todays guardian (saturday)- free 100 page guide to cycling

thedudeinthehat said:

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/guides/cycling/0,,2020192,00.html

also online- enjoy

Score 2/3 for this paragraph:

FLASH THE CASH
Spend to the hilt of your budget. The point of buying as high as you
dare is that the better the bike, the greater the pleasure it will
bring you. The greater the joy, the more you'll want to use it. But
remember also what safety and security accessories you need (starting
with lights, helmet and a lock or two).

Tom Crispin said:

Score 2/3 for this paragraph:

FLASH THE CASH
Spend to the hilt of your budget. The point of buying as high as you
dare is that the better the bike, the greater the pleasure it will
bring you. The greater the joy, the more you'll want to use it. But
remember also what safety and security accessories you need (starting
with lights, helmet and a lock or two).

There's a whole section devoted to 'the great debate' which is very well
balanced.

"Tom Crispin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

thedudeinthehat said:

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/guides/cycling/0,,2020192,00.html

also online- enjoy

Score 2/3 for this paragraph:

FLASH THE CASH
Spend to the hilt of your budget. The point of buying as high as you
dare is that the better the bike, the greater the pleasure it will
bring you. The greater the joy, the more you'll want to use it. But
remember also what safety and security accessories you need (starting
with lights, helmet and a lock or two).

I wondered when someone was going to spot that.

thedudeinthehat said:

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/guides/cycling/0,,2020192,00.html

also online- enjoy

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3xspgx

Why is Jon Snow CTC president ?

"I have concluded that one is nearly killed on a bike, whether one knows it
or not, three or four times a week."

Nearly must mean at least 1:10 chance, so why isn't he dead yet and still
banging on about how dangerous he thinks cycling is?

Shouldn't the CTC president learn how to ride properly?

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"AndyMorris" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3xspgx

Why is Jon Snow CTC president ?

"I have concluded that one is nearly killed on a bike, whether one knows
it or not, three or four times a week."

Nearly must mean at least 1:10 chance, so why isn't he dead yet and still
banging on about how dangerous he thinks cycling is?

Shouldn't the CTC president learn how to ride properly?

http://bikereader.com/forum/index.php?topic=30137.0
http://www.cyclingplus.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=123194
http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=4755

Señor Chris said:

There's a whole section devoted to 'the great debate' which is very well
balanced.

Not from where I'm sitting, though I admit it's better than most. And
Bikeability is not supposed to be saying what the article says it's
saying.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

AndyMorris wondered:

Quoted message said:

Why is Jon Snow CTC president ?

That's something that CTC doesn't seem to want to explain to the membership.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Colin McKenzie said:

Señor Chris said:

There's a whole section devoted to 'the great debate' which is very well
balanced.

Not from where I'm sitting, though I admit it's better than most. And
Bikeability is not supposed to be saying what the article says it's
saying.

I noticed that too.

National Standard in Cycle Training 2S:
Demonstrate understanding of safety equipment and clothing

Have you read the Provisional Bikeability Accreditation document?

If so, what do you make of it?

Señor Chris said:

There's a whole section devoted to 'the great debate' which is very well
balanced.

Except it utterly fails to mention the helmet sceptics who wonder
why an activity that's similarly safe to utility driving and being
a pedestrian has any particular need for a crash helmet, or people
going on about how vital they are.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Señor Chris" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Crispin said:

Score 2/3 for this paragraph:

FLASH THE CASH
Spend to the hilt of your budget. The point of buying as high as you
dare is that the better the bike, the greater the pleasure it will
bring you. The greater the joy, the more you'll want to use it. But
remember also what safety and security accessories you need (starting
with lights, helmet and a lock or two).

There's a whole section devoted to 'the great debate' which is very well
balanced.

Actually rather shallow and poorly researched. About all you can say for it
is that it isn't as bad as most articles about cycle helmets.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 840 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

burt said:

"Señor Chris" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There's a whole section devoted to 'the great debate' which is very well
balanced.

Actually rather shallow and poorly researched. About all you can say for it
is that it isn't as bad as most articles about cycle helmets.

<snip spam>

Which is why I said 'balanced'...

Peter Clinch said:

Señor Chris said:

There's a whole section devoted to 'the great debate' which is very
well balanced.

Except it utterly fails to mention the helmet sceptics who wonder why an
activity that's similarly safe to utility driving and being a pedestrian
has any particular need for a crash helmet, or people going on about how
vital they are.

Pete.

And it utterly failed to mention the usual BShite propaganda which was
why I thought it well balanced.

burt said:

"Señor Chris" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Crispin wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Score 2/3 for this paragraph:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

FLASH THE CASH
Spend to the hilt of your budget. The point of buying as high as you
dare is that the better the bike, the greater the pleasure it will
bring you. The greater the joy, the more you'll want to use it. But
remember also what safety and security accessories you need (starting
with lights, helmet and a lock or two).

