Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling



On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:44:58 -0000, Mike Latondresse
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I agree with Tom having cycle commuted in Vancouver for in excess of 15
>years, I have seen a significant increase in cyclist during my daily
>commute...once I was alone and now I am many.


Uh, huh, and next you scream, "I AM LEGION".

Curtis L. Russell
If I could cast out demons, there would be a lot fewer people on
Usenet
 
The main thing is to live up to your own lights, and
look after your own skin. And respect others' rights
to do the same in their own ways.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I do and I follow the law but still get dissed because of the other DA's
breaking all the rules. There are no statistics but why else do bikers
all get lumped into the lawbreakers group or causing drivers just to act so
abnormally when you just want to follow the rules. Like they just saw a
ghost.
If they making their own rules like riding against you or jumping off the
sidewalk along side you whenever. Even if, I am sure, they all think they
are smarter and have more rights than me when they do not. If you do what
is expected at least you are playing the same game. If you do not, I do not
think you worked enough for my respect.
 
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 02:37:18 -0800, Tom Keats wrote:

> Y'see, I live in a pretty good cycling area, despite being
> inflicted with the MHL. We've already got a good modal share,
> and the City is actively shooting for 10% by 2010 in the
> downtown core.


I hear Victoria is already at 12%, the highest in North America.

Davis, CA used to have that honor, but it has slipped as the
non-student population has grown, and students are cycling less.

Matt O.
 
[email protected] wrote:

> This point has already been made in the thread - Tom was asked if he
> had any facts to support his "belief" that MHL's did not affect
> cycling rates (he doesn't); so it was pointed out that in such a case,
> best practice was to assume it was no different from replicated
> results from other places.


Don't you mean 'other place?'

And anyway I think some might disagree that
such rampant substitution is 'best practice.'

Robert
 
[email protected] wrote:

> Yes, I should have been more clear.
>
> There have been significant drops in cycling in, AFAIK, every
> jurisdiction where it's been possible to perform counts; and in quite
> a few where counts were not specifically done, other evidence has
> indicated significant drops. That's not just NZ, but several
> Australian jurisdictions, a couple Canadian ones, and probably others
> I'm not thinking of.


What citations can you provide other than
Scuffham and Langley?

Robert
 
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:47:01 -0700, frkrygow wrote:

> There have been significant drops in cycling in, AFAIK, every
> jurisdiction where it's been possible to perform counts; and in quite a
> few where counts were not specifically done, other evidence has
> indicated significant drops. That's not just NZ, but several Australian
> jurisdictions, a couple Canadian ones, and probably others I'm not
> thinking of.


I would guess that the overall cultural trend of less cycling dwarfs any
effect of MHLs. The decline in cycling began long before MHLs were being
considered anywhere, in the US or abroad.

So let's concentrate on the *major* reasons people aren't cycling.

Matt O.
 
Matt O'Toole wrote:

> I would guess that the overall cultural trend of less cycling dwarfs any
> effect of MHLs. The decline in cycling began long before MHLs were being
> considered anywhere, in the US or abroad.
>
> So let's concentrate on the *major* reasons people aren't cycling.


Kids today don't ride nearly as much as they used to.
These days about 1 in 5 cycling fatalities involves a youngster.
Just ten years ago that ratio was about 1 in 3. The
cycling population is aging rapidly and precipitously.

Robert
 
On Mar 23, 2:52 pm, Matt O'Toole <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:47:01 -0700, frkrygow wrote:
> > There have been significant drops in cycling in, AFAIK, every
> > jurisdiction where it's been possible to perform counts; and in quite a
> > few where counts were not specifically done, other evidence has
> > indicated significant drops. That's not just NZ, but several Australian
> > jurisdictions, a couple Canadian ones, and probably others I'm not
> > thinking of.

>
> I would guess that the overall cultural trend of less cycling dwarfs any
> effect of MHLs. The decline in cycling began long before MHLs were being
> considered anywhere, in the US or abroad.


