Let is be knownst that on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:26:09 +0000,
d4g4hd@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) writted:
>B Vaughan wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:41:57 +0100, me2@privacy.net (Mister Bartlett)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >B Vaughan wrote:
>> >
>> >> We need someone to plot bike ridership over time in countries that
>> >> have enacted mandatory helment laws to see if we can see this supposed
>> >> effect. If it does, then, although I myself would use a helmet, I
>> >> would be opposed to making it mandatory.
>> >
>> >There's a link to such a study on this page:
>> >
>> >http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1122
>>
>> And they do show, in a very carefully done survey, that one of the
>> main effects of helmet laws in Australia was to reduce bicycle use.
>> Which of course, also reduces head injuries.
>>
>> Are you following this, David?
>
>With little interest. You'll find other studies that show the opposite,
>I'm sure- but certainly not from that website.
I very much doubt there is a study that shows bicycle use increasing
after the introduction of helmet laws.
>I really don't care that
>much about this though. I think that the main motivation of the group
>that wants to show that helmet laws are "bad" are those with weird
>libertarian notions of what they should or should not be able to do.
>Wearing helmets is safer than not wearing helmets. It's as simple as
>that.
I agree, but as obesity is a major problem in anglo speaking
countries, discouraging exercised should be a no no. And yes, making
people wear helmets for dubious reasons is wrong, especially when it's
enforced by draconian laws.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
-- |