Has anyone started wearing a helmet?

While working on a preparation article, my thoughts kept returning to a point I made in my first post on this forum.

The real question, at what point do you change your daily behavior? Do you stop driving to work because of the inherent danger of an automobile accident? Do you drive, but wear a helmet?

In 1997, 41,967 people lost their lives in motor vehicle accidents according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Deaths and injuries resulting from motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for persons of every age from 6 to 27 years old (based on 1994 data). Traffic fatalities account for more than 90 percent of transportation-related fatalities. (NHTSA) All of the arguments commonly used to support Y2K preparation can be applied to driving.

With Y2K the stakes are high. When you drive, you are risking life and limb. In my opinion, these are high stakes and, unlike Y2K, the risks are proven.

With Y2K, you are better safe than sorry. Of course, the same applies to driving. So why aren't people wearing crash helmets? They are widely available, relatively inexpensive and even colorful. Professional race drivers routinely wear helmets because they have been proven to save lives. It only takes little more time to put on a helmet than to fasten a seat belt. (Nomex undergarments do take a few moments longer.)

Y2K could result in huge disruptions in daily life. So can dying.

It is impossible to know what will happen with Y2K. You cannot predict with 100% accuracy that you will make it to your next driving destination. I doubt that any of the over 40,000 people killed in traffic accidents thought, Gosh, I think Im going to die today.

NHTSA is cooking the numbers. People dont really die in motor vehicle accidents. Nope. The statistics are valid and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence in the newspaper every week.

Y2K is real. Actually, Y2K is mostly speculation. On the other hand, traffic fatalities are real. And despite the very real dangers, huge numbers of people engage in risky behavior. I see aggressive driving every day and I would be skeptical if all the prepared on this forum were to claim they never violated a traffic safety law.

Some readers may even ride motorcycles. (Gasp) Per vehicle mile traveled, motorcyclists were about 15 times as likely as passenger car occupants to die in a motor vehicle traffic crash and about 3 times as likely to be injured. (NHTSA)

If one borrows the arguments of the Y2K pessimists: you are foolish to ride a motorcycle; you should encourage everyone to stop riding motorcycles; and if you tolerate motorcycle riding, you will be morally responsible for all the accidents. Oh, and call the motorcycle rider DGI for doesnt get it.

On one hand, we have a technological problem that may or may not result in some level of disruptions next year. On the other, we know that next year our annual traffic-related death toll will approach the total number of U.S. servicemen killed in Vietnam.

Unlike Y2K, the risks of operating a motor vehicle are clearly documented. And the preps for safe driving are far easier than those for Y2K. So why Y2K and not a nationwide movement for lower speed limits, stricter traffic safety laws and mandatory helmets for everyone in a moving vehicle?

I think, as humans, we discount the familiar risks and overestimate the unfamiliar. For example, far more people are afraid of flying on a passenger airline than of driving yet the risk is substantially lower. You might argue the control issue, but not many people are afraid of riding in a bus or train.

Y2K is an unfamiliar issue and it may be a natural human tendency to overestimate the risk. Driving, however, is a clear and present danger. And while YOU may be a safe driver, you have every other driver to worry about... including those under the influence.

Approximately 1.5 million drivers were arrested in 1996 for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. This is an arrest rate of 1 for every 122 licensed drivers in the United States (1997 data not yet available). About 3 in every 10 Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related crash at some time in their lives. (NHTSA)

I am not saying you should (or shouldnt) prepare for Y2K. Nor do I plan to TELL you to wear a helmet while you drive. [I will take a hard-nosed stand on drunk driving lock em up!]

My point you can take the Y2K arguments and apply them to mundane (but risky) activities. And maybe we should but we should also have the intellectual integrity to challenge inconsistencies in our collective approach to risk.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 18, 1999

Answers

Decker on Y2K and Risk

-- Prepared (but@not.panicked), May 18, 1999.

That is clever and funny, Mr.Decker.

-- humptydumpty (no.6@thevillage.com), May 18, 1999.

I define risk in terms of danger to my family. Nor do I need many paragraphs to justify my choice.

" but we should also have the intellectual integrity to challenge inconsistencies in our collective approach to risk."

Please stop using the plural and attempt to speak for yourself. Part of intellectual integrity dont you know.

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), May 18, 1999.

Mr. Decker

Good, but not good enough.