Any "cultural trend" is unlikely to cause a step change in cycling at
the exact time a helmet law is introduced. Yet that's what's been
seen over and over, whenever observations have been done.

What else do you know of that causes sudden drops in cycling of over
30%? And why do you think this easily identifiable cause in cycling
reduction should be ignored?

- Frank Krygowski
 
Bill Sornson wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Mar 23, 2:59 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>> Matt O'Toole wrote:
>>>> I would guess that the overall cultural trend of less cycling
>>>> dwarfs any effect of MHLs. The decline in cycling began long
>>>> before MHLs were being considered anywhere, in the US or abroad.
>>>> So let's concentrate on the *major* reasons people aren't cycling.
>>> Kids today don't ride nearly as much as they used to.
>>> These days about 1 in 5 cycling fatalities involves a youngster.
>>> Just ten years ago that ratio was about 1 in 3. The
>>> cycling population is aging rapidly and precipitously.

>
>> And it's likely that a major cause of this trend is the
>> "dangerization" of cycling that's been used to sell helmets!

>
> Oh, horseshit. Parents don't let kids just "go out and play" as much as
> they used to, period. Main reason is all the cable news coverage of child
> molesters and kidnappers; they think it IS a dangerous world out there.
> (And sadly, it often is.)
>
> There's also the "cool factor", and kids prefer skateboards or scruffing
> their feet to pedaling bicycles. Helmets have very little to do with it.
>
>

I sort of go with B.S. on this one since any kid under about 8 has to
have an adult with them these days. News coverage does have a lot to do
with it since a kid might get molested in Maine but it makes the
headlines on the television news. Now all the parents are paranoid about
letting their kids go out alone. As far as cycling goes the current crop
of kids are far more likely to have their bicycles stolen and hence no
riding. It is a different world than I grew up in, for damn sure.
As far as helmets and the cool factor I enforce the helmet wearing when
I take my kids and their friends out for a long (to them) ride, mainly
for legal protection. Around the houses, not a helmet in sight.
Take the case of a kid that rides in front of a semi, helmet or not the
kid is history. It happened to one of my granddaughter's friends a few
years back but was swept under the rug so to speak. Too gross for the news.
Time for the **** tube.
Bill Baka
 
On Mar 23, 2:59 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Matt O'Toole wrote:
> > I would guess that the overall cultural trend of less cycling dwarfs any
> > effect of MHLs. The decline in cycling began long before MHLs were being
> > considered anywhere, in the US or abroad.

>
> > So let's concentrate on the *major* reasons people aren't cycling.

>
> Kids today don't ride nearly as much as they used to.
> These days about 1 in 5 cycling fatalities involves a youngster.
> Just ten years ago that ratio was about 1 in 3. The
> cycling population is aging rapidly and precipitously.


And it's likely that a major cause of this trend is the
"dangerization" of cycling that's been used to sell helmets!

Until about 1990 or so, it was expected that kids would fall off
bikes. It was expected that they might get a scraped knee, then a
band-aid, then go back to riding.

Now, after many years of propaganda, it's expected that they will land
directly on their head and become permanently or fatally brain
injured! The fact that this is vanishingly rare among any cyclists is
carefully hidden. So is the fact that 99+% of such injuries happen
due to other sorts of accidents. It's too important to helmet
promoters to make cycling sound uniquely dangerous.

We shouldn't be surprised that many mommies say "Oh no, my kid isn't
going to ride a bike. It's too dangerous!"

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2:59 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> Matt O'Toole wrote:
>>> I would guess that the overall cultural trend of less cycling
>>> dwarfs any effect of MHLs. The decline in cycling began long
>>> before MHLs were being considered anywhere, in the US or abroad.

>>
>>> So let's concentrate on the *major* reasons people aren't cycling.

