Helmets!

"Ace" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 08:03:48 GMT, "Nick Hounsome"
wrote:

Mebbe, but I'm not so pessimistic. We may see more restrictions, like
they have in a couple of the 'extreme' areas of Kicking Horse (BC,
Canada) where they'll only let you ski if you're properly equipped
with transceiver, shovel, probe etc. Interestingly, even there they
don't insist on helmets. I think this will be the way things will go
over the next few years.

Licencing?

"Ace" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:02:46 +0000, Champ wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:36:12 +0100, "PG"
wrote:

Her opinion is
that by not setting an example he is letting her generation down.
Whether you/the racer concerned/whoever thinks that the only
responsibility is to oneself is simply one standpoint. There are those
who think differently, and it is an entirely acceptable position to
hold, and argue.

I don't think you've really argued it. The proposition would seem to
be that senior racers not wearing helmets encourages children not to
wear helmets. However, the one example you have, your daughter, gives
the opposite result.

I would argue the following : "Senior racers taking responsibility for
their own safety encourages children to take responsbility for
themselves too". Is my arguement any more or less provable than
yours?

I think the available evidence would support a similar argument :
"Senior racers taking responsibility for their own safety encourages
children to discuss the issues involved".


I don't think that feeling disgusted can reasonably be called a discussion
of the issues.

Which is a good thing, IMO.

Mine too.

"Nick Hounsome" wrote in message
. uk...
|
| "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.

Plenty of research has been published, and the majority to my mind
favours the use of helmets. And as I wrote elsewhere, litigation has not
been a driving force in France with respect to the compulsory use of
helmets. Unlike the British, the French are still very reluctant to sue
at the slightest excuse. There is little financial pressure to introduce
legislation as things stand - but we live in the real world, a free
market economy, and certain players are able to exert pressure, and
increasingly so. Anyone would be a fool to think that commercial
interests don't manipulate many supposedly neutral decisions, behind the
scenes. But the irony is that this is as much because of the freedoms
you sponsor as despite them.

Pete

"David Mahon" wrote in message
...

Champ wrote:

This is where it all falls down. The only resposibility a senior
racer has is to themselves. Whoever he is, I imagine the racer in
question had a reason for not wearing a helmet. Given that it only
affects him (i.e. it's only his brain at risk), then why isn't that
reason good enough for you and your daughter?

Not true - there are incidents now where skiers/boarders with helmets have
collided with other skiers/boarders and caused significant injury (I'm not
sure about death) that may be attributable to their helmets.

No it's attributable to them being out of control.

Punish the dangerous not the careful.

If skiier started carrying spears would you call for everyone to wear spear
proof body armour?

"Nick Hounsome" wrote in message
. uk...
|
| On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:36:12 +0100, "PG"
| wrote:
|
|
| I don't think that feeling disgusted can reasonably be called a
discussion
| of the issues.

Straw man. This is the logical fallacy of refuting a caricatured or
extreme version of someone's argument, rather than the argument they've
actually made.

Pete

"Dominique Foucart" wrote in message
...

I can only support this. We had a close to tragic experience last Saturday
on the heights of Samoëns, with the wind turning upside down every single
chair on the top of the Chariande II lifts so that they hitted the
"interior" skier at head height just before he could leave the landing
area. My wife was in that position, without helmet, she stayed on the
ground under serious shock for 20 minutes while I could see 4 or 5 other
wearing helmets just getting up and starting again. (BTW, they ended up
closing the chairs for 30 minutes after 10 successive skiers were hitted
by the chairs). And thank you, my wife was safe and fine, with a nice
haematome on her head that make her still suffer today ;-( I think she
will seriously think "helmet" for herself as of our next stay !

A good anecdote but if that is your justification for wearing a helmet then
logically you should wear one whenever you are near any machinery or anytime
the wind is blowing hard on or off the slopes.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 06:42:32 +0100, "PG"
wrote:


"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...

No, really.

You've stated that almost all racers are wearing helmets, so why are
the few that don't going to have any sort of influence?
--
Champ

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:31:14 +0100, "PG"
wrote:

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.

Almost all laws are about protecting person A from person B. However,
things like the seatbelt law and helmet laws are about protecting
person A from person A, and I really don't think that's the business
of the state.
--
Champ

"PG" wrote in message
...

"Nick Hounsome" wrote in message
. uk...
|
| On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:36:12 +0100, "PG"
| wrote:
|
|
| I don't think that feeling disgusted can reasonably be called a
discussion
| of the issues.

Straw man. This is the logical fallacy of refuting a caricatured or
extreme version of someone's argument, rather than the argument they've
actually made.

You have lost the thread - there is no post that says that the child
discussed anything at all she was only reported as being disgusted.

"Nick Hounsome" wrote in message
. uk...
|
| "PG" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "Nick Hounsome" wrote in message
| . uk...
| |
| | On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:36:12 +0100, "PG"

| | wrote:
| |
| |
| | I don't think that feeling disgusted can reasonably be called a
| discussion
| | of the issues.
|
| Straw man. This is the logical fallacy of refuting a caricatured or
| extreme version of someone's argument, rather than the argument
they've
| actually made.
|
| You have lost the thread - there is no post that says that the child
| discussed anything at all she was only reported as being disgusted.

Her views were mentioned in passing and were never held up to be a
discussion of the issues. Therefore your reply is a straw man, as I
said.