if cycling could be

It has NOTHING to do with helmets and everything to do with even the
police pushing cyclists off of the road with motor vehicles.

Start jailing those who threaten cyclists with vehicles and you'd see a
large increase in cycle commuting.

iguana wrote:
> if cycling could be made into the transport of the people
> again as it should be instead of just the helmet wearing subset there
> would be a stronger push for your better facilities. Too many people
> have been discouraged and alienated from cycling because they are
> adverse to wearing a helmet, There is no evidence that the law has
> worked in preventing injury so it should be reviewed, but the
> Government refuses to. That's while we should fight over it.

You may be *intending* to start a flame war, but you probably have!

Personally, I can't imagine anybody saying "gee, I'd love to use my
bicycle for daily transportation, if only I didn't need to wear a
helmet."

Cheers!

Josh

Per Josh Hassol:
>Personally, I can't imagine anybody saying "gee, I'd love to use my
>bicycle for daily transportation, if only I didn't need to wear a
>helmet."

I could be one.... but then when I don't feel like it, I just don't wear the
thing...
--
PeteCresswell

Other than NY state, where else is a a helmet required by law, for
adult cyclists?

No, Tom, it's not just about cagers attacking bicyclists. It's about
selfish people.

It's about people who use the sidewalks for their own personal
expressway. And people who ignore traffic control, like one way
streets, stop lines, stop signs, and traffic lights. And people who
believe in "sharing the road", ie passing the other vehicles in 6" or
free lane, but then believe in "taking the lane" when they get in front
of everybody.

One of the advantages of using bicycles is that it takes up less space.
"One less car". But when we ride along 2 or 3 abreast, just so we can
chat, and block the other traffic, the cagers see us as time wasting
twits. That's what causes road rage, and that's why some of them like
to run us off the road.

Granted, there are a few bicyclists who believe in observing the laws
of the road. But the ones who don't are the ones who are most visible.
They're the ones who make the public think that we're a bunch of
anarchists.

bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> Other than NY state, where else is a a helmet required by law, for
> adult cyclists?

Lots of individual cities and some larger municipalities. King county
here in Washington state has such a law.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
You are never given a wish without also being given the
power to make it true. You may have to work for it, however.
-- R. Bach, "Messiah's Handbook : Reminders for the Advanced Soul"

On 20 Apr 2006 10:27:00 -0700, "bill" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Other than NY state, where else is a a helmet required by law, for
>adult cyclists?

I live in NY and do not believe that a helmet is required for adults.
14 and younger, yes.

Dane Buson wrote:
> bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Other than NY state, where else is a a helmet required by law, for
> > adult cyclists?
>
> Lots of individual cities and some larger municipalities. King county
> here in Washington state has such a law.
>

I find it *more* than ironic that simultaneous with the proliferation
of bicycle helmet laws, we have motorcycle helmet laws being rescinded,
e.g. Pennsylvania.

The helmet law is such a lot of overbearing government rubbish--it
isn't meant to "protect" you--it is meant to control you.

dgk wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2006 10:27:00 -0700, "bill" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Other than NY state, where else is a a helmet required by law, for
> >adult cyclists?
>
> I live in NY and do not believe that a helmet is required for adults.
> 14 and younger, yes.

OK; that is like Connecticut. Frankly, if it ever comes to a helmet
law, they can arrest me all they want; I'll wear one when I feel it is
a good idea, not all the time. If I felt that I truly needed a helmet
for safety *all the time* then I would also have to believe that I
would need one for walking, or jogging, or playing tennis, or anything
else other than watching television--heck even that is dangerous--you
never know when someone might throw the remote at you!.

Strap me down and intubate me already--I must be a danger to myself,
thinking that I might actually have some *control* of my coordination
and the right to make my own safety choices.

bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The helmet law is such a lot of overbearing government rubbish--it
> isn't meant to "protect" you--it is meant to control you.

I don't really see any villany in it. They simply erroneously believe
that mandatory bicycle helmets will save lives.

Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by
incompetence.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
A recent study has found that concentrating on difficult off-screen
objects, such as the faces of loved ones, causes eye strain in computer
scientists. Researchers into the phenomenon cite the added concentration
needed to "make sense" of such unnatural three dimensional objects.

