Helmets!

"MoonMan" wrote in message
...
Champ wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:52:06 -0000, "MoonMan"
wrote:

This is where it all falls down. The only resposibility a
senior racer has is to themselves. Whoever he is, I imagine
the racer in question had a reason for not wearing a helmet.
Given that it only affects him (i.e. it's only his brain at
risk), then why isn't that reason good enough for you and your
daughter?

Not true - there are incidents now where skiers/boarders with
helmets have collided with other skiers/boarders and caused
significant injury (I'm not sure about death) that may be
attributable to their helmets.

No it's attributable to them being out of control.

Punish the dangerous not the careful.


Why do you consider wearing a helmet a punishment?

An invouluntary payment is usualy regarded as a tax or a fine. A
fine is a punishment.

So buying or renting skis is a punishment?

You can't ski without skis. You can ski without a helmet. But you
knew this.

But I can't race!

You can race - It's just more risky.

"PG" wrote in message
...

"Nick Hounsome" wrote in message
k...
|
| "PG" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "Champ" wrote in message
| ...
| | On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 06:42:32 +0100, "PG"
| | wrote:
| | |
| | | So, can you explain again why a racer without a helmet (who
seems
| to
| | | be in a minority) is setting a bad example?
| |
| | You've got to be kidding...
| |
| | No, really.
| |
| | You've stated that almost all racers are wearing helmets, so why
are
| | the few that don't going to have any sort of influence?
|
| Depends on several factors. In France a racer that doesn't wear a
helmet
| is unlikely to have significant influence unless he/she receives
| proportionately greater media attention for some reason (local
skier,
| major event winner, etc). Whereas the UK is a different story, as
there
| are only two British male racers with any kind of public profile
(just
| one until quite recently), so that influence is potentially greater.
In
| both cases a disproportionate degree of influence is possible,
depending
| on the circumstances.
|
| You seem to be taking the notion of the responsibility of pros rather
a long
| way he now it seems that their responsibility rises and falls not
just
| according to their own behaviour but according to the rankings of
their
| fellow countrymen and whether the BBC decides to increase coverage of
| skiing!

It's merely a truism. If David Beckham were to smoke dope far more young
people would be influenced by this than if John Doe of the local pub
team were to do so. Hence my answer to Champ's question as to why it
should be that influence remains possible despite a large majority of
racers wearing helmets.

That wasn't quite my point. I'm not claiming to have the answer on this one
but what I was getting at was a different way of looking at things - perhaps
this makes it clearer:

Suppose David Beckham had taken up dominoes instead of football - would he
have had to behave like a role model? I think not. Suppose then that
dominoes suddenly caught the imagination of the public, every match was
televised and every time DB had a dunp it was in the papers; Would he then
have to start behaving as a role model? You can't say that he knew what he
was getting into when he started so why should he have to change his
behaviour? If you concede this point then the whole idea as sportsmen as
role models starts to look a bit shaky.

"Champ" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:14:34 +0000 (UTC), "Joe Roach"
wrote:



Almost all laws are about protecting person A from person B. However,
things like the seatbelt law and helmet laws are about protecting
person A from person A, and I really don't think that's the business
of the state.
--
Champ

That's fine as long as person A does a proper job and terminates
him/herself. If person A ends up as chronic wreck then the state (i.e.
the
rest of us) has to pay that cost..... so why should I pay for person A's
stupidity / how much should the state restrict person A's freedom of
choice.
It's a question of balance and hence there will be no right/wrong answer.

I agree it's a question of balance. If your logic was followed to its
conclusion, then all dangerous sports and hobbies would be banned - no
climbing, motorsport, rugby, boxing, horse-racing, sailing, fishing[1]
etc. Most societies would agree that this would be a bad thing.

I would suggest that the number of serious injuries on the slopes that
would be prevented by the mandatory use of helmets is sufficiently low
that there is no arguable case for enforcement. And don't give me the
"If just one life..." argument.

[1] apparently the sport with the greatest number of deaths each year
--
Champ

Well I think you have hit the nail on the point. I said "there will be no
right/wrong answer" and you then go off on a "If your logic was followed to
its conclusion" direction. If you become a chronic wreck it costs the state
money unless, of course, you pre-agree to be terminated or fund your future
care. That's a decision that isn't mine and it could be argued isn't
exclusively yours either.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:37:29 -0000, "MoonMan"
wrote:

This is where it all falls down. The only resposibility a
senior racer has is to themselves. Whoever he is, I imagine
the racer in question had a reason for not wearing a helmet.
Given that it only affects him (i.e. it's only his brain at
risk), then why isn't that reason good enough for you and your
daughter?

Not true - there are incidents now where skiers/boarders with
helmets have collided with other skiers/boarders and caused
significant injury (I'm not sure about death) that may be
attributable to their helmets.

No it's attributable to them being out of control.
Punish the dangerous not the careful.
Why do you consider wearing a helmet a punishment?

An invouluntary payment is usualy regarded as a tax or a fine. A
fine is a punishment.

So buying or renting skis is a punishment?

