Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 28/10/19 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    bike helmet laws are mondo stoopid. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/21/bike-helmet-cyclists-safe-urban-warfare-wheels "A major 2001 review of the research concluded that helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 60%. A 2011 examination of this study by Rune Elvik, a Norwegian academic and road safety expert...noted that whatever the benefits in each individual case, a population-wide increase in helmet use, for example after legislation, is not generally matched by similar reductions in overall head injury rates. " ... "In 2006 the British Medical Journal carried an examination of the evidence by Dorothy Robinson, an Australian statistician, into what actually happened in New Zealand and Australia after helmet compulsion laws were passed. ...The conclusion? The idea that bike helmet laws directly improve overall safety for cyclists doesn’t appear to be backed by any evidence." [emphasis added] https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2018/10/21/i-do-not-wear-a-bicycle-helmet/ Let me qualify that headline: I do wear a helmet when mountain biking. But I don’t wear one when the sidewalk is icy – yet I could slip when walking and split my skull. I do not don my bike helmet when I jump in the shower, despite the fact falling and hitting my head while covered in suds is far riskier than you might think. Scooping leaves out of high gutters requires a ladder climb, and is decidedly dicy, but before I ascend to the residential roof I do not strap on a lid. Why do I do all of these dangerous things without even giving a passing thought to protecting my brainbox with a helmet, yet I am said by some to be naked if I ride my bike without one? It’s illogical. Why is bicycling perceived to be an activity that’s so perilous that it requires head protection? If it were, indeed, this dangerous there would be an epidemic of head injuries in the Netherlands, where bicyclists rule (literally: the Dutch Royal family dot around on bikes – lidless, of course). Ah, some might say, there are gazillions of cycleways in the Netherlands so cycle helmets are not required. Thing is, cycle helmets are designed for precisely this sort of scenario – slow speed crashes on to curbs from head height. They are not intended to offer protection against being hit by a car or truck (they’re polystyrene blocks, not force fields). You know what’s really dangerous? Driving. Getting behind the wheel of a car is perhaps the riskiest thing we do every day yet few of us give head safety while driving a second’s thought. Individual motor journeys are not particularly risky, but they are so routine and frequent that the overall risk, over time, becomes more significant than normally understood. Driving to a skydiving airstrip is far riskier than jumping out of the airplane yet parachutists are not nagged to wear motoring helmets. And such products do exist. Well, did. Davies Craig motoring helmets are sometimes available on eBay (that’s where I bought mine, pictured). “Motoring is a dangerous activity,” said Richard Davies, managing director of Davies Craig, an Australian manufacturer of automotive parts. “If a motorist is not killed in a crash one of the most common injuries is a head injury and they can produce permanent and long-term damage.” Despite the prevalence of car airbags, motorists still die from head injuries; head injuries that could have been prevented had those motorists been wearing helmets. [emphasis added] In the 1980s Davies’s company added a Motoring Helmet to a long list of its other automotive products. (Davies Craig is a manufacturer of electric water pumps, fan clutches and other automotive components, exported all over the world.) The company’s Motoring Helmet was available globally – 500 were sold between 1985 and 1987. “Commonly a head injury arises when the head strikes the A or B pillar, windscreen, or the head of another occupant,” Davies once told me by email from Australia. Using an argument that is often wheeled out on social media for helmet-less cyclists, he added: “Medical treatment is a drain on society.” The Davies Craig Motoring Helmet wasn’t for motorsports, it was for everyday driving. The helmet’s packaging featured families wearing helmets for urban motoring, and a businessman was shown wearing one while being driven by a similarly-clad chauffeur. Sales spiel on the helmet’s box claimed that one day “motoring helmets will be commonplace.” But they are not. Why do we not wear motoring helmets today for every single car journey, even for just popping down to the shops? Part of the reason for the product’s lack of success could be the widespread belief that motoring isn’t dangerous to car occupants. “Motorists perceive they [are] safe, strapped in a steel cage,” said Davies. His helmet’s packaging stressed that “driving even for the most proficient is dangerous.” Use of the helmet was recommended for all car journeys but especially “after dark and during twilight … or when roads are wet.” The use of a motoring helmet was also recommended for “long trips when you may become tired” but also “within five kilometres of your home or destination.” Pretty much for every car journey, then. Statistically, and logically, it would make sense to take every safety precaution necessary when driving, including wearing helmets – but no brain injury organizations lobby for their use, never mind their mandatory use. Unlike for cycling, there are no campaigns urging the adoption of motoring helmets because “if it saved just one life it would be worth it.”[emphasis added] It’s almost as though we’re culturally programmed to mollycoddle motoring and erect barriers for bicycling. <snip>
  2. 2 points
  3. 1 point
    I wonder chrisg is not in here talking about the latest ISIS dude that apparently blew himself and three kids up.
  4. 1 point
    Cycling actually isn't dangerous. Helmet laws aren't warranted. FACT: you're twice as likely to get a serious head injury being in a car. Hands up who thinks helmets for car occupants should be mandatory. Tell you what's defective? The idea that roads are just for motorised transport. Take one guess who got you those roads in the first place.
  5. 1 point
    This 'religious freedom' bullshit allows folks running Xtian malware in their brains to do and say stuff that infringes the human rights of others on the basis that their bigotry is coming from a place of religious conviction. Well, I tell you what. There's a far more solid basis for ostracising coalition voters - rather than paying undue attention to the private business of consenting adults, I'm talking about folks voting for a pack of brazenly corrupt slobbering fuckwit pigs without any sort of coherent plan to deal with even one of the many grave problems facing us; their answer to any problem is cutting services and handing the money to the rich, while encouraging corporations to rape and pillage everything in sight, from people to natural habitats to the whole damn atmosphere. While we have such utter fucking vandals in contention for the helm, your stupid voting choices are my business. Whether consenting adults are inclined to partner with members of the same sex is nobody's business.
  6. 1 point
    The 'Shroom returns Good to see you Tak. Cheers
  7. 1 point
    Well, yes. But my point was that for people who hold the book as the complete and infallible word of God, actually reading the damn thing is enlightening. It tends to make atheists.
This leaderboard is set to Sydney/GMT+11:00