Re: OT For the cyclists here
Discussions around sex, religion, politics and the controversy surrounding bicycle helmets are usually shunned but I thought that this article may be of interest: http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=11488 I wonder if there is a similar correlation between having sustained a 'severe head injury', and being a Pentax user. - Peter -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT For the cyclists here
While we're at it why don't we start discussions about abortion, gun control and the existence of God? (yes, yes and no, fwiw) For some reason helmets give rise to the same intensity of discussions among cyclists (not just on this list btw). As for me, don't care what any study says I like wearing them and will continue to do so. Others can do what they want, don't so much care, as long as they're adults it's their personal decision, I won't judge either way. Cheers, frank --- Original Message --- From: Rob Studdert Sent: May 6, 2013 5/6/13 To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Subject: OT For the cyclists here Discussions around sex, religion, politics and the controversy surrounding bicycle helmets are usually shunned but I thought that this article may be of interest: http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=11488 -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT For the cyclists here
On 06/05/2013 9:31 PM, knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: While we're at it why don't we start discussions about abortion, gun control and the existence of God? (yes, yes and no, fwiw) For some reason helmets give rise to the same intensity of discussions among cyclists (not just on this list btw). As for me, don't care what any study says I like wearing them and will continue to do so. Others can do what they want, don't so much care, as long as they're adults it's their personal decision, I won't judge either way. In general I agree with your attitude, except when it comes to public liability. In our country, it is costing the public purse more for unhelmeted riders who conk their noggins. If we had private insurance, I would say it's between the rider and his insurance company, but in a publicly funded system, the cards play a little differently. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT For the cyclists here
There is bit more detail in this article, by the same author http://theconversation.com/bike-helmets-an-emergency-doctors-perspective-13935 I do not ride my motorcycle or bicycle without a helmet. Philip Northeast www.aviewfinderdarkly.com.au On 7/05/13 11:40 AM, Rob Studdert wrote: Discussions around sex, religion, politics and the controversy surrounding bicycle helmets are usually shunned but I thought that this article may be of interest: http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=11488 -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT For the cyclists here
On 7 May 2013, at 06:39, Bill wrote: > On 06/05/2013 9:31 PM, knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: >> While we're at it why don't we start discussions about abortion, gun control >> and the existence of God? (yes, yes and no, fwiw) >> >> For some reason helmets give rise to the same intensity of discussions among >> cyclists (not just on this list btw). >> >> As for me, don't care what any study says I like wearing them and will >> continue to do so. Others can do what they want, don't so much care, as long >> as they're adults it's their personal decision, I won't judge either way. > In general I agree with your attitude, except when it comes to public > liability. In our country, it is costing the public purse more for unhelmeted > riders who conk their noggins. If we had private insurance, I would say it's > between the rider and his insurance company, but in a publicly funded system, > the cards play a little differently. > > bill It's typical of this type of discussion that the benefits of cycle helmets are overstated, and the disadvantages not mentioned at all. This is important from the public health point of view for at least two reasons. First, the disadvantages have been shown time and again to outweigh the advantages, since making helmet use compulsory - which is what you're proposing - leads to reduced cycling which leads to a reduction in public health and increased health care costs. Second, people take part in all sorts of activities which damage their health one way or another, from driving cars, to eating meat, drinking alcohol, climbing mountains, and taking drugs. These things are all costing the public purse, in many cases far more than cycling does (in fact, cycling is a net contribution to the public purse) and the argument you put forward for cyclists applies equally or in greater measure to many other activities. But nobody suggests similar measures for these activities, so why cycling? In a liberal society people get to chose the risk they live or die with (and cycling is a very low risk activity compared to say driving or motor cycling), and we all contribute to picking up the pieces afterwards - it's a matter of enlightened self-interest, and doctors should stop moralising about it, shut up and get the bandages out. As far as this particular study goes, it's just one study among many, and the overall message is not consistent in either direction. Even if it's true that helmets give some overall measure of protection, the arguments given above don't change. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT For the cyclists here
