Helmets!

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?


--
Chris *:-)

Downhill Good, Uphill BAD!

www.suffolkvikings.org.uk

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

I don't believe that Adults should be forced to wear helmets, but I
do believe you are being negligent if you allow small children to
ski without one!

Does 12 class as small?

Depends on the child


--
Chris *:-)

Downhill Good, Uphill BAD!

www.suffolkvikings.org.uk

"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.

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.
--
Champ

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

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

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?


--
Chris *:-)

Downhill Good, Uphill BAD!

www.suffolkvikings.org.uk

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!


--
Chris *:-)

Downhill Good, Uphill BAD!

www.suffolkvikings.org.uk

"Nick Hounsome" wrote in message
. ..
|
| "PG" wrote in message
| ...
| | |
| | | I don't think that feeling disgusted can reasonably be called
a
| | discussion
| | | of the issues.
| |
| | Straw man. This is the logical fallacy of refuting a caricatured
or
| | extreme version of someone's argument, rather than the argument
| they've
| | actually made.
| |
| | You have lost the thread - there is no post that says that the
child
| | discussed anything at all she was only reported as being
disgusted.
|
| Her views were mentioned in passing and were never held up to be a
| discussion of the issues. Therefore your reply is a straw man, as I
| said.
|
| On the contrary - the fact that a young child can be "disgusted" by
the
| sight of a pro racer not wearing a helmet is extremely relevant to the
issue
| of the social pressures restricting freedom of choice regarding
wearing a
| helmet.

Only if you completely ignore just about everything I've written so far.
Have you read any of it? She IS a racer, spends time each week with a
large majority of racers (to World Cup level) who do use helmets, and is
far more aware of the safety issues involved than the vast majority of
adult ski tourists.

Everyone, including your good self, is subject to a degree of influence
from social pressures, advertising, etc etc. However you are not in a
position to make assertions about someone you don't even know. Stop
trying to muddy the waters.

"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.

"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.

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.