We may not wear helmets on the way to work in the car, but we darn sure would put them on if we were driving in the Daytona 500.

You treat Y2K as a routine risk, when, in fact, it is unique.

I'm against "helmet laws." I don't think anyone should be required to prepare for Y2K or car wrecks. I don't think anybody should be talked out of it, either.

-- Doug (douglasjohnson@prodigy.net), May 18, 1999.

Besides which, the seats in MOST cars are NOT designed to add the helmet distance to the back of your head. The position required to use the helmet in "normal" cars WILL cause neck strain, and a criminal inability to see. Or at least that was my experience in the Honda's that Mid-Ohio School uses for competition driver's school.

Chuck

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 18, 1999.

Decker needs to read this if he's really an investor.

-- (not@jaded.yet), May 18, 1999.

decker, you're right - you should challenge your intellectual integrity when you place something as relatively low risk as riding a motorcycle up against something which had world wide ramifications. The distortion is obvious. By the way, are you writing for a group now? If not, your use of the first person plural makes no sense.

Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 18, 1999.

WHAt????? aRE YoU TeLLinG DIetER THaT SOmE PEopLE DO'nT WEaR THeM EVeRYwhERe tHEy gO?????? IDioTS!!!!! diETeR WEaRS HiS ALwaYS, DOeS HE Not?????? iN The shoWEr?????? OF couRSE jaCKALs!!!!! evEN THOugH DIetER's HELmeT MakeS IT TOUgh fOr diETER tO SEe otHErS ABovE THe neCKLIne, hE IS NevER WIthOUt iT!!!!! whY????? BecAUsE YOu Are ALL CraZy!!!!! LAugHINg at DIetER ALWayS!!!!! JACkassES!!!!

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), May 19, 1999.

this entire arguement doesn't make sense. why don't we apply the risk of y2k to jay walking, or sky diving or how about taking a long walk off of a short pier.

you wear a motorcycle helmet to "PREPARE YOURSELF" for the possible contingency of being a sticky wet grease spot on the free way.

preparing for y2k is more like buying insurance. do you get the whole package, fire, earthquake, flood ect. ect. Or do you just go with the basics, or go uninsured.

i think that having a bit of food and provisions in the basement is excellent insurance against and unforseen catastrophy. does that mena i go around worrying about all of the possible problems that could happen in life? Some people do and some people don't.

every one has their own level of risk to which they are comfortable with. i don't think its fair to ctiticize someone because they have a lower risk level.

-- t hokanson (hokan@teleport.com), May 19, 1999.

Oh, Decker, you are such a clever troll. Such puff to get such feedback. (sigh) Ok, lets see if we can take your stupid analogy and re-state it in terms of Y2K.

IF you had no choice but to be driving on a road at an appointed date and time, and IF you also had convincing evidence that you would have a head-on collision with a truck at the appointed date and time, then YES, most sensible people would opt to wear a helmet, seat belts, stuff their auto with cushions, bring first-aid supplies, etc., etc.

Now, go back under your bridge and think of something else equally banal. (Nothing personal, I just detest trolls...._

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), May 19, 1999.

I prefer to look at the realistic actions I might take to mitigate the potential risks of dying in an automobile accident. As Chuck pointed out, vehicles in general are not designed for the occupants to wear protective head gear.

1. I purchase quality tires designed for the type of driving I due.

2. My car has dual airbags. This was a 'must-have' when I last purchased a new car.

3. I trained myself to check my mirrors often - head on a swivel, so to speak.

4. I concentrate on noting the driving habits of others when in a dense traffic situation.

5. I always wear my seatbelt.

I think I've made my point. The above are PRUDENT actions which reduce the chances of a fatal accident. If & when vehicles are designed for the use of protective head gear, I'll consider using it.

I've applied the same prudence to my Y2K preparations. Research, logic, intuition, action.

Thank you for your time.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 19, 1999.

PEOPLE ARE JUST NOT UNDERSTANDING THE CERTAIN DANGERS OF Y2K.

IT'S LIKE STANDING ON A SET OF RAILROAD TRACKS THAT YOU KNOW THE TIME AND DAY IT WILL HIT. I JUST WANT TO GET ON ANOTHER SET OF TRACKS WHERE THE TIME AND DATE IS NOT SO CERTAIN.

