Sled Police with Radar Guns?:
Instapundit offers up the following post:
UPDATE: Glenn adds to his original post: "Orin Kerr thinks my provocative headline is misleading. I guess he's right, though I saw the story as evidence of creeping nanny-statism, likely to produce a slippery slope leading to mandatory helmet laws, actual speed limits, etc. Plus, who didn't know that sleds can go 19 miles per hour, roughly as fast as a man can run? This seems to be how most of the commenters at Don Surber's blog, linked above, saw it too. We've been down that slippery slope in plenty of other areas, and we didn't need a sled to do it. But to the extent my pithiness was misleading, I apologize." I agree with Glenn that it was strange to have a police officer confirm the speed of sleds; high speed is the whole point, and there was no need for a radar gun to prove it.
SLED POLICE — with radar guns. I agree with the commenter who says, "When cops start this kinda thing, it’s time to start laying them off. They have way too much time on their hands."It would be pretty remarkable if cops were actually using radar guns to try to "catch" kids sledding too fast. As I read the underlying story, though, I don't think that's happening. It seems that the "injury and prevention manager" at the local Children's Hospital is trying to get kids to wear helmets when sledding. To dramatize the issue, she convinced a local cop to use his radar gun to show the local newspaper how fast kids were sledding down a hill. So it seems that it was a staged event to make for a better story, not a case of police actually trying to catch "speeding sledders." (A point I make not to defend the story, but rather just to point out that it's pretty different from what some readers may think.)
UPDATE: Glenn adds to his original post: "Orin Kerr thinks my provocative headline is misleading. I guess he's right, though I saw the story as evidence of creeping nanny-statism, likely to produce a slippery slope leading to mandatory helmet laws, actual speed limits, etc. Plus, who didn't know that sleds can go 19 miles per hour, roughly as fast as a man can run? This seems to be how most of the commenters at Don Surber's blog, linked above, saw it too. We've been down that slippery slope in plenty of other areas, and we didn't need a sled to do it. But to the extent my pithiness was misleading, I apologize." I agree with Glenn that it was strange to have a police officer confirm the speed of sleds; high speed is the whole point, and there was no need for a radar gun to prove it.
really? i think that pretty much defends the story (well)
Don't click on the links, and if you do and read them, I suspect you'll be posting here quite a bit explaining the difference between the actual complex thought involved in the story and the spin.
Remember tho: that's the guy's M.O. He's not really a comprehensive reader, thinker, or analyzer -- he just knows a bit about computers and linkage.
The sad thing to me has always been: it seems if you want to get linked to him, you have to playalong in the spin manner -- and otherwise good people willingly offer up their common sense and thinking skills just to be the beneficiaries of an "instalanche". (Or stupid breeds stupid.)
Glad you're catching on O.K., but remember if you don't want to diss The Big Guy, better not click and read those links or employ any thinking skills. It's easier to be ignorant in the dark, even when all the time and facts prove your spin to be ... off.
(Sorry if this seems harsh. He just cheesed me off long ago when anyone who rationally objected to the War administration was Unamerican, or something much less than a "Patriot". His current spin: the surge, or quietness in Iraq in the face of troops on their third tours proves "We really winning now!" Sadly, nope. It jsut means the car is spinning its' wheels in neutral, and he and his ilk are still are determined their type is somehow more valuable evaluating the "spin" rather than getting out and actually physically pushing.
The government there is no closer to accomplishing the reasons we were told they went in (Purple-fingered democracy for everyone! Better lives for the women and children! in a gallant chivalray) than they are before thousands and thousands of civilians were killed in this glorious quest.
I just wish he'd stick to the fantasy books and sledding tales down there in Tenn. -- and make enough so his wife retires from "Men are Always Victims" schpiel she harps on continually. It truly would be safer for the country.)
So sayeth a Thinker and more Comprehensive Reader.
And in case some have lost sight of the prize: I mean our country, the United States of America.
God help us if we elect a man -- a first-term Senator -- President in response, solely on his nice guy promise, or a Baptist minister taking advantage of the fact that like Mr.Insty, nobody much is thinking complex thoughts these days -- it's just all about the page hits, shilling the freebie merchandise, spinning the spin, baby!