Len wrote:
....
> One of the advantages of using bicycles is that it takes up less space.
> "One less car". But when we ride along 2 or 3 abreast, just so we can
> chat, and block the other traffic, the cagers see us as time wasting
> twits.
....
KSA 8-1590. (c) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride
more than two abreast, except on paths or parts of roadways set aside
for the exclusive use of bicycles.

Perhaps it's down to their sheer ignorance of the law. I wonder if
these cagers also see the following people as time wasting twits:

motorists who drive alone past their co-workers' homes;
motorists who drive alone past their neighbors' workplaces;
people who drive to restaurants, ball games, theaters, book shops;
people who drive less than a mile to work, shop or school;
the oncoming traffic which is the true cause of their inability to pass
2-up cyclists;

all of which contribute to delaying me waaaaaaay more often and for
longer at a time than any cyclist or group of cyclists anywhere,
anytime.

Because if they don't, then you must certainly agree that there is no
justification for their road rage toward cyclists in any case.

Not that you think there is.

Of course, if you agree that each person should only be allowed the
right-most 50cm of the lane, right up against the white line, then how
are we to drive our cars?

E

Len wrote:

> Granted, there are a few bicyclists who believe in observing the laws
> of the road. But the ones who don't are the ones who are most visible.
> They're the ones who make the public think that we're a bunch of
> anarchists.
>

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Josh Hassol wrote:
> iguana wrote:
> > if cycling could be made into the transport of the people
> > again as it should be instead of just the helmet wearing subset there
> > would be a stronger push for your better facilities. Too many people
> > have been discouraged and alienated from cycling because they are
> > adverse to wearing a helmet, There is no evidence that the law has
> > worked in preventing injury so it should be reviewed, but the
> > Government refuses to. That's while we should fight over it.
>
> You may be *intending* to start a flame war, but you probably have!
>
> Personally, I can't imagine anybody saying "gee, I'd love to use my
> bicycle for daily transportation, if only I didn't need to wear a
> helmet."
>
> Cheers!
>
> Josh

>From what I understand having read about various studies that have been
conducted on this subject, the strong pro-helmet push does just that,
discourages cycling. Seems that it's not so much that some people
don't want to wear a helmet, it's that they don't want to do something
so dangerous that they need a helmet. If cycling's that dangerous,
they won't do it.

The problem is, cycling's not that dangerous and helmets don't really
help (yea, yea... spare me the anecdotal evidence, statistically
speaking helmets do not reduce the incidence of head injuries across
the general population of cyclists).

But, the chicken little approach, proclaiming near-certain death if you
don't wear a helmet, has many people convinced that cycling is an
inherently dangerous activity, while in fact it is a very safe
activity.

I wish I'd kept a particular article, but didn't. Anyway, I believe it
was in Cycle Sport and it addressed Great Britain's recent decision to
stop pushing the pro-helmet agenda as they found that the general
negative affect of having fewer people cycling outweighed any positive
benefit that might be gained by increased helmet use. They'd rather
have more people, with or without helmets, on bikes than fewer people,
all with helmets.

Eric S wrote:
> Len wrote:
> ...
> > One of the advantages of using bicycles is that it takes up less space.
> > "One less car". But when we ride along 2 or 3 abreast, just so we can
> > chat, and block the other traffic, the cagers see us as time wasting
> > twits.
> ...
> KSA 8-1590. (c) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride
> more than two abreast, except on paths or parts of roadways set aside
> for the exclusive use of bicycles.
>
> Perhaps it's down to their sheer ignorance of the law. I wonder if
> these cagers also see the following people as time wasting twits:
>
> motorists who drive alone past their co-workers' homes;
> motorists who drive alone past their neighbors' workplaces;
> people who drive to restaurants, ball games, theaters, book shops;
> people who drive less than a mile to work, shop or school;
> the oncoming traffic which is the true cause of their inability to pass
> 2-up cyclists;
>
> all of which contribute to delaying me waaaaaaay more often and for
> longer at a time than any cyclist or group of cyclists anywhere,
> anytime.
>
> Because if they don't, then you must certainly agree that there is no
> justification for their road rage toward cyclists in any case.
>
> Not that you think there is.
>
> Of course, if you agree that each person should only be allowed the
> right-most 50cm of the lane, right up against the white line, then how
> are we to drive our cars?