YES, THERE IS NO UNCERTAINTY ABOUT Y2K, I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE CAN'T JUST TRY TO GET OFF THE TRAIN TRACKS THAT WILL HIT THEM HEAD ON.

THIS IS NO GAME, YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON YOUR CHOICES.

THANK YOU

-- Arthur Washington (ARTWASH@webtv.net), May 19, 1999.

ANOTHER POINT, IF I KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT I AM GOING TO HAVE A CAR ACCIDENT AT A CERTAIN TIME AND PLACE. MY FIRST ACTION WOULD BE TO NOT BE IN THE CAR ON THE DATE AND TIME, THE OTHER I'D WEAR A HELMET AND PRAY FOR THE BEST.

-- Arthur Washington (ARTWASH@webtv.net), May 19, 1999.

Yes, I wear a helmit when I ride my bicycle.

No, I don't wear one when I ride my Harley.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), May 19, 1999.

What utter twaddle.

I always wear a helmet (full face, with visor) when reading any of double-decker's posts as invariably I end up banging my head against the nearest wall.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 19, 1999.

Decker,

This argument was raised and discarded about year ago. Your analogy is not apt and therefore reasoning from that premise is specious.

Both the stakes and the odds of an auto fatality are approximately known to most drivers. Though the stakes are uniformly high (death), the odds of a driver encountering his own mortality on a day-to-day basis are practically zero, even for relatively reckless drivers.

It's not difficult to imagine the stakes among the various Y2k outcome scenarios, some of which may involve the death of oneself or one's dependants. However, unlike the huge body of automobile fatality statistics, decades of Y2k-like millennial rollover event statistics do not exist. The stakes may be high. The odds are truly unknown. Hence, the prudence of wearing one's "Y2k helmet", if one so desires.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), May 19, 1999.

First, there is absolutely no guarantee we will have Y2K problems requiring ANY level of personal preparation. [The "convincing" evidence has yet to convince more than a small percentage of the population.] Y2K is just "guesstimating," folks. So, comparing Y2K to leaving the house "knowing" you will have an accident or standing on train tracks is simply spurious. (Did I mention that most people drive far more frequency than transition to a new millennium?)

Second, you must know, Chuck, that you can buy racing seats WITH five point safety harnesses for stock vehicles. (But that isn't really the point, is it?)

Third, I am not suggesting we "compare" Y2K to all other risks. I am saying that some "preparation" advocates probably don't wear helmets while driving to work. In fact, I imagine some routinely speed and engage in other unsafe behaviors. Why should we (meaning the readers of this forum) worry more about a single event risk (Y2K) than a daily, recurrent, provable risk?

Fourth, Bingo, my point exactly! But when you ask people about "reasonable" preparations for Y2K the answers range from the automobile equivalent of good tires to Amored Personnel Carrier. So, why don't I pass a Bradley or two on the commute to work? Just my opinion, but people don't take the risk of driving seriously because it is familiar. Y2K is "scarier" because it is not a routine risk.

Sorry, Nathan, but I disagree. Both Y2K and driving involve risk. While the odds of dying on a single trip are low, it is a recurrent risk. While I use traffic fatalities, even nonfatal accidents create many terrible injuries. The cumulative risk of driving can be compared to the single event risk of Y2K. Risk is risk.

My point is simple. We routinely engage in risky behavior where we do not know the odds (ask ten people what the traffic fatality rate per million miles traveled is). People rock climb, bungee jump, scuba dive... all "risky" behaviors and very few ever pick up a statistical abstract. Like the Mad Monk, they simply decide not to wear a helmet while riding a motorcyle. Our reaction to risk is often based on perception rather than reality. In my opinion, the same is true for Y2K.

With the increasingly positive reports from the "iron triangle," the odds (if you decide to calculate them), are running against the "worst case" scenario. We are not out of the woods on a serious economic downturn... but many of the preparations discussed on this forum have little to do with surviving a recession.

The respected Mr. Yardeni puts the risk of economic depression at 5%. (Personally, I'd say 1%). Economic and social collapse is a subset of the depression "guesstimate." I imagine Yardeni might but it as much less than one percent. Now, within a single event with let's say a .01 percent of occuring... what are the odds you personally will be killed or injured? Now, of those people killed, how many might have been saved by Y2K preparation? (Because in the worst case scenario, people will die for all sorts of reason, some having nothing to do with preparations.) So, we are primarily talking about the people who will avoid death by dehydration, exposure or starvation. Perhaps, Nathan, you can provide some numbers so we can calculate the odds?