I have no problem wearing a helmet everytime I ride my bike, I have no problem wearing a helmet when I ride my horse (am an equestrian, I jump fences, I fall off horses jumping fences, the ground is hard, the wood poles are hard, the helmet helps) and definitely I would have no problem if all motorcyclists wore helmets instead of whining about their right to feel the wind in their face.
Is not that I have a problem with people exercising their right to break their skull and requiring years of therapy. The problem is that those years are financed either by the insurance company (therefore raising everyone's premiums, including mine) or by my local hospital, therefore raising my taxes.
Is great to be a libertarian when the costs of me fumbling up are equally borne by all the people. You want to feel the wind in your face. Great. Then pay your own hospital bills.
Up next, full body armor for inner city kids exposed to the gun epidemic
And, incidentally, the whole nanny state idea is not only wrong but counterproductive: the net effect of having children wear helmets in every fun activity is that they turn into couch potatoes whose primary recreation is video games. Which is why all those safety nazi parents have such fat, fat children.
Actually, the net effect of having children wear helmets in many (not every) fun activity is less end up as para- or quadraplegics.
After William Kennedy and Sonny Bono died within weeks of eachother in skiing accidents back in '98 (Kennedy was being a total bonehead and probably deserved what he got, Bono's accident was apparently truly that), there was an increased awareness in wearing helmets for recreational skiing which led to a drop in the number of serious head injuries in that sport.
If the cops were out using their radar guns to catch speeders you would probably want to know why they weren't out catching "real" criminals. Quit your bitchin'.
Of course there are many warm, insulated helmets designed for skiing and snowboarding that would be perfectly suitable for sledding.
Yeah, and damn those building codes that require the use of safety glass. And I just bet you love all those lead-filled Chinese toys too.
You should have the right to raise drooling, brain damaged, developmentally disabled children with huge jagged scars if you want.
Shout down the honest commenter for pointing out the facts, eh?
Me thinks the Reynoldes down in Tinnsee just miss sledding and don't really understand how fast -- on ice -- those things can go. If you have to call for police to be fired just for participating in community safety -- accident prevention -- you're pretty hard up.
I suspect cops just don't like to be on cleanup duty after a kid cracks their head open, same as they don't like doing the dirty work for those who practice their "freedoms" by not buckling their safety belts.
Besides, this isn't calling for mandatory helmets. Just education/the plain facts. That's what we libertarians are supposed to be all about, no?
If you've ever sledded, you understand: not all hills/icy + often crowded inclines are created equal.
Hopefully they're count up their winnings and retire already from the InstyExpert game -- go into computer consulting or something; the charade is pretty much wearing thin. And surely I'm not the only honest voice who calls it as it is.
It's time we start speaking the truth, and calling the spinmeisters on their poor records of accuracy and knowledge of facts. Enough with the spin and shill -- 2008 is the start of the already evident decline of the Instaexperts who know a lot about computers, but damn little about who is really doing the work and cleaning up after them. (not including the volokh crowd in that set necessarily: though they might owe allegiance to the well-outdated "pajama media" name, I'm hoping they're not so locked in as to sacrifice truth and honest thinking to stay in the game...)
And I know it's hard to believe: but truly it's nothing personal against the Reynoldses. Their little spinning of the facts has just gone on too long for the rest of us to sit back and accept it as gospel. Bring your game next year, or retire early and do the country a favor. There's too many lives at risk to let them peddle their influence on a weakening country.
Would we consider it a good thing for police officers, on the job, to record average speeds on a stretch of road and provide those numbers to groups advocating a lower speed limit? Would we consider it a good thing for police officers to monitor the number of people using a politically incorrect bookstore (whether it be an 'adult' one or one that simple sells politically incorrect books) and provide the numbers to people advocating the closure of that store?
And speaking from experiences in places where helmets are required by law (Hanscom AFB, Massachusetts), such laws only tend to be obeyed when responsible people are around. When responsible people are around, you don't tend to see people going downhill into a thicket of trees and rocks at thirty-odd miles per hour.
When I find myself agreeing with J.F. Thomas and Anderson, I know it is not the classic liberal-conservative divide, but rather, people apparently being contrary for contrariness' sake.
Is there anyone here who actually thinks that NOT wearing a helmet is not generally a good idea? Whether it be for biking or skiing or sledding or snowboarding.
