Mom and guy on rope are wearing helmets, but baby is not ... because?
Gob wrote:
Peter Cornall, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accident's head of leisure safety, backed Menna, saying that experiencing these types of activities could benefit her daughter in the long run.
He told MailOnline: 'Although we cannot comment on the precise conditions on the day, the route photographed appears to a simple straight forward short climb and so if the mother and child got into difficulties they could be lowered off easily by the belayer.
'Outdoor and adventurous activities are a great way of learning about safety and getting children involved at an early age will improve their understanding of hazard and risk later in life.'
He added that despite the child not wearing a helmet, it would be unlikely to prevent serious injury in any case.
He said: 'We would ideally recommend wearing a helmet, but it is not going to stop you having an accident and it is not going to give a great deal of protection if you are struck by a large rock fall, fall a significant height, or swing into a rock face.'
So in other words, according to the "Royal Society for the Prevention of Accident's head of leisure safety" (a position he apparently qualified for because of his intimate personal acquaintance with the affects of head injuries) the child doesn't need a helmet because it would do her no good in terms of protecting her from the injuries she could sustain from this 100% safe activity....
In the long run, the risk of danger to this child is far less certain than the risk of danger facing the millions of kids being raised to be junk-eating sofa spud TV addicts.
That's a deeply flawed comparison, because of the asymmetric nature of the dangers....
"In the long run the risk of danger" to a person smoking three packs of cigarettes a day for twenty years is greater than the risk of riding a motorcycle without a helmet , drunk, down the highway at 90 MPH for a relatively limited period of time....
That doesn't make the latter an acceptably safe activity....
Lord Jim wrote:That's a deeply flawed comparison, because of the asymmetric nature of the dangers....
"In the long run the risk of danger" to a person smoking three packs of cigarettes a day for twenty years is greater than the risk of riding a motorcycle without a helmet , drunk, down the highway at 90 MPH for a relatively limited period of time....
That doesn't make the latter an acceptably safe activity....
Typical socialist liberal claptrap from Jim, always wanting to curtail people's liberty, and force state mandated limits of behaviour on us!
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
falling (even on a toprope) with the weight behind her back could result in her swinging, spinning, and hitting the rock with her back -- where the kid happens to be tied up.
Falling anywhere with a baby on your back could result in this or worse. Should we ban baby back carriers?
LMAO - I'm sure that you cringed when you read that one back mate...
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Damn, and they crucified Micheal for dangling his baby over a much lower balcony; and Irwin for walking his babe with crocs... at sea level, and they were professionals!
Why would an average adrenaline junkie get a pass?
The Extremely Severe grade is subdivided in an open-ended fashion into E1 (easiest), E2, E3 and so on. As of 2006 the hardest climb is graded E11:
Slabs are rock faces that are angled less than vertical or 90 degrees. Slabs usually are angled between 45 and 75 degrees. Many cliffs offer slab routes and these are ideal for beginner and novice climbers to learn the basics of climbing movement, like keeping your weight over your feet.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
There would be no chance of that happening. Believe me on this, that is a trade route, on a limestones slab, and would be climbed by hundreds of people each summer, any loose rock would have fallen years ago.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
My point exactly -- the adults are wearing helmets, because they must or because its safer to climb doing so. The baby isn't wearing a helmet, because there aren't any for babies, because BABIES DON'T CLIMB. One small rock on that softer more malleable skull, and the child could be doomed for life. Far to big a risk for any intelligent parent to take.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
The Hen wrote:
If she was required to through legislation, then why wasnt the child?
She isn't.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Guinevere wrote:because there aren't any for babies, because BABIES DON'T CLIMB.
Babies don't ride on mother's backs, don't cross busy roads, don't do many things, which in a mother's backpack they may.
One small rock on that softer more malleable skull, and the child could be doomed for life. Far to big a risk for any intelligent parent to take.
Walking down the any road, a slate may slip off a roof and carve the baby's head in half, why are helmets not mandatory for walking babies down the road? (This scenario is about as likely as rock fall on that route.)
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
The question is not whether helmets are mandatory. The question is why she feels the need to protect her own head with a helmet while climbing, but not her child's. Clearly, she believes there to be some appreciable risk of head injury, else she would have dispensed with her own helmet. And since she believes it to be sufficiently unsafe to require a helmet on her own head, then she should put a helmet on her child's head, else the child should not be with her.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
Or maybe it was just an automatic reflex from when she climbs hard and unsafe climbs, like putting your seatbelt on when you get in a car. Most climbers and adventure sports people do things like that, it becomes almost like a ritual.
I remember picking up my paraglider and kiting it just to lay it out to fold it away one day. I suddenly felt naked. then I realised that I hadn't put my helmet on, as I wasn't going to fly it.
Same thing here, going to climb, pop my helmet on.
Trust me on this, there is no possibility of loose rock on that cliff.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
