blind adherence to the
| 'helmets must be worn' school of thought detracts from an individual's
| right to decide for themselves.

I agree, and always have done, that adults should have that choice. I do
not agree that this choice should be extended to minors.

No - it should be extended to their parents. There are far worse decisions
that parents can make for their children without the law stepping in.

"Nick Hounsome" wrote in message
k...
|
| "PG" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "Ace" wrote in message
| news | | On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 06:14:37 +0100, "PG"
| | wrote:
|
| | I hope you explained this to her, in order to broaden your mature
mind
| | even further, and hopefully help her be able to make decisions for
| | herself later in life.
|
| Fortunately I don't need to explain to her the immaturity of making
| patronising assumptions about other people before she meets them,
Ace
| ;-)
|
| I suppose that means that you told her it is OK provided you put a
smiley
| after it.

You seem to have a problem with your suppositions.

|
| | I'm sure that any comfort-based decision would be weighed up
against
| | any safety concerns.
|
| Doesn't seem to handicap the majority of elite slalom racers that do
| wear a helmet while they carry on winning World Cup events.
|
|
| What's that got to do with comfort? Somehow I don't think that any of
the
| things that would weigh against helmets for ordinary skiiers are
relevant to
| racers e.g.
|
| Comfort.
| Cost.
| Feeling less connected to the big outdoors.
| Looking like a sissy.
|

I never suggested that they were directly comparable. However on the
subject of 'ordinary skiers', with the right helmet comfort is not a
major issue, and as for "looking like a sissy", you're a bit out of date
there. Cost? Given how much people spend on the sport, it's hardly a big
issue, and should last a long time. If it doesn't - it might have saved
your life...

Pete
www.skiclublesarcs.com

"Ace" wrote in message
news

One last point of note: I looked at skiing helmets earlier this
season, and was astonished to discover that, like cycling helmets,
they're all really flimsy things, offering a degree of protection only
slightly greater than that of a baseball cap. If I'm ever going to
wear one, I want one that's actually going to be able to take some
impact, as it's only really the extreme situations I'd be trying to
protect against.

I'm in the anti-regulation camp but I think you are wrong he

I was once going to go parachute jumping; We spent the Saturday being
trained up for it and the last thing we had to do that day was run up a 1
foot high ramp, jump off with hands up as if holding the parachute and land
in the proper way (feet together and a stiff legged roll). I was walking
along outside the hanger and turned to the guy next to me and said "How did
I get here?". Apparently I had hit the back of my head against the floor mat
and been a little dazed but not unconscious; I sat in a corner whilst every
body else did their jump and then we all walked out. After I explained what
had happened I was carted off to hospital and checked and watched over night
but there was no further problem and no inherent susceptibility. I have
never regained that half hour of memory.

The point is that how you fall can be as important than how hard or how
fast. Speed is obviously riskier because apart from the extra impact you can
easily hit your head more times in a single fall.
I suspect that horse riding is particularly dangerous because the height is
just high enough for you to do a flip and hit the back of your head and just
low enough that you have no time to adjust your body nd prepare for impact.

On the subject of skiing my experience is that low speeds the nature of the
skiis and the slopes seems to make hitting your head very unlikely - mostly
it is more of a semi-controlled sitting down. I don't ski fast unless the
piste is flat and clear - if I did I would probably wear a helmet.

"Nick Hounsome" wrote in message
. uk...
|
| "PG" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "Ace" wrote in message
| news | | On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 06:17:40 +0100, "PG"
| | wrote:
| ||
| | Rip out all the safety belts and let's teach everyone to drive
more
| | carefully, shall we? LOL.
| |
| | Don't be daft. It's all about perspective - there's no real debate
| | about seatbelts - they decrease injury count and severity with
| | practically no downside.
|
| The counter argument referred to the nanny state, and personal
choice
| issues. It is therefore not so daft an analogy.
|
| Yes it is. As the poster said there is practically no downside to
seatbelts
| so I wear a belt but not a helmet.

That is your opinion. I found safety belts restrictive and uncomfortable
when they first came in. I consider that there is practically no
downside to helmets. The analogy stands.

| Note that if it were not the law then there could be a (small) cost
downside
| to belts that might persuade some people not to wear them. Personaly I
would
| give people the right to chose on that one too.
|
| The other difference is that skiing is a volountary sport whereas
driving is
| an almost unavoidable method of transportation.