There is an argument that one who dies early will cost the healthcare system far less than someone who lingers in into their golden years, health declining as they age. If the accident involves an automobile liability will be covered (at least partially). For those reasons and for the reasons as articulated by Bob W. I am all for being libertarian when it comes to helmet laws for adults. Cheers, frank --- Original Message --- From: Bill Sent: May 7, 2013 5/7/13 To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Subject: Re: OT For the cyclists here On 06/05/2013 9:31 PM, knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: > While we're at it why don't we start discussions about abortion, gun control > and the existence of God? (yes, yes and no, fwiw) > > For some reason helmets give rise to the same intensity of discussions among > cyclists (not just on this list btw). > > As for me, don't care what any study says I like wearing them and will > continue to do so. Others can do what they want, don't so much care, as long > as they're adults it's their personal decision, I won't judge either way. > In general I agree with your attitude, except when it comes to public liability. In our country, it is costing the public purse more for unhelmeted riders who conk their noggins. If we had private insurance, I would say it's between the rider and his insurance company, but in a publicly funded system, the cards play a little differently. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT For the cyclists here
But if it is covered by insurance, it is still 'public' money. Insurance companies get their money from... you guessed it.. people like you and me. My premiums go to pay for someone else's incident. Its not like the person who had the incident is taking responsibility and paying the expenses themselves. Gerrit -Original Message- From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of knarftheria...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 10:55 AM To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Subject: Re: OT For the cyclists here There is an argument that one who dies early will cost the healthcare system far less than someone who lingers in into their golden years, health declining as they age. If the accident involves an automobile liability will be covered (at least partially). For those reasons and for the reasons as articulated by Bob W. I am all for being libertarian when it comes to helmet laws for adults. Cheers, frank --- Original Message --- From: Bill Sent: May 7, 2013 5/7/13 To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Subject: Re: OT For the cyclists here On 06/05/2013 9:31 PM, knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: > While we're at it why don't we start discussions about abortion, gun > control and the existence of God? (yes, yes and no, fwiw) > > For some reason helmets give rise to the same intensity of discussions among cyclists (not just on this list btw). > > As for me, don't care what any study says I like wearing them and will continue to do so. Others can do what they want, don't so much care, as long as they're adults it's their personal decision, I won't judge either way. > In general I agree with your attitude, except when it comes to public liability. In our country, it is costing the public purse more for unhelmeted riders who conk their noggins. If we had private insurance, I would say it's between the rider and his insurance company, but in a publicly funded system, the cards play a little differently. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT For the cyclists here
On 07/05/2013 9:02 AM, Gerrit Visser wrote: But if it is covered by insurance, it is still 'public' money. Insurance companies get their money from... you guessed it.. people like you and me. My premiums go to pay for someone else's incident. Its not like the person who had the incident is taking responsibility and paying the expenses themselves. An insurance company has the option of opting out and letting you die. A public health care system doesn't have that privilege. As for Mr Walkdens rather weak arguments, one could use the same talking points to decry seat belt use. The point is, we limit injury when we can. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT For the cyclists here
First off "public money" is tax money. That's who (in Canada at least) pays for healthcare. Most of it, anyway. The fact that your insurance premiums go into a pool and pay for the collisions of others does not make it public money. You may choose your insurance company, you may choose different levels of coverage or you may choose not to pay insurance (if you don't drive a motor vehicle). Most jurisdictions have a form of no fault system. That means that sometimes a portion of the damages of a person at fault will be covered by your insurance provider. Usually no-fault benefits are fairly minimal and are not a major cost to the system; that's why the insurance industry lobbied long and hard to have the government implement such a system. The big awards, the "pain and suffering", "punitive damages" and "loss of future wages" tend to still be fault-based. The bottom line is that large amounts "public funds" rarely get into the hands of one who is at fault in any motor vehicle accident. Cheers, frank --- Original Message --- From: Gerrit Visser Sent: May 7, 2013 5/7/13 To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" Subject: RE: OT For the cyclists here But if it is covered by insurance, it is still 'public' money. Insurance companies get their money from... you guessed it.. people like you and me. My premiums go to pay for someone else's incident. Its not like the person who had the incident is taking responsibility and paying the expenses themselves. Gerrit -Original Message- From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of knarftheria...