From: chris@mks.com (Chris Retterath)
Subject: Re: Risks and Bicycle Helmets
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:52:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.120428.268@geovision.gvc.com> pt@geovision.gvc.com writes:
>chris@mks.com (Chris Retterath) writes:
>
>>>Your freedom to not wear a helmet stops when it will infringe on my freedom
>>>to ride.
>
>>What a perversion of individual rights!
>Not a perversion, just a restatement of the usual statement, accepted by
>libertarians and conservatives alike:
>  Your individual freedom stops when it interfers with my individual freedom,
>  and vice-versa.

I don't argue with the usual statement of liberty -- I take exception
to your restatement as 'you must be careful or I won't be free'.

You're arguing that liberty should be restricted as otherwise
other agents may then take away all our liberties.
This is the lie of 'accept these restrictions and you can do what
you want .. oh, lets add more, and more restrictions, but you're
still free .. oh, lets add some more..' and so on.

By your argument you are going to lose all liberty anyways, as
freak accidents occur regardless.

>>What additional items of safety gear will you force us to buy tomorrow?
>>And will it *really* make us safer? And is it worth the cost?
>
>My helmet cost $35, and is so light that I don't notice it usually, and so
>well ventilated that I'm _still_ getting a sunburn on my scalp.  (It's last
>years model Louis Garneau microshell, with Snell and Ansi certification)

Since you dragged in the costs...

For my family (2 adults, 3 children), that's:
	$35.00 * 5 = $175.00 * 1.15%(pst+gst) => $201.25
[and I might add, at a tax rate of 35%, I would have to earn $310.00
to pay for this]

But wait -- the 3 children grow .. so I need new helmets every 2-3
years until a certain age. And, like baby cribs, there will be
new laws & standards to prevent trades and increase price.
How do you know your helmet will be approved next year?

I happen to be able to afford it -- but there are lots who cannot.
I live in a rural area that is not uniformly well-off; there
are long distances between homes, and kids use bikes to get around.
I have neighbours whose kids wear second-hand clothing, and ride
bikes they get from bazaars & yard sales -- they can't afford new helmets.
They will stop riding or be stopped by the likes of you, so you,
on your yuppie $300.00 cycle with your flashy cycling clothes,
and 'feather light' helmet, can zip by as they are forced to walk.

>>You don't answer these questions -- red herrings about liability suits
>>notwithstanding.
>
>It is not a red herring.  Until there is some universal, legal way for
>someone to sign away their rights to sue when they participate in a 'risk'
>sport, those of us who particpate and accept the risks will suffer at the
>hands of people who think that someone else is to blame for everything.

Exactly, those who participate should accept the risks. I agree with
you that noone else should be blamed for self-inflicted injuries.

>Did you know that because of liability suits, tobogganing was banned in city
>parks in Etobicoke, Ontario - because some idiot smashed into a tree and his
>parent sued the city?

I've lived there -- the most stuck up legalistic city in Ontario,
in my opinion. Another example: Guelph won't allow skateboards on
sidewalks or roads. Another stuck up city I'm happy not to live in anymore.
They even forced us to buy bicycle licenses -- to pad their city coffers.

>	  Did you know that we _almost_ lost the sport of
>Orienteering in Ontario, because we couldn't get liability insurance at a
>reasonable rate?  Did you know that they are probably going to ban employees
>taking test jumps at bungy jumping in Ontario, because some idiot forgot to
>tie himself off before taking his test jump?  I don't want Mountain Biking
>to have the same problems, so I just wish people would take reasonable
>precautions.

I deplore the situation you describe. In fact, I brought up the issue of
this 'nattering nanny' mode of government, especially some of the people
at Queen's Park. This is why we're getting helmet laws, when statistically
they don't make a damn bit of difference.

>If you want to ride helmet-less, get a lawyer to draw up a document saying
>you wont sue if you injure yourself, that your family wont sue if you kill
>yourself or become so brain-damaged you can't speak for yourself, and carry
>it with you on your bike, protected enough so that it will survive and be
>recognizable after any concievable accident.

You don't realize how stupid this sounds? What about when *you* get
injured on your cycle on a mountain trail, wearing a helmet that
doesn't help because you snap your neck? Will you be carrying these
legal documents? I'm sure your loved ones will try to sue...
its a human reaction, compounded by greed & the legal profession.

>Those of us who wear helmets are at least wearing a visible sign that we
>know what we are doing is risky, and we are taking a reasonable precaution
>to reduce the risk by a reasonable amount.

Good for you -- I don't disparage use of helmets -- in fact my kids
have them -- I just *Don't want them rammed down my throat*.

	Chris Retterath


Xref: sparky ont.general:1539 can.general:3959 soc.culture.canada:5706 ott.general:796