There is a different question about whether the government should mandate such helmets--and whether we are becoming too much of a nanny state in requiring them.
That said, pointing out to parents how fast a sled is actually traveling might cause the parent to act responsibly and get their kid a helmet--not because one is required by law but because one is good for their kid's health.
Is there anyone here who actually thinks that NOT wearing a helmet is generally a good idea? Whether it be for biking or skiing or sledding or snowboarding.
Note to self, "Preview is my friend."
Maybe the kids are p*****S where you're at? Extreme sports are in. The kids are addicted to speed. Best to use the hard cold facts of a respected radar gun (used in many sports now to measure ball/puck speed) to show them that it truly is in their own best interest to be protected when engaging in risky activities. To me, that's how you ensure there are more responsible people around -- grow the field.
Of course, you could just advocate that abstaining from risky activities is the answer, as many responsible adults do. Good luck with that one!
You seem to have a hard time differentiating between adults (who are presumably responsible and capable of making informed, intelligent, rational decisions about their safety) and children (who are generally not). Even on the ski slopes, where you would think adults would be responsible and safe, you run into boneheads (like the Kennedy example I cited above) who ski recklessly. The ski areas employ ski patrol to police the slopes and expel people who violate the skiiers code. In some states (e.g., Colorado) you can be held civilly and, in extreme cases, even criminally liable for violating the skiiers code. I saw a story the other day where an eight year old and his parents are being sued for colliding with a skiier in Colorado.
You really have no idea how serious brain injuries can be, do you? Have you ever had a bad bicycle or skiing accident or known anyone who suffered a traumatic brain injury? I bet you are one of those people who thinks it is better to be ejected from a car rather than be belted in an accident too.
Am I so naive as to think he won't ride without a helmet at some point in the future? Of course not. But teaching him good habits at a young age means he is more likely to continue following them as he gets older.
You're not kidding. Just the other day a light fixture fell from my ceiling. Luckily, no one was standing beneath it, but I shudder to think about what might have been. As JF said, brain-injuries are serious, and reasonable regulations should be enacted to make sure that falling light-fixtures never strike an unhelmeted head... at least for the children.
Oh, and I cut my thumb while cleaning up the broken glass. Hmmm... mandatory leather gloves... I like the sound of that, too.
Actually, you're the only honest person on the planet. And everyone who disagrees with you is corrupt or a liar.
The wiki article finds:
The wiki article also notes that standards of helmet construction have weakened over time:
So it seems to me the answer is wearing a Snell-standard helmet for bicycling / skiing / snowboarding etc. is a good idea, otherwise the benefit is largely emotional / cosmetic.
It's nice to think so, but certainly I've never seen it happen - and I've seen plenty of people "violating the code".
Well no, but we can have reasonable building, licensing and inspection codes to make sure that light fixtures are installed and anchored properly by competent tradesmen so that they are not randomly falling out of ceiling on unsuspecting passersby. And if you choose to install them yourself and you do a piss-poor job and it falls and injures a guest, well then that guest can sue you for your incompetence.
Hey, I'm not the one calling for a cop to be fired because he participated in a community service/safety/ prevention exercise.
Maybe you could use that Bad-Boy attitude on display here to help Mr. Reynolds understand that he shouldn't go jumping to silly conclusions based on the unfailing superiority of his reading and logic skillz? Oh that's right, you only play a tough guy on the internet.
And then expect others to clean up after your messes. (It's ok -- his wife will coddle you as a victim though, so long as you're a dude.)
Well gee, I live in the U.S. and the pertinence of a U.K. study is lost on me since the U.S. requires that all helmets meet standards established by the CPSC, only partially based on the Snell standard (along with other solid research) and U.S. helmets are hard shell.
You're right. I like this model better, and we could apply it to sledding. We don't need helmets for sledding, but we should have a sledding license and sled inspection codes to make sure that only competent sledders are gracing our hillsides.
As an aside, the light fixture story was true. Assume that the general contractor who built the house was the one who installed the fixtures (I can't say for sure, but I suspect that this is the case). Pray tell, how could the fixture have fallen since I live in a community with licensing and building codes? And don't think for a minute that I wouldn't have thought about suing the contractor had the fixture injured someone. Why is this remedy insufficient? If he's liable for a tort, why do we need the (ineffective in this case) laws?