>>
>> Kids today don't ride nearly as much as they used to.
>> These days about 1 in 5 cycling fatalities involves a youngster.
>> Just ten years ago that ratio was about 1 in 3. The
>> cycling population is aging rapidly and precipitously.


> And it's likely that a major cause of this trend is the
> "dangerization" of cycling that's been used to sell helmets!


Oh, horseshit. Parents don't let kids just "go out and play" as much as
they used to, period. Main reason is all the cable news coverage of child
molesters and kidnappers; they think it IS a dangerous world out there.
(And sadly, it often is.)

There's also the "cool factor", and kids prefer skateboards or scruffing
their feet to pedaling bicycles. Helmets have very little to do with it.
 
On Mar 23, 7:38 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Mar 23, 2:59 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >> Matt O'Toole wrote:
> >>> I would guess that the overall cultural trend of less cycling
> >>> dwarfs any effect of MHLs. The decline in cycling began long
> >>> before MHLs were being considered anywhere, in the US or abroad.

>
> >>> So let's concentrate on the *major* reasons people aren't cycling.

>
> >> Kids today don't ride nearly as much as they used to.
> >> These days about 1 in 5 cycling fatalities involves a youngster.
> >> Just ten years ago that ratio was about 1 in 3. The
> >> cycling population is aging rapidly and precipitously.

> > And it's likely that a major cause of this trend is the
> > "dangerization" of cycling that's been used to sell helmets!

>
> Oh, horseshit. Parents don't let kids just "go out and play" as much as
> they used to, period. Main reason is all the cable news coverage of child
> molesters and kidnappers; they think it IS a dangerous world out there.
> (And sadly, it often is.)
>
> There's also the "cool factor", and kids prefer skateboards or scruffing
> their feet to pedaling bicycles. Helmets have very little to do with it.



Don't tell Franky Krygowski that "helmets have very little to do with
it", even though it is the truth. Franky's anti-helmet crusade is his
only purpose in life. Take that away, and even the Viagara won't help
anymore.
 
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:38:10 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Mar 23, 2:59 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>> Matt O'Toole wrote:
>>>> I would guess that the overall cultural trend of less cycling
>>>> dwarfs any effect of MHLs. The decline in cycling began long
>>>> before MHLs were being considered anywhere, in the US or abroad.
>>>
>>>> So let's concentrate on the *major* reasons people aren't cycling.
>>>
>>> Kids today don't ride nearly as much as they used to.
>>> These days about 1 in 5 cycling fatalities involves a youngster.
>>> Just ten years ago that ratio was about 1 in 3. The
>>> cycling population is aging rapidly and precipitously.

>
>> And it's likely that a major cause of this trend is the
>> "dangerization" of cycling that's been used to sell helmets!

>
>Oh, horseshit. Parents don't let kids just "go out and play" as much as
>they used to, period. Main reason is all the cable news coverage of child
>molesters and kidnappers; they think it IS a dangerous world out there.
>(And sadly, it often is.)
>
>There's also the "cool factor", and kids prefer skateboards or scruffing
>their feet to pedaling bicycles. Helmets have very little to do with it.
>


Helmet laws are being passed for skateboarders and in-line skaters;
despite there being zero or precious little evidence that

a) there are any significant head injuries among that population; and

b) that helmets would do anything to reduce a), should it ever occur.

Much like the situation with cycle MHL's over the past two decades...
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:38:10 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>> On Mar 23, 2:59 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Matt O'Toole wrote:
>>>>> I would guess that the overall cultural trend of less cycling
>>>>> dwarfs any effect of MHLs. The decline in cycling began long
>>>>> before MHLs were being considered anywhere, in the US or abroad.
>>>>
>>>>> So let's concentrate on the *major* reasons people aren't cycling.
>>>>
>>>> Kids today don't ride nearly as much as they used to.
>>>> These days about 1 in 5 cycling fatalities involves a youngster.
>>>> Just ten years ago that ratio was about 1 in 3. The
>>>> cycling population is aging rapidly and precipitously.