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 10:55 AM To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Subject: Re: OT For the cyclists here There is an argument that one who dies early will cost the healthcare system far less than someone who lingers in into their golden years, health declining as they age. If the accident involves an automobile liability will be covered (at least partially). For those reasons and for the reasons as articulated by Bob W. I am all for being libertarian when it comes to helmet laws for adults. Cheers, frank --- Original Message --- From: Bill Sent: May 7, 2013 5/7/13 To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Subject: Re: OT For the cyclists here On 06/05/2013 9:31 PM, knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: > While we're at it why don't we start discussions about abortion, gun > control and the existence of God? (yes, yes and no, fwiw) > > For some reason helmets give rise to the same intensity of discussions among cyclists (not just on this list btw). > > As for me, don't care what any study says I like wearing them and will continue to do so. Others can do what they want, don't so much care, as long as they're adults it's their personal decision, I won't judge either way. > In general I agree with your attitude, except when it comes to public liability. In our country, it is costing the public purse more for unhelmeted riders who conk their noggins. If we had private insurance, I would say it's between the rider and his insurance company, but in a publicly funded system, the cards play a little differently. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT For the cyclists here
I started using a helmet after a friend og mine reminded me that my head was no longer just mine. I have three kids depending to s scary degree on the work I do with my brain, so I should do something to protect it. DagT 7. mai 2013 kl. 07:51 skrev Philip Northeast : > There is bit more detail in this article, by the same author > > http://theconversation.com/bike-helmets-an-emergency-doctors-perspective-13935 > > > I do not ride my motorcycle or bicycle without a helmet. > > Philip Northeast > > www.aviewfinderdarkly.com.au > > On 7/05/13 11:40 AM, Rob Studdert wrote: >> Discussions around sex, religion, politics and the controversy >> surrounding bicycle helmets are usually shunned but I thought that >> this article may be of interest: >> >> http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=11488 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT For the cyclists here
On 7 May 2013, at 17:39, Bill wrote: > On 07/05/2013 9:02 AM, Gerrit Visser wrote: >> But if it is covered by insurance, it is still 'public' money. Insurance >> companies get their money from... you guessed it.. people like you and me. >> My premiums go to pay for someone else's incident. >> Its not like the person who had the incident is taking responsibility and >> paying the expenses themselves. > An insurance company has the option of opting out and letting you die. A > public health care system doesn't have that privilege. As for Mr Walkdens > rather weak arguments, one could use the same talking points to decry seat > belt use. Which indeed I do. B > The point is, we limit injury when we can. > > bill > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT For the cyclists here
On 7 May 2013, at 20:32, Bob W wrote: > On 7 May 2013, at 17:39, Bill wrote: > >> On 07/05/2013 9:02 AM, Gerrit Visser wrote: >>> But if it is covered by insurance, it is still 'public' money. Insurance >>> companies get their money from... you guessed it.. people like you and me. >>> My premiums go to pay for someone else's incident. >>> Its not like the person who had the incident is taking responsibility and >>> paying the expenses themselves. >> An insurance company has the option of opting out and letting you die. A >> public health care system doesn't have that privilege. As for Mr Walkdens >> rather weak arguments, one could use the same talking points to decry seat >> belt use. > > Which indeed I do. > > B Just to expand on that - i disagree with compulsion in wearing seat-belts just as I do with cycle helmets and the compulsory wearing of anything by anyone. Adults in full possession of the facts and their faculties should be free to do whatever they want as long as they don't limit enjoyment of the same rights by others. I do, in fact, buckle up when I'm in the car because 1. the arguments in favour are much stronger than those against 2. The stupid law says I have to 3. The driver is liable for the passengers, so if I'm driving I set an example, if I'm not I don't have the right to push the responsibility onto the driver These are fundamentally different from the cycle helmet arguments. B > >> The point is, we limit injury when we can. >> >> No we don't. If we did there'd be no cars on the road, and no fat people slumped in their couches eating McDos and supersize Cokes between drags on their Marlboros. People are free to eat themselves to death at our expense, they should be free to crack their heads on the pavement ditto. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT For the cyclists here
On Tue, May 07, 2013, knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: > > The fact that your insurance premiums go into a pool and pay for the > collisions of others does not make it public money. You may choose > your insurance company, you may choose different levels of coverage > or you may choose not to pay insurance (if you don't drive a motor > vehicle). Choice is overrated. The vast majority of people have strictly limited ability to choose, if only because time is finite. There are more and more recent studies showing this -- for example, 401k participation skyrockets when the default is opt-in rather than opt-out. For the non-US: "401k" is a kind of private pension system There are significant societal benefits to steering people into default choices that are better, although I'm certainly libertarian enough that I'd prefer benefits for compliance rather than penalties for failure to comply. On the gripping hand, "societal benefit" is very much a political topic. For example, the obesity panic turns out to have little scientific evidence behind it. This probably ties into buying camera equipment somehow... -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT For the cyclists here
