From: donn@brat.wa.com (Donn Pedro)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 26 Dec 92 20:03:56 GMT
Distribution: seattle
Organization: Tandemonium, Kent, WA

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.
Newsgroups: seattle.general