>>
>>> And it's likely that a major cause of this trend is the
>>> "dangerization" of cycling that's been used to sell helmets!

>>
>>Oh, horseshit. Parents don't let kids just "go out and play" as much as
>>they used to, period. Main reason is all the cable news coverage of child
>>molesters and kidnappers; they think it IS a dangerous world out there.
>>(And sadly, it often is.)
>>
>>There's also the "cool factor", and kids prefer skateboards or scruffing
>>their feet to pedaling bicycles. Helmets have very little to do with it.
>>

>
> Helmet laws are being passed for skateboarders and in-line skaters;
> despite there being zero or precious little evidence that
>
> a) there are any significant head injuries among that population; and
>
> b) that helmets would do anything to reduce a), should it ever occur.
>
> Much like the situation with cycle MHL's over the past two decades..


There was a Surrey youth years ago that always wore his helmut while roller
blading. One day while just going up and down his driveway he decided not
to and he fell, bumped his head and died. It just takes one time.
He was an experienced rollerblader too.
 
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:14:42 GMT, "nash" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:38:10 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Mar 23, 2:59 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> Matt O'Toole wrote:
>>>>>> I would guess that the overall cultural trend of less cycling
>>>>>> dwarfs any effect of MHLs. The decline in cycling began long
>>>>>> before MHLs were being considered anywhere, in the US or abroad.
>>>>>
>>>>>> So let's concentrate on the *major* reasons people aren't cycling.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kids today don't ride nearly as much as they used to.
>>>>> These days about 1 in 5 cycling fatalities involves a youngster.
>>>>> Just ten years ago that ratio was about 1 in 3. The
>>>>> cycling population is aging rapidly and precipitously.
>>>
>>>> And it's likely that a major cause of this trend is the
>>>> "dangerization" of cycling that's been used to sell helmets!
>>>
>>>Oh, horseshit. Parents don't let kids just "go out and play" as much as
>>>they used to, period. Main reason is all the cable news coverage of child
>>>molesters and kidnappers; they think it IS a dangerous world out there.
>>>(And sadly, it often is.)
>>>
>>>There's also the "cool factor", and kids prefer skateboards or scruffing
>>>their feet to pedaling bicycles. Helmets have very little to do with it.
>>>

>>
>> Helmet laws are being passed for skateboarders and in-line skaters;
>> despite there being zero or precious little evidence that
>>
>> a) there are any significant head injuries among that population; and
>>
>> b) that helmets would do anything to reduce a), should it ever occur.
>>
>> Much like the situation with cycle MHL's over the past two decades..

>
>There was a Surrey youth years ago that always wore his helmut while roller
>blading. One day while just going up and down his driveway he decided not
>to and he fell, bumped his head and died. It just takes one time.
>He was an experienced rollerblader too.
>


Can we presume that you are speaking about this incident?

http://www.thenownewspaper.com/issues02/064102/news/064102nn1.html

If so, apart from the other errors in your post, are you alleging
that, had he been wearing a helmet, he would _not_ have died? And are
you also alleging that there is no possibility that the helmet
contributed to the injury?

And in light of the debate on the prevalence of such injuries, please
re-read the comments regarding that point, despite the fact that most
skateboarders do not wear helmets - which is possibly to their
advantage...
 
On Mar 24, 11:14 am, "nash" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> There was a Surrey youth years ago that always wore his helmut while roller
> blading. One day while just going up and down his driveway he decided not
> to and he fell, bumped his head and died. It just takes one time.
> He was an experienced rollerblader too.


It just takes one time, all right.

Now go look up the _other_ head injury fatalities in Surrey - or in
Britain - or in the US - or in Australia, or New Zealand, or any
other developed country. What's the major source of head injury
fatalities?

Nearly half of them happen inside cars. That's the number one source,
despite seat belts and air bags and anti-lock brakes. Fully 99% of
them (at least in the US) do _not_ happen on bikes (or on
rollerblades, for that matter).