I own a car, therefor I pay insurance. Being able to choose which company makes no difference as to who gets to use the money that I pay, I get no say whatsover as to whose accidents get paid out or not. So really I have no choice, I pay. Now suppose person x, a car driver insured by the same company I am insured with, has an altercation with someone on a bicycle who is also not wearing a helmet. Instead of bruises we now have concussion and brain damage. Insurance pays damages to cyclist eventually, health insurance (in this case my tax money as it is Ontario) pays for the hospital care, other taxes pay for ambulance, police, possibly helicopter etc. I have no idea if OHIP goes after the insurance company for payment or not, but I doubt it. If there are too many expensive cycling accidents involving cars, then the rates go up, for everyone, not just that insurance company because the probility of that risk occuring has gone up. Who is at fault makes no difference, it is paid for out of 2 pools of $, both of which are funded by in essence the public, by premiums or taxes or both. In the casse of car vs cyclist incidents, the no-fault system doesn't even come into play, there is only 1 insurance company involved. So, that cyclists opinion that they have the freedom to not wear a helmet potentially impacts a lot of peoples pockets. It certainly doesn't affect theirs as they don't pay for insurance, except perhaps OHIP. Yes, they lose pay while in hospital depending on whether they have LTD coverage or not. If they do, then , yes the insurance company who provides that pays out, using the money many others including companies pay as premiums. The company of course passes the expense to me, the consumer. There is no magic pool of money that pays for stuff. We all pay, directly or indirectly. My personal opinion is that many accidents are in fact negligence, sometimes it is the perpertrator with an innocent victim, sometimes the victim is the cause. And if negligent, then the person responsible should pay, directly, some portion of the aftermath. Maybe insurance covers a lot but they need to pay for their decision/negligence. It is called accountability. If you don't want to wear a helmet or seatbelts, then pay for the repurcusions yourself. That should maybe factor into the 'decision made by an adult in full possesion of the facts'?. Gerrit Who is now going to post a PESO so that he is not considered a non-photo contributing troll :-) -Original Message- From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of knarftheria...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 1:27 PM To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Subject: RE: OT For the cyclists here First off "public money" is tax money. That's who (in Canada at least) pays for healthcare. Most of it, anyway. The fact that your insurance premiums go into a pool and pay for the collisions of others does not make it public money. You may choose your insurance company, you may choose different levels of coverage or you may choose not to pay insurance (if you don't drive a motor vehicle). Most jurisdictions have a form of no fault system. That means that sometimes a portion of the damages of a person at fault will be covered by your insurance provider. Usually no-fault benefits are fairly minimal and are not a major cost to the system; that's why the insurance industry lobbied long and hard to have the government implement such a system. The big awards, the "pain and suffering", "punitive damages" and "loss of future wages" tend to still be fault-based. The bottom line is that large amounts "public funds" rarely get into the hands of one who is at fault in any motor vehicle accident. Cheers, frank -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT For the cyclists here
On 7 May 2013, at 21:29, "Gerrit Visser" wrote: > . Instead of bruises we now have concussion and > brain damage Unfortunately for your argument your premise is wrong. Cycle helmets are not designed to protect against the kind of impact that would make such a large difference to injuries. Any helmet that did provide that much protection would make it impossible to ride a bike safely. In addition, the helmets that do exist can also be responsible for aggravating injuries under some circumstances where no injury would otherwise have occurred. Insurance companies have often tried to avoid or reduce their payouts by blaming the cyclist, but so far they have not been able to get away with it. If they could, they would. And, as stated earlier, the public purse argument doesn't work because cyclists are positive contributors, rather than beneficiaries. Similarly, for insurance companies to reduce their liabilities they should be concentrating on improving driving standards and making cyclist training more widely available. That will save more people from injury and death, and therefore save more insurance and tax money, than any number of bicycle helmets. B > I own a car, therefor I pay insurance. Being able to choose which company > makes no difference as to who gets to use the money that I pay, I get no say > whatsover as to whose accidents get paid out or not. So really I have no > choice, I pay. Now suppose person x, a car driver insured by the same > company I am insured with, has an altercation with someone on a bicycle who > is also not wearing a helmet. Instead of bruises we now have concussion and > brain damage. > > Insurance