You can't ski without skis. You can ski without a helmet. But you
knew this.

But I can't race!

Er, this whole sub-thread is about a ski racer not wearing a helmet!
--
Champ

Nick Hounsome wrote:
"MoonMan" wrote in message
...
Champ wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:52:06 -0000, "MoonMan"
wrote:

snip

But I can't race!

You can race - It's just more risky.

No I can't, I would not be allowed to start.


--
Chris *:-)

Downhill Good, Uphill BAD!

www.suffolkvikings.org.uk

Champ wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:37:29 -0000, "MoonMan"
wrote:

This is where it all falls down. The only resposibility a
senior racer has is to themselves. Whoever he is, I imagine
the racer in question had a reason for not wearing a helmet.
Given that it only affects him (i.e. it's only his brain at
risk), then why isn't that reason good enough for you and your
daughter?

Not true - there are incidents now where skiers/boarders with
helmets have collided with other skiers/boarders and caused
significant injury (I'm not sure about death) that may be
attributable to their helmets.

No it's attributable to them being out of control.
Punish the dangerous not the careful.
Why do you consider wearing a helmet a punishment?

An invouluntary payment is usualy regarded as a tax or a fine. A
fine is a punishment.

So buying or renting skis is a punishment?

You can't ski without skis. You can ski without a helmet. But you
knew this.

But I can't race!

Er, this whole sub-thread is about a ski racer not wearing a helmet!

In the UK at least in the eastern region, Helmets are required for racing.
at FIS level they are not required for slalom, yet.

Originally we introduced the requirement to stop teenage boys saying "but
xxx doesn't wear one so why should I?" but now it's been taken ut of our
hands, the insurance companies require it!


--
Chris *:-)

Downhill Good, Uphill BAD!

www.suffolkvikings.org.uk

Nick Hounsome wrote:
"MoonMan" wrote in message
...
Nick Hounsome wrote:
"MoonMan" wrote in message
...
Nick Hounsome wrote:
"MoonMan" wrote in message
...
Nick Hounsome wrote:
"David Mahon" wrote in message
...

Champ wrote:

This is where it all falls down. The only resposibility a
senior racer has is to themselves. Whoever he is, I imagine
the racer in question had a reason for not wearing a helmet.
Given that it only affects him (i.e. it's only his brain at
risk), then why isn't that reason good enough for you and your
daughter?

Not true - there are incidents now where skiers/boarders with
helmets have collided with other skiers/boarders and caused
significant injury (I'm not sure about death) that may be
attributable to their helmets.

No it's attributable to them being out of control.

Punish the dangerous not the careful.


Why do you consider wearing a helmet a punishment?

An invouluntary payment is usualy regarded as a tax or a fine. A
fine is a punishment.

So buying or renting skis is a punishment?

Now you are just being silly but I hereby grant you permission to go
skiing without skiis if you wish.

Actually I wasn't being silly, If I want to race, I have to buy (or
rent) skis, a helmet, and assorted other kit.
if I want to drive, I have to pay for the seat belts

But only the skis are strictly necessary.

Boots? lift pass? clothes?


In niether case is the payment a tax or a fine.

BTW do you consider a Tax as a punishment then, if so what for?

Voting for the government obviously.

But that just cheered up my morning


--
Chris *:-)

Downhill Good, Uphill BAD!

www.suffolkvikings.org.uk

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:59:00 -0000, "MoonMan"
wrote:

But I can't race!

Er, this whole sub-thread is about a ski racer not wearing a helmet!

In the UK at least in the eastern region, Helmets are required for racing.
at FIS level they are not required for slalom, yet.

Originally we introduced the requirement to stop teenage boys saying "but
xxx doesn't wear one so why should I?" but now it's been taken ut of our
hands, the insurance companies require it!

So, your entire contribution to this thread is valueless, then.
--
Champ

Champ wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:59:00 -0000, "MoonMan"
wrote:


But I can't race!

Er, this whole sub-thread is about a ski racer not wearing a helmet!

In the UK at least in the eastern region, Helmets are required for racing.
at FIS level they are not required for slalom, yet.

Originally we introduced the requirement to stop teenage boys saying "but
xxx doesn't wear one so why should I?" but now it's been taken ut of our
hands, the insurance companies require it!


So, your entire contribution to this thread is valueless, then.
Umm indeed Champ! Maybe the insurance companies will BARCODE us next!!!!!!!!

Jason Pereira wrote:
Champ wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:59:00 -0000, "MoonMan"
wrote:


But I can't race!

Er, this whole sub-thread is about a ski racer not wearing a
helmet!

In the UK at least in the eastern region, Helmets are required for
racing. at FIS level they are not required for slalom, yet.

Originally we introduced the requirement to stop teenage boys
saying "but xxx doesn't wear one so why should I?" but now it's
been taken ut of our hands, the insurance companies require it!


So, your entire contribution to this thread is valueless, then.
Umm indeed Champ! Maybe the insurance companies will BARCODE us
next!!!!!!!!

Been checking up on me have you?

Chris *:-)