I have, at one point in my life, suffered from a Traumatic Brain Injury. It didn't happen during a sledding incident, nor a biking accident (though I had plenty of opportunity for those injuries to occur during my childhood).
During my recovery, I met several other people who had suffered from Traumatic Brain Injuries. The cause of injury was mixed, but I can't remember any bicycling or sledding related injuries. (There was at least one snowmobile accident that I do remember...is it equivalent to a motorcycle accident? Of course, the sample size was small, non-random, and insufficiently documented.)
My injury happened while I was driving. (Full-size van, early 80's model, meets stopped bus...I don't remember, all I have is the police report and the documentation for a week comatose in the hospital.) Should I have worn a helmet, so that my face wouldn't interface to the van steering wheel during the catastrophic deceleration from 45 m.p.h. to standstill? Should I have eschewed the seat-belt (which broke my collarbone, and directed my face so efficiently into the steering-wheel)? But the seatbelt kept me from catapulting through the windshield...
One question which comes to mind: how many brain injuries are known to have happened to sledding children? What is the rate of injury per person-hour sledding? Is there any difference due to parental presence, or parental instruction? Is there any mechanism for pointing out safer sledding routes, or routes with fewer large trees at the bottom?
In the case of bicycling: I have done much bicycling since recovery from the Traumatic Brain Injury. Much of it helmeted, some non-helmeted. What is the statistical rate for brain injuries suffered per person-hour of sledding? Are there other modifiers (inner-city vs. suburb vs. rural, parental presence, quality of bicycle equipment, reflective clothing, 5-foot flags on fiberglass poles attached to bicycles, etc.) which might reduce brain injuries?
Lastly, does the aforementioned degredation in average helmet quality alter our understanding of the effectiveness of helmets?
Is the problem one pressing enough to require laws? Or are helmets for bicyclists and sledders a solution looking for a problem?
That sounds pretty stupid to me. Why not just educate people -- parents and kids -- as to the scientific facts as to how fast some sleds can get, make pictures available of the effects of a nasty spill, and then let them choose to wear a helmet or not? Based on the hill's incline, whether or not they will going that fast, etc?
Why Insty would want to "hide the facts" of a non-biased radar gun is beyond me. Unless that has just become habit, based on his continued support of American war efforts in the Mideast. (See, we just won't show those coffins or costs, or let folks see the cold hard truths about what is being done both to our budget and our military so we can let the spin effect take hold for as long as possible.)
J.F. rationally responded:
I live in the U.S. and the pertinence of a U.K. study is lost on me since the U.S. requires that all helmets meet standards established by the CPSC, only partially based on the Snell standard (along with other solid research) and U.S. helmets are hard shell.
STOP. Stop with the thinking and logic! The spin only works if you all just sit back as dumbbells and never question the superior power of my thoughts and linkage! power. (Attaboy J.F.)
My liberal answer would be that with the decline of union labor in the building trades and the dearth of inspectors (because of tax-cutting at the local level) both the quality of construction and the thoroughness of inspection has suffered in recent years.
Individual lawsuits are of course the least efficient and most expensive way to resolve disputes. Preventative measures are a much more economic method to make sure that things are built properly. In this case, the builder has almost no incentive to properly brace the light fixtures since almost nobody is going to go to the hassle of tracking him down years later to sue him for the few hundred dollars it will cost to fix it (and where it would almost certainly cost you more in transaction costs than fixing it yourself). And this will repeat itself throughout the house (e.g. who is going to notice 18 inch centers on studs instead of 16 inch once the walls are up).
Is the problem one pressing enough to require laws? Or are helmets for bicyclists and sledders a solution looking for a problem?
Educate the people, and let them decide for themselves. No, if you're going down the typical kiddie hill -- no helmets needed, for skiing, sledding or snowboarding.
But if you're clocking in at the speeds demonstrated on the radar gun -- and yes Virginia, kids today like to go fast (no dangerous bookreading needed to satisfy them), then it is good practice to get them wearing helmets, just in case.
And no. You don't call out the public servants for layoffs just because they understand kids today, other than the computer geeks and the bookreading danger boys.
I'm guessing that you or your wife didn't tighten the screw enough last time you changed your light bulb.
Now don't get me started on those who would schill mandatory "better" lightbulbs to save the planet, either. Funny how consistency is never logically applied in these "but I am a real libertarian!" circles.