pays damages to cyclist eventually, health insurance (in this case > my tax money as it is Ontario) pays for the hospital care, other taxes pay > for ambulance, police, possibly helicopter etc. I have no idea if OHIP goes > after the insurance company for payment or not, but I doubt it. > If there are too many expensive cycling accidents involving cars, then the > rates go up, for everyone, not just that insurance company because the > probility of that risk occuring has gone up. Who is at fault makes no > difference, it is paid for out of 2 pools of $, both of which are funded by > in essence the public, by premiums or taxes or both. In the casse of car vs > cyclist incidents, the no-fault system doesn't even come into play, there is > only 1 insurance company involved. > > So, that cyclists opinion that they have the freedom to not wear a helmet > potentially impacts a lot of peoples pockets. It certainly doesn't affect > theirs as they don't pay for insurance, except perhaps OHIP. Yes, they lose > pay while in hospital depending on whether they have LTD coverage or not. If > they do, then , yes the insurance company who provides that pays out, > using the money many others including companies pay as premiums. The company > of course passes the expense to me, the consumer. There is no magic pool of > money that pays for stuff. We all pay, directly or indirectly. > > My personal opinion is that many accidents are in fact negligence, sometimes > it is the perpertrator with an innocent victim, sometimes the victim is the > cause. And if negligent, then the person responsible should pay, directly, > some portion of the aftermath. Maybe insurance covers a lot but they need to > pay for their decision/negligence. It is called accountability. If you don't > want to wear a helmet or seatbelts, then pay for the repurcusions yourself. > That should maybe factor into the 'decision made by an adult in full > possesion of the facts'?. > > Gerrit > Who is now going to post a PESO so that he is not considered a non-photo > contributing troll :-) > > -Original Message----- > From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of > knarftheria...@gmail.com > Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 1:27 PM > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Subject: RE: OT For the cyclists here > > First off "public money" is tax money. That's who (in Canada at least) pays > for healthcare. Most of it, anyway. > > The fact that your insurance premiums go into a pool and pay for the > collisions of others does not make it public money. You may choose your > insurance company, you may choose different levels of coverage or you may > choose not to pay insurance (if you don't drive a motor vehicle). > > Most jurisdictions have a form of no fault system. That means that sometimes > a portion of the damages of a person at fault will be covered by your > insurance provider. > > Usually no-fault benefits are fairly minimal and are not a major cost to the > system; that's why the insurance industry lobbied long and hard to ha
Re: OT For the cyclists here
Bob W wrote: >In addition, the helmets that do exist can also be responsible for aggravating >injuries under some circumstances where no injury would otherwise have >occurred. I believe this to be an urban legend. I have never seen any peer-reviewed documentation of such effects (and I have looked having indirect access to PubMed can be useful). -- Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT For the cyclists here
On May 7, 2013, at 15:45 , Bob W wrote: > > In addition, the helmets that do exist can also be responsible for > aggravating injuries under some circumstances where no injury would otherwise > have occurred. > I've seen this statement trotted out many times but have never heard of a true study coming up with anything relevant to support this. Sounds like a load of hooey to me. I mean, seriously, I can't even visualize/imagine the situation that would demonstrate this to be true. -Charles -- Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT For the cyclists here
on 2013-05-07 15:51 Charles Robinson wrote I mean, seriously, I can't even visualize/imagine the situation that would demonstrate this to be true. i can imagine it, but i doubt it's a significant counterweight to the benefits of helmets; given the helmets secure fastenings and basic integrity, i can image a helmet snags an obstruction, causing trauma (like a broken neck) that wouldn't have happened if the helmet weren't worn -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT For the cyclists here
on 2013-05-07 1:05 Bob W wrote Second, people take part in all sorts of activities which damage their health one way or another, from driving cars, to eating meat, drinking alcohol, climbing mountains, and taking drugs. These things are all costing the public purse, in many cases far more than cycling does (in fact, cycling is a net contribution to the public purse) and the argument you put forward for cyclists applies equally or in greater measure to many other activities. But nobody suggests similar measures for these activities, so why cycling? the merits aside, i don't think that's correct; society accepts many restrictions on individual liberty designed to reduce specific risks, and lots of people suggest stronger regulations and more direct "preventatives"; however the risk assessments and countermeasures tend to be tremendously subjective and unbalanced, sometimes to the point of ridiculousness -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT For the cyclists here