Quoted message said:

There's a whole section devoted to 'the great debate' which is very well
balanced.

Actually rather shallow and poorly researched. About all you can say forit
is that it isn't as bad as most articles about cycle helmets.

I was rather surprised to see that Canada has a helmet law. Some
provinces do but not all. In my province the law only applies to
riders under the age of 18a nd as far as I can see almost no one under
18 pays the law the slightest bit of attention.

Did not the Northern Territory (Au) repeal their helmet law?

A little more accuracy would be nice.

burt said:

Quoted message said:

There's a whole section devoted to 'the great debate' which is very well
balanced.

I thought it was a reasonable and balanced intro to the debate. After all,
it had to fit in a few hundred words!

I think we should write to the Guardian and congratulate them - people
are quick enough to moan when the usual stuff gets trotted out so
we give praise where praise is due.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
The struggle of people against power is the struggle
of memory against forgetting - Milan Kundera

Arthur Clune said:

I thought it was a reasonable and balanced intro to the debate. After all,
it had to fit in a few hundred words!

You're joking, right? The anti-compulsion (or "anti-helmet" as they
unhelpfully call it) arguments are so cautiously and grudgingly presented
that it's cringeworthy, whereas unsubstantiated opinion in the pro-helmet
section is blindly accepted as fact. Plus which there are glaring factual
errors (e.g. "if you want to compete in an organised cycling event, you
must wear one"😉.

I'm all for balanced debate, but this certainly isn't it. About the only
good thing in the article is the link to cyclehelmets.org.

Anthony

On Mar 3, 10:13 am, "thedudeinthehat" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/guides/cycling/0,,2020192,00.html

also online- enjoy

I was disappointed to see that All of Matt's utility bikes did not
include mudguards or luggage racks or even mention of the fact that
since they are hard to find as standard even on utility type bikes,
that you need to budget for them.

It also seems hard to credit that he doesn't know the difference
between roller and disk brakes or single speed and fixed.

best wishes
james

Anthony Jones said:

You're joking, right?

No. If you want to get people on side, some positive feedback is good.

Quoted message said:

The anti-compulsion (or "anti-helmet" as they
unhelpfully call it) arguments are so cautiously and grudgingly presented
that it's cringeworthy, whereas unsubstantiated opinion in the pro-helmet
section is blindly accepted as fact.

I didn't feel this. Yes, the anti case could have been made more strongly
but I'd say this will do a good job of getting people thinking and giving
them somewhere to look for further details.

It might not be perfect, but it's a damm sight better than most, and
that's why we should praise it.

I'm left in mind of the last vaguely anti helmet piece that was printed
in the national press where someone then wrote back saying the journalist
concerned was a 'damm fool' (or words to that effect). If I was that
journalist, I know how I'd respond and how I'd write in future.

[see urc passim]

Remember that many people will feel they are sticking their neck out
by making these arguements. They need support, not attacking for some
mythical idea of perfection that hasn't been reached.

Quoted message said:

Plus which there are glaring factual
errors (e.g. "if you want to compete in an organised cycling event, you
must wear one"😉.

I'd say that's near enough true. All TLI and BCF road races require one,
all sportifives I've seen recently do, and it's even getting very common
in TT's ('Hard shell helmet required' is seen more and more). Certainly
I'd say it's near enough to be going.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
The struggle of people against power is the struggle
of memory against forgetting - Milan Kundera

(Arthur Clune) said:

('Hard shell helmet required' is seen more and more).

I've noticed this too. I though hard-shell helmets were no longer
widely available. I thought everything was micro-shell these days.

Brendan
--
Brendan Halpin, Department of Sociology, University of Limerick, Ireland
Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h +353-61-338562; Room F2-025 x 3147
[email hidden] http://www.ul.ie/sociology/brendan.halpin.html

Arthur Clune said:

I didn't feel this. Yes, the anti case could have been made more strongly
but I'd say this will do a good job of getting people thinking and giving
them somewhere to look for further details.

It might not be perfect, but it's a damm sight better than most, and
that's why we should praise it.

Up to a point. And I don't think missing the point of the
helmet-sceptic "why do we need these things anyway when cycling is
similarly safe to things we wouldn't dream of wearing crash helmets for"
case pretty much /altogether/ allows me to get very praiseworthy about it.

Quoted message said:

Remember that many people will feel they are sticking their neck out
by making these arguements. They need support, not attacking for some
mythical idea of perfection that hasn't been reached.

Though in this case the journo concerned wasn't really saying much
herself in the way of making arguments, just reporting a rather detached
view without most of the h-sceptic view represented at all. Except
where kids were concerned, and then it wasn't very controversial at all
to get them wearing things they don't need and are unlikely to do them
any good.

The most praise I'm going to give here is "I've seen worse, must try
harder, 4/10".

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/