Plus, it is much easier to prove your case in court if you can prove he has violated a written code rather than having to prove that he has violated some vague standard of poor workmanship.
Thank you. People trip and hit their heads even on well-maintained sidewalks, or boarding busses, etc.
What I really need for skiing is a pressurized suit and body armor. The support will help with the most common injury (knees), and similarly help protect my spine if I roll over my neck. Spinal injuries are serious.
What I really need for walking is a big bubble to filter out reality. The world is dangerous. Life only leads to death.
I don't actually mind motorcycle helmet laws and their ilk, but we need to remember to justify them with statistics and not just anecdote or irrational fear. Automobile crashes are not a remote risk, even for drivers acting with reasonable precaution. Until I see more info, it seems that head injuries on the slopes and sled hills and city sidewalks are a remote risk which ordinary prudence diminishes to mere freak occurrance. Further, roads are already monitored by the state, recreational activities are often not.
It might be nice to see some actual numbers at ski areas. Compare head injuries that helmets would have actually prevented (as opposed to broken necks) to heart attacks or other random risk control. Look also at how helmets make some skiers feel more invincible, and therefore ski in trees, causing other sorts of injuries.
It's the best thing since TV ratings helped them find all the good shows with violence and nudity.
Did the world get suddenly more lethal when I grew up? Or did we just get more pathetic and terrified of our own shadows? What happened to wisdom and parents keeping an eye on kids, when did we decide that prudence was to be abandoned?
The sky-is-falling slippery slope arguments against are pretty moronic, though.
Buckle your seatbelts, folk. We're going to see a lot more of this type of logic employed in their argumentation, because pretty much now, that's all they've got.
Did the world get suddenly more lethal when I grew up? Or did we just get more pathetic and terrified of our own shadows? What happened to wisdom and parents keeping an eye on kids, when did we decide that prudence was to be abandoned?
Somehow, I think somebody's going to venture that it all started when the feminists started working and neglecting the kids.
And left to their own devices and better toys and media and extreme games, the kids started acting like kids do -- wanting to get higher, and go faster, and better than the next guy.
Now why can't they all just stay home and read "dangerous" books, and play on their computers and buy these nice fantasy books that are good for them??
Oh, and I hear the drugs are much better now too.
I personally knew three doctors who either were killed or permanently brain injured in bicycle accidents as adults.
This begs at least two questions which Greg's constantly surging adrenaline levels do not allow him to ask, let alone address.
First, what is the magnitude of the problem?
CDC statistics, which I got within a minute on a Google search, showed 773 bicycle deaths in 2006 (about 1/400,000 Americans, down from 949 in 1988 but unchanged from 1992). Bhsi.org further says:
Were I writing the article I would replace "serious enough to be" with "are," because we don't know the circumstances of hospitalizaiton. This is probably not an underestimate, as the blog is the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute.
The next question is how much helmet wearing ameliorates the problem.
I can't find any statistics on that. Intermediate variables like how much energy helmets absorb don't excite me. I'd want to know how much they cut down on deaths and injuries.
Then we have to ask a third question, which is whether society should require helmet wearing. I'm not a libertarian. But the burden of proof should be on those who advocate the restriction. Show me how much helmets cut down on death and injury, and at what cost, and sane people can have a discussion about whether helmets should be encouraged or required.
But not with offensive trolls who know the answer to these questions without data, and know that anyone who disagrees is stupid or dishonest.
And (not that he needs defense) Prof. Reynolds teaches law, writes scholarly letters, and writes a huge blog. I have no problems with his making a mistake wonce in a while. It doesn't show lack of character.
Well no, but our parents also went to parties, got soused and drove home drunk. Their cars had seatbelts, but they rarely if ever wore them, and we frolicked unrestrained in the backseat beating up our siblings. Our paint was also full of lead and our rivers were toxic soups. We know better now. Some things about the good 'ol days weren't so good.
No one (well almost no one) is demanding mandatory helmets, certainly not for adults, either on sledding hills or ski areas.
But not with offensive trolls who know the answer to these questions without data, and know that anyone who disagrees is stupid or dishonest.
And (not that he needs defense) Prof. Reynolds teaches law, writes scholarly letters, and writes a huge blog. I have no problems with his making a mistake wonce in a while. It doesn't show lack of character.