Relax! You make it sound like huge sums of your money are paying for accidents involving miscreant cyclists when in fact that's not the case. What, have there been maybe three cycling deaths this year in Toronto? At least two of them the cyclist was wearing a helmet. Compared to all deaths in motor vehicle collisions it's a mere blip. Of your huge premiums you likely pay a few pennies a year for cyclists' injuries and deaths. Don't worry so much about it. Cheers, frank --- Original Message --- From: Gerrit Visser Sent: May 7, 2013 5/7/13 To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" Subject: RE: OT For the cyclists here I own a car, therefor I pay insurance. Being able to choose which company makes no difference as to who gets to use the money that I pay, I get no say whatsover as to whose accidents get paid out or not. So really I have no choice, I pay. Now suppose person x, a car driver insured by the same company I am insured with, has an altercation with someone on a bicycle who is also not wearing a helmet. Instead of bruises we now have concussion and brain damage. Insurance pays damages to cyclist eventually, health insurance (in this case my tax money as it is Ontario) pays for the hospital care, other taxes pay for ambulance, police, possibly helicopter etc. I have no idea if OHIP goes after the insurance company for payment or not, but I doubt it. If there are too many expensive cycling accidents involving cars, then the rates go up, for everyone, not just that insurance company because the probility of that risk occuring has gone up. Who is at fault makes no difference, it is paid for out of 2 pools of $, both of which are funded by in essence the public, by premiums or taxes or both. In the casse of car vs cyclist incidents, the no-fault system doesn't even come into play, there is only 1 insurance company involved. So, that cyclists opinion that they have the freedom to not wear a helmet potentially impacts a lot of peoples pockets. It certainly doesn't affect theirs as they don't pay for insurance, except perhaps OHIP. Yes, they lose pay while in hospital depending on whether they have LTD coverage or not. If they do, then , yes the insurance company who provides that pays out, using the money many others including companies pay as premiums. The company of course passes the expense to me, the consumer. There is no magic pool of money that pays for stuff. We all pay, directly or indirectly. My personal opinion is that many accidents are in fact negligence, sometimes it is the perpertrator with an innocent victim, sometimes the victim is the cause. And if negligent, then the person responsible should pay, directly, some portion of the aftermath. Maybe insurance covers a lot but they need to pay for their decision/negligence. It is called accountability. If you don't want to wear a helmet or seatbelts, then pay for the repurcusions yourself. That should maybe factor into the 'decision made by an adult in full possesion of the facts'?. Gerrit Who is now going to post a PESO so that he is not considered a non-photo contributing troll :-) -Original Message- From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of knarftheria...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 1:27 PM To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Subject: RE: OT For the cyclists here First off "public money" is tax money. That's who (in Canada at least) pays for healthcare. Most of it, anyway. The fact that your insurance premiums go into a pool and pay for the collisions of others does not make it public money. You may choose your insurance company, you may choose different levels of coverage or you may choose not to pay insurance (if you don't drive a motor vehicle). Most jurisdictions have a form of no fault system. That means that sometimes a portion of the damages of a person at fault will be covered by your insurance provider. Usually no-fault benefits are fairly minimal and are not a major cost to the system; that's why the insurance industry lobbied long and hard to have the government implement such a system. The big awards, the "pain and suffering", "punitive damages" and "loss of future wages" tend to still be fault-based. The bottom line is that large amounts "public funds" rarely get into the hands of one who is at fault in any motor vehicle accident. Cheers, frank -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT For the cyclists here
I'm not worried about it, I am just pointing out that accidents cost money. The costs are not paid for by some magic pot of money, it is for paid by all us in some way or other. Deaths are not likely the most expensive scenario, long term effects from broken bodies is likely more costly to the system. I also don't think I was centering out miscreant cyclists, although living at Palace Place I had more than a few run ins with the more extreme examples. I'm sure that in most cases the driver is at fault, people in general don't pay much attention on the road. It is the general approach being proffered in the thread that it is up to the individual to decide on whether to wear a helmet or seat belt. Those individuals impose the costs of their decisions, in case of an incident, on the rest of us via health care (taxes) and insurance costs (drivers are insured, cyclists aren't). gerrit Getting another PESO ready -Original Message- From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of knarftheria...