That does not affect the issue of personal choice, which is the basic
premise for your argument as far as I understand it.

| I agree, and always have done, that adults should have that choice.
I do
| not agree that this choice should be extended to minors.
|
| No - it should be extended to their parents. There are far worse
decisions
| that parents can make for their children without the law stepping in.

The difficulty with your argument is that while arguing against some
vague notion of the nanny state, and for the "right to choose", you do
not define where the boundaries have to be drawn. You do accept that
some laws are necessary, I presume? That in some cases a utilitarian
solution "for the greater good" is the only practical way of proceeding?
Anarchy would be the alternative, after all.

So assuming you do agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere, what you
argument boils down to is your personal definition of what you consider
suits you and therefore should be applied to everyone else, not some
global issue of principle as certain exponents of 'freedom of choice'
try to pretend. The freedom to choose, versus the nanny state? That's
just a red herring argument. In the end it's just your personal idea of
where to draw the line, as opposed to mine, and everyone else's.

Pete
www.skiclublesarcs.com

"PG" wrote in message
...

|
| What's that got to do with comfort? Somehow I don't think that any of
the
| things that would weigh against helmets for ordinary skiiers are
relevant to
| racers e.g.
|
| Comfort.
| Cost.
| Feeling less connected to the big outdoors.
| Looking like a sissy.
|

I never suggested that they were directly comparable. However on the
subject of 'ordinary skiers', with the right helmet comfort is not a
major issue, and as for "looking like a sissy", you're a bit out of date
there. Cost? Given how much people spend on the sport, it's hardly a big
issue, and should last a long time. If it doesn't - it might have saved
your life...

So now according to you there is no downside to wearing a helmet.
You must therefore believe that everyone who doesn't is just being perverse.

"PG" wrote in message
...

So assuming you do agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere, what you
argument boils down to is your personal definition of what you consider
suits you and therefore should be applied to everyone else, not some
global issue of principle as certain exponents of 'freedom of choice'
try to pretend. The freedom to choose, versus the nanny state? That's
just a red herring argument. In the end it's just your personal idea of
where to draw the line, as opposed to mine, and everyone else's.

The difference between my position and yours is that I believe that where a
safety law is introduced the safety statistics should be thoroughly
researched and published and a wider definition of the best interests of the
individual than merely minimising injury should be used; Emotional blackmail
should be avoided and the financial pressures on ski-schools and resorts
which are actually what drives it all should be clearly stated and
addressed.

"Nick Hounsome" wrote in message
. uk...
|
| "PG" wrote in message
| ...
|
| |
| | What's that got to do with comfort? Somehow I don't think that any
of
| the
| | things that would weigh against helmets for ordinary skiiers are
| relevant to
| | racers e.g.
| |
| | Comfort.
| | Cost.
| | Feeling less connected to the big outdoors.
| | Looking like a sissy.
| |
|
| I never suggested that they were directly comparable. However on the
| subject of 'ordinary skiers', with the right helmet comfort is not a
| major issue, and as for "looking like a sissy", you're a bit out of
date
| there. Cost? Given how much people spend on the sport, it's hardly a
big
| issue, and should last a long time. If it doesn't - it might have
saved
| your life...
|
| So now according to you there is no downside to wearing a helmet.
| You must therefore believe that everyone who doesn't is just being
perverse.

That, in debate, is a classic non sequitor, with a touch of 'straw man'
mixed in.

Pete
www.skiclublesarcs.com

"John Ricketts" wrote in message
...
continuing the rant....

The risk assessment in skiing likewise needs to be made according to the
type of activity and conditions. A beginners lesson on a fresh, sparsely
populated piste of low gradient is obviously different to a tree-skiing
session in a white-out! What I resent is legislation taking away my
ability to make this assessment for myself/my family.

The problem is that the risk assessment cannot quantify any of the factors
for allowing people to take the risk this makes it almost impossible not to
continually increase the protective legislation. Which new story hurts a
politician more?:

A. 3 deaths (In last 10 years) could have been prevented by compulsory
helmets.
B. 10 million didn't enjoy themselves quite as much because they were made
to wear helmets for their own good.
C. My child died because lax safety regulations.

For this reason I don't think that we can ever push back the creeping nanny
state - nobody will ever repeal a sefety law - all we can do is to try and
slow it down.