We are stopped by unmarked police car for passing red light (VIDEO)

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Lil Drummerboy
reply to post by James1982
 
maybe it is the design ive got an issue with,.
I rode bikes as well,. a stunt rider if you will,. ramps to jump ditches, cars, people, pic nick benches
what ever I could, wheelies ect ect ect,. Never crashed with a head injury,. also never wore a helmet.
Still dont,. and now I go much faster,. on my goldwing.

the article i linked backs my thoughts,. maybe helmets are needed for those that are prone to injury



I finally made it through the article posted, here's my rebuttal:


Because of this, and the movement and sliding of a crashing cyclist, the helmet will “grab” the ground and cause the head to twist, leading to these extremely dangerous injuries to the brain. - See more at: www.risksense.org...


The author suggests that wearing a helmet is more dangerous because the helmet will grab the concrete and twist the person's head. He doesn't seem to understand concepts of friction. The exterior of a helmet is smooth plastic, the exterior of the human head is a soft mushy membrane, often covered in bristly hairs. An uncovered human head will grab the ground much better than a smooth plastic helmet would.


The idea that a 4000 pound steel box moving at 35 miles per hour would have limited effect against a plastic and Styrofoam bowl, that weighs less than a pound, is an ignorant one, at best. - See more at: www.risksense.org...


This is somewhat of a straw-man argument on behalf of the author. If you get hit by a car, the car doesn't directly hit your head, unless somehow the car launched off a ramp and was trying to hit you smack dab in the cranium. If you get hit by a car, the initial impact is with either the bike itself, or the lower body. Then the head bounces around and impacts parts of the car, the bike, the concrete, etc. Helmets absorb impact and reduce how much reaches the skull. That is a simple, proven fact.

It's also dishonest of him to imply that the only risk to a person's head while riding a bike comes from actually getting hit by a vehicle. People on bikes fall over, they run into things, a car might lightly tap a bike rider and cause him to run into something or fly off his bike. There are many opportunities to cause head trauma while riding a bike, yet the author uses the most extreme and unlikely case (a car directly impacting the head of a rider at 35mph) to (wrongfully) show that a helmet does nothing.

Then there is this:


“When the laws were introduced in the early 1990s, cycling trips declined by 30-40 per cent overall, and up to 80 per cent in some demographic groups, such as secondary school-aged females.” “Cycling is generally a safe activity, the health benefits outweighing the risks from traffic accidents by a large margin. British research suggests life years gained through cycling outweigh years lost in cycling fatalities by a factor of 20:1. A recent study of users of Barcelona’s public bike hire scheme puts this ratio at 77:1.” “By any measure, health problems associated with a lack of exercise are a far greater problem than cycling head injuries in Australia. According to the Heart Foundation, lack of physical activity causes 16,000 premature deaths each year, swamping the 40 or so cycling fatalities.” - See more at: www.risksense.org...


This was something he quoted from a study about Australia's helmet laws. The point of his article is to show how helmets do not provide useful protection for bike riders. Yet he gets sneaky and shows that quote which has nothing at all to do with the validity of helmets providing protection. Evidently people thought they looked silly with a helmet on, so they stopped riding bikes as frequently. That's not an issue with the helmet, that's an issue people.

And the quote tries to say helmets are unhealthy because, if forced to wear a helmet, people will supposedly stop exercising completely, become overweight and unhealthy, and some how these negative health effects are considered negative health effects of wearing a helmet. They are basically saying wearing a helmet makes you unfit and unhealthy. No, again, it's people that are the problem, not the helmet.

It's a solid, proven fact that a helmet provides protection from head trauma. There is no debating this. If people don't want to wear helmets, frankly I don't care, It's their life and I detest laws which legislate personal responsibility. But if you just don't want to wear a helmet because it looks silly, slows you down or whatever else, that's fine. But trying to say helmets accomplish nothing just because you don't like them is dishonest.

I don't think we disagree on the helmet laws, they are stupid and not needed. But that doesn't change the fact that helmets provide useful protection to one of the most important parts of your body.




posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 
Well,
So lets agree to disagree of it effectiveness then,.
gotta go,.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Lil Drummerboy
reply to post by James1982
 
Well,
So lets agree to disagree of it effectiveness then,.
gotta go,.


Fair enough, it was a nice discussion. Although I leave you with one question: if someone was going to hit you in the head with a baseball bat, would you rather be wearing a helmet, or let your skull take the full force to the blow?



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 


A swat team would be a good example of where a more aggressive personality of police officer would be good.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   
You know, the POINT I was TRYING to get across, was the LEO was doing THE RIGHT THING, and the MAJORITY of you FAILED to see it...AGAIN...
Faith in humanity lost again....






top topics
 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join