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 6:33 PM To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Subject: RE: OT For the cyclists here Relax! You make it sound like huge sums of your money are paying for accidents involving miscreant cyclists when in fact that's not the case. What, have there been maybe three cycling deaths this year in Toronto? At least two of them the cyclist was wearing a helmet. Compared to all deaths in motor vehicle collisions it's a mere blip. Of your huge premiums you likely pay a few pennies a year for cyclists' injuries and deaths. Don't worry so much about it. Cheers, frank --- Original Message --- From: Gerrit Visser Sent: May 7, 2013 5/7/13 To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" Subject: RE: OT For the cyclists here I own a car, therefor I pay insurance. Being able to choose which company makes no difference as to who gets to use the money that I pay, I get no say whatsover as to whose accidents get paid out or not. So really I have no choice, I pay. Now suppose person x, a car driver insured by the same company I am insured with, has an altercation with someone on a bicycle who is also not wearing a helmet. Instead of bruises we now have concussion and brain damage. Insurance pays damages to cyclist eventually, health insurance (in this case my tax money as it is Ontario) pays for the hospital care, other taxes pay for ambulance, police, possibly helicopter etc. I have no idea if OHIP goes after the insurance company for payment or not, but I doubt it. If there are too many expensive cycling accidents involving cars, then the rates go up, for everyone, not just that insurance company because the probility of that risk occuring has gone up. Who is at fault makes no difference, it is paid for out of 2 pools of $, both of which are funded by in essence the public, by premiums or taxes or both. In the casse of car vs cyclist incidents, the no-fault system doesn't even come into play, there is only 1 insurance company involved. So, that cyclists opinion that they have the freedom to not wear a helmet potentially impacts a lot of peoples pockets. It certainly doesn't affect theirs as they don't pay for insurance, except perhaps OHIP. Yes, they lose pay while in hospital depending on whether they have LTD coverage or not. If they do, then , yes the insurance company who provides that pays out, using the money many others including companies pay as premiums. The company of course passes the expense to me, the consumer. There is no magic pool of money that pays for stuff. We all pay, directly or indirectly. My personal opinion is that many accidents are in fact negligence, sometimes it is the perpertrator with an innocent victim, sometimes the victim is the cause. And if negligent, then the person responsible should pay, directly, some portion of the aftermath. Maybe insurance covers a lot but they need to pay for their decision/negligence. It is called accountability. If you don't want to wear a helmet or seatbelts, then pay for the repurcusions yourself. That should maybe factor into the 'decision made by an adult in full possesion of the facts'?. Gerrit Who is now going to post a PESO so that he is not considered a non-photo contributing troll :-) -Original Message- From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of knarftheria...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 1:27 PM To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Subject: RE: OT For the cyclists here First off "public money" is tax money. That's who (in Canada at least) pays for healthcare. Most of it, anyway. The fact that your insurance premiums go into a pool and pay for the collisions of others does not make it public money. You may choose your insurance company, you may choose different levels of coverage or you may choose not to pay insurance (if you don't drive a motor vehicle). Mos
Re: OT For the cyclists here
On 07/05/2013 2:29 PM, Gerrit Visser wrote: Who is now going to post a PESO so that he is not considered a non-photo contributing troll :-) All that will change is that you will be like me, an occasional photo contributing troll. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT For the cyclists here
On 07/05/2013 3:51 PM, Charles Robinson wrote: On May 7, 2013, at 15:45 , Bob W wrote: In addition, the helmets that do exist can also be responsible for aggravating injuries under some circumstances where no injury would otherwise have occurred. I've seen this statement trotted out many times but have never heard of a true study coming up with anything relevant to support this. Sounds like a load of hooey to me. I mean, seriously, I can't even visualize/imagine the situation that would demonstrate this to be true. When we were having our seat belt law debate in the mid 1970s, it was often trotted out that under some situations, a seat belt could actually kill the occupant. The common excuse was the car driving into a lake and sinking, and the occupant trapped in their seat belt, unable to undo it in their panic. What was never mentioned, of course, was that if the person was so panicked that they couldn't undo their seat belt, it was quite unlikely that they would be calm enough to safely exit a sinking vehicle, presuming they hadn't been knocked out by whacking their head on the dash board. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT For the cyclists here
Obviously there could be the odd occasion when helmets or safely belts work to the detriment of the wearer but in the main the evidence in favour is incontrovertible. The almost miraculous escapes from horrendous motor racing accidents proves the point. The idea of seat belts is to keep the occupants safe inside the monococque. I recall an incident during a plant safety inspection where my hard hat bumped a low pipe. The inspector was quick to point out that the hard hat had saved my head yet I am quite sure the bump would not have happened if I had no hard hat simply because the top of the hard hat was about 2 inches above the top of my head! However, that is no reason not to wear hard hats. Alan C -- From: "Bill" Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 7:46 AM To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Subject: Re: OT For the cyclists here On 07/05/2013 3:51 PM, Charles Robinson wrote: On May 7, 2013, at 15:45 , Bob W wrote: In addition, the helmets that do exist can also be responsible