Religious tolerance or safety?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
Helmets minimize serious head injuries as both of us already know.

When I'm biking on a treacherous rocky trail, then I wear a helmet because the odds of me taking a tumble are quite high and I don't want to have my head dashed open on a rock. When I'm biking on a flat gravel or dirt path I don't wear a helmet, because the risk of me taking a fall isn't very high and the risk of me being injured in a fall is minimal. Helmets are very uncomfortable, so if I'm in a low-risk situation I'm not going to wear one. (Whoever heard of somebody having their head dashed out on a dirt path?)

So, please tell where the HARM is in implementing safety through government legislation if you already knew that helmets minimize serious head injuries.

It's an intrusive, unnecessary, and therefore stupid law.

Everybody knows that soft drinks are bad for you, so should the government legislate that nobody is allowed to consume more than two soft drinks per day? We have to protect the children, who might otherwise fill up on soft drinks and spoil their appetites!

It's one thing for the government to pay for ineffective public service announcements ("Dirt-paved bike paths: the silent killers!"), or to require warning labels ("Warning: Operating this bike on a dirt path without a helmet is a recipe for disaster!"), but it's another thing entirely when the government becomes intrusive.

I think the life of a faithful Islam

Sikhs are the one's in question here, not muslims, BTW.

Edit: Cross-post on the Sikhs.

[Dinner]

The law is the law and everyone should have to follow it especially when the state has to pay big time cash when people don't. These parents who want exemptions will probably be the first in line demanding free hospital care and government action once their little non-helmet wering pride and joy falls of his bike.

[chequita guevara]

Wearing talking about children, not adults. Children's heads are softer, and even when the sutures have fused their skulls are still thinner than an adult's. I have no problem with adults going without helmets on bicycles.

[Lincoln]

Then of course they may not be the first in line... By the way, who is the "first in line" when a population destroys its health by overeating? Should there be a law to prevent overeating? Many heart attacks occur in obese people. Should we jail them or fine them -- or both?

[Dr Strangelove]

You know, I really think that if they tried to they could figure out a way to make a turban accessory for a bike helmet.

In the US medical care for head injuries is so good that we have entire institutions devoted to caring for the permanently vegetative. They're called "cabbage patches' by some of us in the industry. If you'd ever had to send a patient with a head injury to a "cabbage patch" you might have a different pespective on the bike helmet.

[chequita guevara]

Lincoln, as a person who goes around rescuing children, I should think you'd appreciate attempts to protect kids from idiot parents.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
You know, I really think that if they tried to they could figure out a way to make a turban accessory for a bike helmet.

I agree, I think that the Sikhs' protests are idiotic at best. Make a kevlar turban or something, it can't be that difficult...

Regardless, this isn't the same as parents who won't let their kids have life-saving blood transfusions or other medical treatments for religious reasons, actions which are on an entirely different order of magnitude. They're friggin bike helmets.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by loinburger


I agree, I think that the Sikhs' protests are idiotic at best. Make a kevlar turban or something, it can't be that difficult...

Well a tuban shaped helmet maybe but getting the shape just right would be a challenge. The key item in all helmets that I have seen is the shock absorbing styrafoam. Of course the shell must be there to spread the impact to a large amount of foam and to ward against penetration.

Kevlar helmets must be nice. My last one was a fiberglass full face Bell Star and the sucker weighed five pounds. I had to do neck exercises or I would get a strained neck. The kevlar helmets were just getting going then and the ones I tried on pressed in on my jaw joint so I had to get the heavy one.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Lincoln, as a person who goes around rescuing children, I should think you'd appreciate attempts to protect kids from idiot parents.

I guess I don't consider parents who allow their kids to ride bikes without helmets "idiots". Why don't we require kids to wear a full suit of armor when they play? When I was a boy I climbed cliffs with my friends and went swimming in the ocean and did all kind of things that endangered my health and life. Kids jump off of rocks into pools and break their necks. It is always sad when a kid hurts himself but it is not the governments place to protect kids from all the dangers of growing up. I never even heard of helmets for bike riders when I was growing up and I don't think my parents were idiots for not making me wear one. I didn't wear one when I went surfing either. Like someone already said on this thread, the safest thing is to make the speed limit 1 mile per hour. Think of all the kids we would save...

[Dinner]

A full suit of armor isn't necisary but by forcing children to where helmets while riding bycicles the state of California reduced child bike riding fatalities by something like 66%. Most children who die while bycicling die from head injuries after being hit by a car; a helmet is very effective in saving their lives and only costs something like $20. Like seat belts it is cheap and effective so it is just good public policy.

[Caligastia]

Getting back to the original topic - I wonder which is more important to their God, that these kids wear their turbans, or that their heads are protected? Surely if they believe their God has any wisdom it would be the latter.

[KrazyHorse]

Helmet laws are stupid. Driving is a more dangerous activity than cycling without a helmet ergo helmets should be mandatory for driving.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Frogger
Helmet laws are stupid. Driving is a more dangerous activity than cycling without a helmet ergo helmets should be mandatory for driving.

People in cars have seat belts. In fact the helmet laws in the US would pushed hard by Joan Claybrook in the Carter administration to set a precedent for seat belt laws. Helmets won't help much in most car crashes. They help a lot in motorcycle crashes. The death rate doesn't go down as much as you might expect but the survivors are more likely to recover without brain damage. I recommend full face on a motorcycle. Open face helmets can save a life and still leave a person without much of a face left. Jaws have been destroyed.

Unfortunatly a closed face helmet just won't work on a bicycle.

[MrFun]

Loinburger, your soda argument goes beyond reason -- helmet laws on the other hand, are much more reasonable.

And I apologize for my mistake on the religious group.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
Loinburger, your soda argument goes beyond reason -- helmet laws on the other hand, are much more reasonable.

So you're the one who determines what is reasonable and what isn't?