RESPONSE:
1) It's not once in a while; it's essentially his M.O. — on a variety of topics if you're reading closely.
2) Anyone who thinks typing on a computer surges their adrenalin levels really needs to get outside and play more.
3) The Instawizzard is the one who is interested in not evaluating using facts — remember, he's the one who thinks people should not be exposed to the basic information of the exact speed of sledders on a hill, locked by a neutral cop radar gun. (Nice try to spin away from that one though)
4) No. No. No. No mandatory helmets for sledders.
If we can freely educate without people micromanaging police officers' time, and let them take a few minutes to respond to the concerns of a nurse (another excellent profession that everyday is in the cleanup job and surely is closer to caring about the facts than a computer whizzer) in providing that accurate information for people to be educated about, then people should have a right to decide the risks and benefits for themselves.
Surely some of the faster kids would no doubt benefit, in the unlikely event that they lose control and something goes horribly wrong. Just like in hockey, we pad them up and continue to build equipment to respond to injuries seen. But you don't go requiring the same equipment for pond hockey, anymore than you call for mandatory equipment, neither for the daredevils who might slightly be at risk, or the little ones just chugging down a slight incline.
In the same way, if we'd have had less Reynolds' type of "hide the facts" thinking and more basic education/info sharing about head and neck injuries from diving, maybe we'd see more public diving boards out there, which in turn might reduce the dumbbells who dive off piers into shallow water and break their necks.
See, if you educate and permit the risks for those willing to bear the costs, you truly are better off than trying to minimize facts and safety-proof the world so you don't have to bother them with taking responsibility for their actions and educating them.
Because there's always going to be that urge for the non geeky couch potatoes to jump into the water head first, or go flying down a hill, wind in your face making your eyes water. So provide the facts and make the equipment available, and let them do what they're going to do, armed with the cold hard truth of what that radar gun would show.
Wonder if Insty will start running "corrections" on all of his ill-thought out comments, or if that would mean he'd have to essentially change his M.O. and spend all his time revising his "brilliance". It's not the character; it's the basic spin over thinking skills that he's somehow proud to display. Better stick to the obscure law journals, with no real-world accountability expected.
And (not that he needs defense) Prof. Reynolds teaches law, writes scholarly letters, and writes a huge blog. I have no problems with his making a mistake wonce in a while. It doesn't show lack of character.
Tenure, tenure, tenure.
No competition necessary.
Not helping the cause of freedom. But he's too blind to see it, or admit it anyway. Best stick to the books, and leave real life to the cleanup crew.
5) Just because somebody disagrees and is willing to back it up doesn't mean they are a troll. Just as, just because somebody gets a lot of hits and links doesn't make them a well regarded thinker or expert. Smashing pumpkins.
Gary, how long have you been suffering from RDS?*
* (Glenn) Reynolds Derangement Syndrome
You're obviously a shameless liar, a pathetic shill for the InstyWrong establishment. It's a known FACT that all human life ended in 1157 AD due to reckless, helmetless sledding/horseback riding.
We'll return to The Gary and JF Show in just a minute folks, right after these words from our opressive corporate masters.
The best teacher is experiance (Actually the best teacher is my mother, and she's a lot more dangerous than any sled/hill combo. She tells me to wear a helmet, YOU had better put one on too, just to be safe). In the grand scheme of things, yes some children will suffer tragic, disabling traumas thanks to sledding/bicycling etc., but some children will suffer tragic, disabling injuries playing softball or in the tub. The most severe injury the vast majority will face is scrapes, cuts and wounds to their pride. That majority will learn from this; either that sledding isn't worth the pain or than proper PPE is essential. Such is life; the smart, tough and fortunate survive, the stupid, weak and unlucky go on reality TV. this is why Olympic skiers and sledders invariably DO wear helmets and various critical bits of armor. and the real question is what represents the better ROI, and therefore the more appropriate use of non-infinite police resources; the local sledding hill or increasing foot patrols in high crime neighborhoods?
Now back to The Gary and JF Show, already in progress...
You guys have a mechanism for filtering original posters on the site. How about extending that to filtering commenters?
Others: stop reading Gary's incredibly stupid posts. You might feel the need to respond, and it only encourages misfits when you pay attention to them.
