Subject:
|
Re: Children and Violence
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 30 Sep 2001 20:53:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
256 times
|
| |
|
|
Hello Chris,
in general, I agree with your posting, but this one example seems odd to me:
> Even bicycle helmets are less clearly good in my mind. Most kids
> when I was young rode bikes without helmets. Most of us crashed
> doing daring and stupid stunts on our bikes. And most of us didn't
> end up paralyzed. Not just most, but a staggering majority.
Bike helmets will not prevent kids from learning that certain practices are
dangerous, just limit the effect such dangerous practices can have. I think
that's a good thing. And it certainly is an even better thing that bike
helmets protect bikers from the effects of faults made by others ...
> I haven't done the cost-benefit analysis, but I wonder if bike
> helmets really make sense most of the time.
How can something that potentially saves a life be cost-benefit analyzed?
Greetings
Horst
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Children and Violence
|
| (...) Hi Horst, (...) We do it all the time. I _could_ quit my job, sell my car and stay home all the time to avoid the dangers of the road. But my off-the-cuff cost/benefit analysis suggests that the potential safety gain is not worth the cost. In (...) (23 years ago, 30-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Children and Violence
|
| (...) For the record, I used outlet covers when my son was little and I imagine that I'll use them with the next one (due in only ten weeks!). And we have very high quality car seats -- the best that were available when we did our research, and (...) (23 years ago, 30-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
18 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