for aggravating injuries under some circumstances where no injury would otherwise have occurred. I've seen this statement trotted out many times but have never heard of a true study coming up with anything relevant to support this. Sounds like a load of hooey to me. I mean, seriously, I can't even visualize/imagine the situation that would demonstrate this to be true. When we were having our seat belt law debate in the mid 1970s, it was often trotted out that under some situations, a seat belt could actually kill the occupant. The common excuse was the car driving into a lake and sinking, and the occupant trapped in their seat belt, unable to undo it in their panic. What was never mentioned, of course, was that if the person was so panicked that they couldn't undo their seat belt, it was quite unlikely that they would be calm enough to safely exit a sinking vehicle, presuming they hadn't been knocked out by whacking their head on the dash board. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT For the cyclists here
On May 8, 2013, at 7:50 AM, Bob W wrote: > Adults in full possession of the facts and their faculties [...] And where do you suggest we find such an adult? :D Cheers, Dave (I'm staying out of this debate) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT For the cyclists here
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. ;-) cheers, frank --- Original Message --- From: David Mann Sent: May 8, 2013 5/8/13 To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Subject: Re: OT For the cyclists here On May 8, 2013, at 7:50 AM, Bob W wrote: > Adults in full possession of the facts and their faculties [...] And where do you suggest we find such an adult? :D Cheers, Dave (I'm staying out of this debate) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT For the cyclists here
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 11:40:46AM +1000, Rob Studdert wrote: > Discussions around sex, religion, politics and the controversy > surrounding bicycle helmets are usually shunned but I thought that > this article may be of interest: > > http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=11488 It is indeed interesting to see actual research done on what people consider common sense. It turns out that helmets help some of the time, but not always. Other facts that most people don't realize (and you can look them up) are: 1) Cars with anti-lock brakes do not get into fewer accidents. They get into more of some sort of accident, and fewer of others. 2) People on low fat diets do not live longer. They are just at a lower risk of dying from heart disease. 3) Wearing a camelpak (or other hydration system) can greatly reduce your chance of spinal injury. I do find it frustrating when policy and rules are made based merely on what people think should be true, without any scientific data to back it up. I'd love to see the requirement that a law had to state a goal, and if after some time period it wasn't shown to have achieved that goal, it was stricken from the books. An interesting case in point, research has shown that stricter drunk driving laws result in a temporary decrease in drunk driving, after a while, however, people go back to their old habits. As to the personal responsibility versus public liability debate, there are three ways it can be treated: 1) KMAGYOYO: Everybody is entirely responsible for their own actions, and their own care. Banish insurance. Since insurance is a money making industry, then on average, people would be better off without it. Since they tend not to get sick when they're young, everyone should pay into their own insurance account. If at somepoint they get really sick, and can't pay, or get a loan, we've got 7 billion people on the planet anyways, a few less mouths to feed is generally a good thing. 2) Insurance, and don't allow people to do anything dangerous. It's a public liability, so you aren't allowed to do anything that risks incurring higher costs to society. As such, Tobacco, alcohaol, sugared drinks, overly processed foods etc. are banned. Everybody must exercise a certain amount each week. Since sports like recreational bicycling, rock climbing, running, and football can be shown to cause injuries (as can martial arts, dancing etc.) the calisthetics must be rigorously supervised and regulated so as to prevent injuries. All hazardous activies should be banned so as not to incur the risk of public liability for injuries. 3) Insurance, but figure that different people will enjoy doing different things, some of which will incur some risks. Make the assumption that grievous bodily injury is more of a burden to the person who receives it, than it is for society who has to pay for it, and that in the vast majority of cases, the risk of pain and mutilation is enough of a deterrent to keep most people from doing things that are too stupid, and that the rest won't be stopped anyways. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT For the cyclists here
On 08/05/2013 17:24, Larry Colen wrote: An interesting case in point, research has shown that stricter drunk driving laws result in a temporary decrease in drunk driving, after a while, however, people go back to their old habits. Not here. Substantial decrease in road deaths upon introduction of a simple, scientifically valid, roadside test and they haven't gone back up. -- No fixed Adobe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT For the cyclists here
From: David Mann On May 8, 2013, at 7:50 AM, Bob W wrote: Adults in full possession of the facts and their faculties [...] And where do you suggest we find such an adult? :D Cheers, Dave (I'm staying out of this debate) Back when I was in the National Guard they kept telling us that the Boy Scouts had adult leaders. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