Well, when I'm in my cage, I don't drive it in the right most 50 cm
lane and pass folks on the right.

And when I'm cycling, I don't selectively pass folks on the right (in
that 50 cm lane) then block them from passing me on the left in the
other 255 centimeters. That's almost the same as giving them a one
finger salute. And I don't agree with road rage (DUH) but I do
understand that, if we don't clean up our act, some of us will end up
victims. Whether we're in the right or not.

And whether we agree with the individual use of the cages, we shouldn't
use our lack of agreement as an excuse for the shite we pull.

We have to be consistent in traffic, if we expect for the rest of the
traffic to see us as legitimate. If I expect for the cager in front of
me to automatically yield that 50 cm when I want it, I expect to yield
the 255 centimeters to him when he wants it. That's consistency, and
courtesy. Inconsistency yields road rage.

Their vehicles are bigger, and can hurt me more. I could be right, but
dead.

Josh Hassol wrote:
> iguana wrote:
> > if cycling could be made into the transport of the people
> > again as it should be instead of just the helmet wearing subset there
> > would be a stronger push for your better facilities. Too many people
> > have been discouraged and alienated from cycling because they are
> > adverse to wearing a helmet, There is no evidence that the law has
> > worked in preventing injury so it should be reviewed, but the
> > Government refuses to. That's while we should fight over it.
>
> You may be *intending* to start a flame war,

flame war here that would be new.

In ba.bicycles Len <[email protected]> wrote:

> And people who believe in "sharing the road", ie passing the other
> vehicles in 6" or free lane, but then believe in "taking the lane" when
> they get in front of everybody.

I suspect the author of this comment doesn't ride his bike in city traffic.

I do this all the time, but I can see how motorists might think this is
inconsistent. I pass motorists on the right (at walking pace) when they're
stopped or moving very slowly and not about to turn right in front of me.
As a bicyclist, I feel assaulted when a motorist passes me within inches in
a narrow (substandard width) lane at a speed differential greater than
walking pace (3 mph). In both cases the hazard is to the cyclist not the
motorist. The first case the cyclist can control the hazard, the second
case he cannot except by positioning himself in the center of the lane.

--
Bill Bushnell
http://pobox.com/~bushnell/

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:50:28 -0700, Dane Buson <[email protected]> wrote:

>bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> The helmet law is such a lot of overbearing government rubbish--it
>> isn't meant to "protect" you--it is meant to control you.
>
>I don't really see any villany in it. They simply erroneously believe
>that mandatory bicycle helmets will save lives.
>
>Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by
>incompetence.

I'll second that.

Though it is pretty hard to not resent the self-inflated bastards who think they
know better than you how you should care for yourself.

Ron

bill wrote:
> Other than NY state, where else is a a helmet required by law, for
> adult cyclists?

Helmets are required for _all_ cyclists in New Zealand, most of
Australia, most of Spain, a few other European countries (Iceland and
the Czech Republic, IIRC) and in at least 30 cities and counties in the
US.

And of course, helmets are requried for kids in many more places.

Absolutely ludicrous.

- Frank Krygowski

Josh Hassol wrote:
>
> Personally, I can't imagine anybody saying "gee, I'd love to use my
> bicycle for daily transportation, if only I didn't need to wear a
> helmet."

That's just a failure of imagination.

When helmets were mandated in the Australian states, cycling nosedived.
When telephone polls were conducted to find out why, people responded
that it was because of the helmet laws. They gave up cycling rather
than wear helmets.

On average, people really don't like the things. People correctly
judge that they're not sufficiently valuable, and that they don't want
to wear them. That's why helmet promoters turn to mandatory helmet
legislation.

"We know better than you what's good for you. And - since the nice
people at Snell gave us this lobbying money - we'd rather have you stop
cycling than ride without our special hat."

- Frank Krygowski