GT89 wrote: » No I abide by the speed limit. For the following reasons. Firstly I don't want to be fined, get points on my licence or get a criminal record for speeding, secondly I don't want to put myself at risk of serious injury or death due to my own dangerous driving I could easily be killed in car crash and I'm not vulnerable to cv19 as don't have underlying health conditions and finally I can plan my journey correctly so I don't need to drive faster than the speed limit.
robinph wrote: » Do you speed when driving past schools etc? Or do you consider the speed limits in place to actually be a reasonable requirement (mostly) for the population as a whole to follow in order to protect other people out using the streets and hospitals from unnecessary injuries needing to be treated?
zerosugarbuzz wrote: » I've seen a lot of people who are re-using disposable masks over and over. Cant blame them given you get 5 for about 7 euro. But, do they in any way realise how bacteria multiplies and how much they are breathing in each time they re-use the masks? Same situation with the re-usable ones unless they are washed after each use. I can see many bacterial chest infections coming to people soon.
Nermal wrote: » Reasonableness is individually determined.
Nermal wrote: » The key word is reasonable. The speed limit could be set, nationally, to 20Km/H and we need never have fatalities in car accidents ever again. But we don't do that. We're happy to accept some fatalities in return for the convenience of quick travel. Why aren't we happy to accept some fatalities in return for the convenience of not having to wear a mask? Reasonableness is individually determined.
almostover wrote: » I think because the inconvenience of wearing a mask is negligible?
Graham wrote: » I think you'll find all sorts of areas where 'reasonable' is actually set by law. You mentioned speed limits, that's one good example.
almostover wrote: » Misuse of masks isnt a reason to stop people wearing them. A coordinated communication campaign on their correct usage however hasn't been forthcoming. Goverment haven't done well the last few weeks really
Nermal wrote: » How about you start wearing a helmet in your car? Car accidents cause about half the traumatic brain injuries we suffer. I mean, it's a negligible inconvenience for you to keep a helmet in your car, and you might save your family and society the trouble of looking after a vegetable by doing so. What sort of sociopath wouldn't want to do that?
Nermal wrote: » How about you start wearing a helmet in your car? Car accidents cause about half the traumatic brain injuries we suffer.
CalamariFritti wrote: » Today its masks tomorrow its Gardaí entering your house.
Graham wrote: » :rolleyes: that is all
robinph wrote: » Everyone wearing a helmet in their car whilst driving on urban streets would likely cause more risk of injury to the rest of the public on the street as will reduce field of vision and less easy for people to turn their heads to look around. You'd need to make a better case for helmets to be worn in cars as standard. Seatbelts and airbags do more to reduce injury, whilst also not impairing ability in anyway.
The Centre has been evaluating the concept of a protective headband for car occupants. In about 44 percent of cases of occupant head injury, a protective headband, such as the one illustrated, would have provided some benefit. One estimate has put the potential benefit of such a device (in terms of reduced societal Harm) as high as $380 million, compared with $123 million for padding the upper interior of the car. This benefit derives from the fact that in a crash, the head strikes objects other than those that could be padded inside the car.
Every golfer knows the assumed risk of possibly being hit by a ball when out playing a round of golf. Getting drilled by a golf ball can leave both minor and serious injuries to both golfers and spectators. So in order to prevent further injuries, could helmets be in the near future for golfers? That’s what one proposal based in the United Kingdom is seeking to do, according to Golf Punk. The new proposal across the pond, which is being pushed by a health, safety, and employment agency called Protecting.co.uk, is hoping to require golfers to have to wear crash helmets when playing golf.
New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo told a press conference on January 23 that cars were “paralyzing” New York City and that motoring had to be discouraged with measures such as congestion pricing. When one reporter asked him if he would mandate car helmets for motorists—a measure that would likely dampen demand for motoring—he did not laugh off the suggestion.