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 19, 1999.

Sorry, sir, but on this one you have made a minor OOOPs. the KNOWABLE probability of an accident is, as Nathan points out, vanishingly small, while recursive. the probability you quote for Mr. Yardeni of 5% for a depression is CONSIDERABLY higher than that of an accident, by a couple orders of magnitude. The "prudent preps" most of us have adopted will serve QUITE WELL in the higher probability depression.

PS The Honda's we used have the 5 point straps but the stock seats. YUCK! They were (are) essentially SCCA Showroom Stock (oh, what, "C" in the old classification) with the usual adjustments for SS (roll cage, straps, window net. My 5'5" frame and the seats and hemlets did NOT work together. BUT, what I learned DID happen to save my life last January.

Chuck

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 19, 1999.

Sounds like all or nothing thinking to me. Go all out for Y2K and ignore all other risks? No way. As far as driving a car is concerned, I resist speeding, wear a seatbelt, don't drive under the influence, and sit behind the wheel of a Vovlo 240 wagon. We wear helmets when riding bikes. We only venture into the water because we know how to swim. We lock our doors at night.

Sure, bad things can happen, but I look at Y2k with the same assessment and prudence I apply to everything else in life. Yes, I planted a big vegetable garden so that we can supply more of our own food, but I also planted a flower garden for the pure enjoyment of the flowers.

Moderation, Mr. Decker.

-- Jill (jdance@mindspring.com), May 19, 1999.

Don't half of all traffic fatalities involve drunk drivers? They weren't prepared to drive: they were drunk. One can 'prepare' to drive by being sober. Now, I ask: is it 'sober' to prepare for Y2K-driven infrastructure or economic mishaps? Is failing to prepare the equivalent of being drunk?

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), May 19, 1999.

Good Morning Mr. Decker,

I actually do appreciate your post as it helps me clarify why I feel the need to prepare so strongly. By the way, I previously worked for a number of years as an EMT-Ambulance and on a busy rural volunteer fire dept. I worked too many vehicle accidents and the usual cause of death/serious injury IF THEY WERE WEARING SEATBELTS was trauma not just to the head but chest/abdomen as well. Not to say there weren't some who "thumped their melon" but the vast majority of those deaths were riders of motorcycles.

Many people did/do resent seatbelts, airbags, child safety seats, safer vs sportier designs, speed limit laws, etc......but the laws allow enforcement of these things. There are no laws to force people to be responsible for themselves and to make prudent preparations for them and their families. Personally I think there are too many laws already so am not advocating more. I just am pointing out that typical human nature is to go happily along until disaster strikes.

I don't believe you can measure the potential risk of Y2k by the reactions of the masses. I prefer to consider materials such as the recent CAP Gemini survey results as well as the results of researching the status of my local government/services - YIKES!

-- Kristi (securx@Succeed.Net), May 19, 1999.

With Y2K, the risk factors are not singular. They are not isolated events, but will aggravate and propagate. The reason is clear. It is a spider web of activity out there. Y2K will break into the web, disconnect connections...at what point will the disconnecting become critical? you can conjur up all sorts of scenarios...some good, some ho-hum...but the inner self senses a foreboding....

-- rick shade (Rickoshade@aol.com), May 19, 1999.

I have to agree with Mr Decker on this one, at least to a degree. We drive our cars everyday, many times at speeds of 60-70 MPH. An accident at those speeds can have an effect on your life that could make Y2K seem like a holiday. (depending on how Y2K plays out, of course) But we do it every day with nary a thought to the horrors of what could happen, or if we think about it I doubt that many of us dwell on it, else we would be too frightened to drive.

Y2K is scary precisely because of the FUD factor, nobody can tell us with any real authority what the outcome would be. So the FUD factor causes us to pay close attention, and to prepare (wisely, I think) for our own best assesment of what may lie ahead.

Also, think of what it would be like today if the auto was a new invention.

Inventor: "Well, we just invented this contraption that wieghs about two tons, and can go 100 MPH or more, and we are going to turn them over to teenagers and let them loose!"

Lawyer: "Not without a helmet you aren't!"

Cheers,

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 20, 1999.