[wplug] OT: Risk management (helmet laws)

[Burt E Reany]

   The presumption being made here is that NOT wearing a helmet increases
medical costs - but this flies in the face of the real-time experience of
the British army.

   In the First World War, they changed from their standard-issue soft hats
to a supposedly head-protecting metal helmet,, to reduce casualties.
Unexpectedly, the instance of head wounds treated increased dramatically as
soon as their troops were equipped with the new headgear.  In researching
the unexpected result, they finally figured out a most interesting, simple
- and unanticipated - cause.

  It turned out that many of the new head injuries that occurred to troops
who were wearing these metal helmets would have previously been fatal. Many
lives were, indeed, saved - but treating those who were now upgraded to
"survivors" cost more.

  The conservation of mass and energy rules have been proved, again, it
seems - and we have an indication that wearing helmets will both save lives
AND increase medical costs.

(Flame off?)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in
delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to
bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written
agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail
for such purpose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




                                                                           
             Bryon Gill                                                    
             <bgtrio at yahoo.com                                             
             >                                                          To 
             Sent by:                  General user list <wplug at wplug.org> 
             wplug-bounces+bre                                          cc 
             any=csc.com at wplug                                             
             .org                                                  Subject 
                                       Re: [wplug] OT: Risk management     
                                       (helmet laws)                       
             06/13/2006 07:24                                              
             AM                                                            
                                                                           
                                                                           
             Please respond to                                             
             General user list                                             
             <wplug at wplug.org>                                             
                                                                           
                                                                           




I am very sympathetic to the libertarian line on the helmet issue (i.e.,
the
"it's my head and if I want it bashed in that's my business" argument).
The
problem is that there's a competing property right; the liability suffered
by
other drivers on the public roads.  The cost of medical care for someone
wearing a helmet in a crash is (I imagine) lower than that for someone not
wearing one.  This will be paid for by insurance policies.

In other words, by not taking proper safety precautions, helmetless
cyclists are
making driving more expensive for the rest of us.  Perhaps there's a way to
fix
this by adjusting the law so that helmetless cyclists assume full risk of
head/neck injuries in any accident, but that hardly seems reasonable when
the
helmetless cyclist is not at fault in an accident.

I think it's interesting that communities built around free software
attract
people who are both philosophically libertarian and philosophically
leftward
leaning; it seems that there is a nice intersection between the two where
individual control of software is concerned.  I think the different
opinions
on the helmet issue (and a few of the other non-technical discussions that
have
popped up here) demonstrates that very neatly.

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Jonathan S. Billings wrote:

> On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 18:42 -0400, Ben Beige wrote:
>> I really trhink it's nto the governmet's place to require me to think
>> of my own safty, or owe them money if they catch me being  recklace.
>> it's my neck not thiers. also helmets reduce visibility,a dn make for
>> poor perrifral vision.
>
> I tend to think of requiring a helmet an equivalent to requiring seat
> belts in cars.  They save lives, and the only way to make unreasonable
> people do it, (like Big Ben) would be to make it law.  I'd bet it's the
> same type of person who won't wear a helmet who also won't wear a seat
> belt.
>
> I ride a bike (the human-powered kind) and I definitely wouldn't be
> caught going on the roads without a helmet. They really don't limit
> peripheral vision, and you've got mirrors on most motorbikes anyway to
> help with that.
>
> If only we could convince those same unreasonable people that windows is
> a safety hazard, and if you must use it, at least wear a seat belt
> (firefox) and a helmet (firewall).
>
_______________________________________________
wplug mailing list
wplug at wplug.org
http://www.wplug.org/mailman/listinfo/wplug