Streetsblog NYC’s Gersh Kuntzman then asked Cuomo if he might consider helmet compulsion for car drivers, given that vast numbers of car drivers involved in fatal crashes die as a result of head trauma. After a long pause, the governor said: “I’m thinking.” He then followed up with: “I don’t know enough. I’d like to see the data.” As well as being a safety measure, helmet compulsion for bicyclists is also knowingly or unknowingly used as a method to suppress cycling. It’s highly probable that if motorists had to wear head protection even for short, mundane journeys they would drive less. The wearing of helmets for everyday motoring might be dismissed as crazy, but getting behind the wheel of a car is perhaps the riskiest thing we do every day, yet few of us give head safety while driving a second’s thought. Individual motor journeys are not particularly risky, but they are so routine and frequent that the overall risk, over time, becomes more significant than customarily understood. Driving to a skydiving airstrip is far riskier than jumping out of the airplane, yet automobile-riding parachutists are not nagged to wear motoring helmets. And such products do exist. Well, did. As I have reported previously, an Australian motor accessories company marketed motoring helmets in the 1980s. (Davies Craig motoring helmets are sometimes available to buy on eBay.) “Motoring is a dangerous activity,” Davies Craig managing director Richard Davies once told me. “If a motorist is not killed in a crash, one of the most common injuries is a head injury, and they can produce permanent and long-term damage.” Despite the prevalence of car airbags, motorists still die from head injuries; head injuries that could have been prevented had those motorists been wearing helmets. In the 1980s, Davies’s company added a Motoring Helmet to a long list of its other automotive products. (Davies Craig is a manufacturer of electric water pumps, fan clutches, and other automotive components, exported all over the world.) The company’s Motoring Helmet was available globally—500 were sold between 1985 and 1987. “Commonly a head injury arises when the head strikes the A or B pillar, windscreen, or the head of another occupant,” Davies told me by email from Australia. Using an argument that is often wheeled out for helmet-less cyclists, he added: “Medical treatment is a drain on society.” The Davies Craig Motoring Helmet wasn’t for motorsports; it was for everyday driving. The helmet’s packaging featured families wearing helmets for urban motoring, and a businessman was shown wearing one while being driven by a similarly-clad chauffeur.
CalamariFritti wrote: » How so? Is that not what the government is considering? Or is that off the table now?
pjohnson wrote: » They enter your house if you are breaking restrictions.
CalamariFritti wrote: » When they suspect you may be breaking restrictions. And you're ok with that ye?
Graham wrote: » Knock yourself out (metaphorically speaking). Are traumatic brain injuries contagious now or are we back to obscure justifications again?
pjohnson wrote: » Well I dont plan on breaking restrictions so it wont make any difference to me whether they are allowed or not. Do you find yourself frequently come to the attention of Gardai?
CalamariFritti wrote: » Today its masks tomorrow its Gardaí entering your house. Just so the government can appear to be doing something. But not a big worry just do as you're told. But in this thread... well, you might as well be banging your head off the wall for a while.
CalamariFritti wrote: » There is no conspiracy. Just panic and arse covering and the usual bull. Only because this one is close to the bone everything is just so much more serious.
robinph wrote: » But a moment ago you were claiming that the wearing of a mask was so that in the future the Gardi could come along and start breaking into our houses without first having a good reason to do so? What's that if not a claim of a conspiracy?
Today its masks tomorrow its Gardaí entering your house. Just so the government can appear to be doing something.
CalamariFritti wrote: » I actually said why. And there was no hint of conspiracy.
CalamariFritti wrote: » I actually wasn't doing either.There was no 'one measure prepares the other' implied. Just saying they're doing dangerously stupid stuff 'cos they're out of their depth and they need to be seen doing something.
robinph wrote: » That is precisely what you stated with your line "Today its masks tomorrow its Gardaí entering your house" that one leads on from the other.
CalamariFritti wrote: » I dont know. That sentence doesnt imply to me that one thing is a precondition or a preparation of the other. It was more meant like there is an escalation happening. Which there clearly is.
