home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!nwnexus!seanews!brat!donn
- From: donn@brat.wa.com (Donn Pedro)
- Newsgroups: seattle.general
- Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
- Message-ID: <1381@brat.wa.com>
- Date: 26 Dec 92 20:03:56 GMT
- References: <3022@uswnvg.uswnvg.com> <1992Dec25.203820.18234@ssc.com>
- Distribution: seattle
- Organization: Tandemonium, Kent, WA
- Lines: 89
-
- In article <1992Dec25.203820.18234@ssc.com> markz@ssc.com (Mark Zenier) writes:
- :Donn F. Pedro (dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com) wrote:
- ::
- :: :But I'm up for the same degree of police harrasment.
- ::
- :: On that I agree with you 100%. But what supposes the others are more
- :: deserving of police harassment? I'm not trying to read into your post,
- :: but it sure reads that way.
- :
- :Claims are made by the pro-helmet posters that bicycling is a VERY
- :DANGEROUS activity.
-
- It has it's dangers, that is true. It is more risky than some pursuits
- and less risky than others. Like any activity you participate in you
- weigh the risk of the degree of injury if something were to go wrong.
-
- The largest risk is being struck by, or striking something. The greatest
- trauma in bicycling injuries usually comes from impact and abrasion.
-
- Compared to mountain climbing and skydiving, when something goes wrong
- in bicycling, the risk of death is smaller. But it is greatly reduced
- if one is wearing the proper protection.
-
- :Which in my experience, (aside from crossing
- :railroad tracks ;-) ), it isn't.
-
- You are experienced and lucky, but the point is not how well you can
- avoid accidents and errors in judgement ( a good example of this was
- the poster who put a lot of faith in thier ability to roll out of
- a collision). The point is how well you are protected when your
- senses, your experience, your equipment, or your luck fails you.
-
- That is what helmets are for. They are there to protect us against
- our own bad luck or our own inadequacies.
-
- :But I observe a couple of groups that
- :go out of their way to indulge in what I see as additional risks.
-
- And those groups can look down on you as not a "real" cyclist because
- you cannot ride in traffic. (I know you can ride in traffic but
- choose not to.)
-
- :So I conclude that the dangers come from the different activities
- :these people indulge in. And because of these activites, I'm going to
- :be inconvenienced by wearing a helmet or be the target of police
- :"interest".
-
- Your potential for inconvenience is a lot higher when you are brain
- damaged.
-
- Look, Mark, I know you are careful and you sound experienced but,
- things happen. That is why people keep fire extinguishers on boats,
- carry life preservers, wear helmets in racecars, wear helmets on
- motorcycles, get immunized, and the like.
-
- I know I cannot convince you to wear a helmet when cycling, especially
- when you feel you do not take enough risks to warrant the helmet.
-
- But there are risks in taking a sunday ride on the best of bike
- trails.
-
- Bike trails:
-
- * have children on them
- * cross roads
- * have inexperienced cycliests who wobble
- * are used by people to walk dogs -- dogs on long leashes.
- * have potholes
- * are often flanked by blackberries
- * often have steel posts that you must navigate through (Ive hit
- one myself and have fallen)
- * like the posts are often blocked by fences.
- * have blind spots (like the sammamish river trail) where an
- irresponsible cyclist can hit you.
-
- I guess I could go on but, you get the point.
-
- It's not how good you are or how lucky you feel, it's how well you
- are protected *when* something beats those odds and puts you in
- danger.
-
-
-
-
- Donn Pedro ....................a.k.a. donn@brat.wa.com
-
- "You talk the talk. Do you walk the walk?"
-
- There are no ordinary moments.
-