And now we've been down the slippery slope of snow covered hills with sleds...
Whether Gary Anderson and JF Thomas should be privately regulated is another story. And JF, can you provide a link for GR "blaming the victims of genocide"?
Well, apparently you didn't read the article too closely. It was a public park so there is a police interest in safe sledding there. There have already been three injuries that have ended in children being admitted to Children's Hospital in Milwaukee since November 1 (which indicates pretty serious injuries--it didn't say if they were head injuries) which is what prompted the request. Also, helmets can be had for $18, hardly a prohibitive sum.
In terms of children's daily activities, the addition of safety gear usually results in an increase in "x-game" type activity. Any safety benefit in the participants tends to be lost at the margin that uses the "armor" as permission to build a half-pipe.
And according to the CDC mortality statistics for 2004 only 282 children under the age of 18 were killed using all vehicles other than cars and bicycles that year (this would include sleds, golf carts, scooters, atvs and etc). So basically this is a BS use of the police IMO.
Needless to say no adult had any idea of what we were doing. The only time I recall a serious sledding accident was when there was adult supervision. A girl fell off a toboggan and was run over by a sled.
Smooooooch. Kiss kiss... laplaplap...
Ahh.
(Just be sure to wash your face afterwards, eh Professor Kerr? In-deed!)
You wish!
It's too much fun to catch them in acts of stupidity though they try to deny, deny, deny.
The only one calling for anything here was the Tinnissee law proffy trying to tell the police from afar how to do their jobs. Heh!
Now about those light bulbs he likes that everyone should have to purchase... (Double heh, with a cherry on top!)
Funny how the he laps on to the libertarian label, but when push comes to shove, he's the first one to be telling everyone else how to live their lives, eh? That damned tenure and the freebies in the mail... once they start believing their brown-faced smoochie friends, they'll never think straight again in their lives.
Talk about needed a nanny and a "dangerous" book to raise hardy young men. Heh heh... indeedy do!
Now that's an amazing leap that's gonna leave you wet in the creek! NO MANDATORY HELMETS -- how can anybody be more clear to assuage your FEARS?
"The only thing we have to fear... are the fear mongers themselves." Heh.
And he makes us take our meds so we can't discern how evil he is! EEEEvilll! But I fooled him ...
Yours,
Wince
See the slippery slope in action! Talk about the need for protection, eh?
(Fear not: I suspect there's a pill somebody could subscribe for that. Just claim to be a victim, and talk to the "doctor". The rest of us will stick with fresh air, exercise, good food and clean water.)
Rather dumb, yes. but then he's drinking the Tinnissee water and they don't grow em too smart down there from what I've seen...
Rather dumb, yes. but then he's drinking the Tinnissee water and they don't grow em too smart down there from what I've seen...
That's unclear. In the article, the author cited one child who had a helmet but despite the speech by the policeman, didn't want to wear it while sledding anyway. Also, the caveats "hill is clear" and "snow is soft" aren't going to apply in many, many cases of sledding.
I'm straining to, but I can see no harms in just having a cop talk about helmets while sledding. Police and firemen talk about safety issues to children all the time. Why this example should be so abominable, I have no idea. I suspect people just want to get upset about something, and on the day after Christmas, yet!
In King County (wherein lives about half the population of Washington State) it is illegal for an adult to ride a bicycle without a helmet. Pierce County (next to King) only requires that children wear helmets. Which is more likely:
a) King County will rescind the adult helmet requirement
b) Pierce County will add an adult helmet requirement
...who didn't know that sleds can go 19 miles per hour, roughly as fast as a man can run?
A mile in three minutes nineteen seconds is a LOT faster than I could ever run, even in my high school track days.
In King County (wherein lives about half the population of Washington State) it is illegal for an adult to ride a bicycle without a helmet. Pierce County (next to King) only requires that children wear helmets. Which is more likely:
a) King County will rescind the adult helmet requirement
b) Pierce County will add an adult helmet requirement
We're talking MANDATORY HELMETS FOR SLEDDING here... I see the reading comprehension troubles, and the fear mongering, knows no end. *sigh*
You may note that I took no position on whether these laws are good or justified, only that they tend to accumulate. You may also note that I did so without resorting to insult.
*Sigh* indeed.
You ain't kidding.