Yes, it only takes one time. And 99% of those "one times" have
nothing to do with bikes.

But people continue to pretend that bikes are the major danger. How
odd.

- Frank Krygowski
 
On Mar 23, 9:38 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Mar 23, 2:59 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >> Matt O'Toole wrote:

>
> >>> So let's concentrate on the *major* reasons people aren't cycling.

>
> >> Kids today don't ride nearly as much as they used to.
> >> These days about 1 in 5 cycling fatalities involves a youngster.
> >> Just ten years ago that ratio was about 1 in 3. The
> >> cycling population is aging rapidly and precipitously.

> >
> > And it's likely that a major cause of this trend is the
> > "dangerization" of cycling that's been used to sell helmets!

>
> Oh, horseshit. Parents don't let kids just "go out and play" as much as
> they used to, period. Main reason is all the cable news coverage of child
> molesters and kidnappers; they think it IS a dangerous world out there.
> (And sadly, it often is.)


>From that statement, here's what I can tell:


You have difficulty telling the difference between my phrase "a major
cause" and your phrase "[The] Main reason..." Even if your unproven
statement is true, it does not negate mine.

Or to spell it out more slowly, even if the _main_ reason were cable
news coverage, it's possible bike helmet fearmongering would be _a_
major cause.

Moving beyond the reading/logic lesson:

It's interesting you say "and sadly, it often is [a dangerous
world]." Of course, "often" is purposely vague. We can't tell if
you're alluding to kids being killed in Iraq, or gang violence in
America's inner cities, or nonexistent kidnappers hiding behind the
swing set in the local park.

But obviously, you're trying to contribute to this country's excessive
paranoia. Despite the handwringing, incidents of stranger abduction
and bike head injury fatality are vanishingly rare. Taking the bike
fatalities as an example: Do you remember how many millions of miles
get ridden between such incidents?

Of course you don't. Why, that would require numbers. Big ones! And
those are so confusing, aren't they?

- Frank Krygowski
 
On 24 Mar 2007 09:08:22 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>On Mar 23, 9:38 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:



>Moving beyond the reading/logic lesson:
>
>It's interesting you say "and sadly, it often is [a dangerous
>world]." Of course, "often" is purposely vague. We can't tell if
>you're alluding to kids being killed in Iraq, or gang violence in
>America's inner cities, or nonexistent kidnappers hiding behind the
>swing set in the local park.
>
>But obviously, you're trying to contribute to this country's excessive
>paranoia. Despite the handwringing, incidents of stranger abduction
>and bike head injury fatality are vanishingly rare. Taking the bike
>fatalities as an example: Do you remember how many millions of miles
>get ridden between such incidents?
>
>Of course you don't. Why, that would require numbers. Big ones! And
>those are so confusing, aren't they?
>


Let's ask Bill a math question:

How many miles at typical cycling speeds per fatality - given that
there is approximately one fatality per 450 years of cycling 24 hours
a day, non-stop.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:14:42 GMT, "nash" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:38:10 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 23, 2:59 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> Matt O'Toole wrote:
>>>>>>> I would guess that the overall cultural trend of less cycling
>>>>>>> dwarfs any effect of MHLs. The decline in cycling began long
>>>>>>> before MHLs were being considered anywhere, in the US or abroad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So let's concentrate on the *major* reasons people aren't cycling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kids today don't ride nearly as much as they used to.
>>>>>> These days about 1 in 5 cycling fatalities involves a youngster.
>>>>>> Just ten years ago that ratio was about 1 in 3. The
>>>>>> cycling population is aging rapidly and precipitously.
>>>>
>>>>> And it's likely that a major cause of this trend is the
>>>>> "dangerization" of cycling that's been used to sell helmets!
>>>>
>>>>Oh, horseshit. Parents don't let kids just "go out and play" as much as
>>>>they used to, period. Main reason is all the cable news coverage of
>>>>child
>>>>molesters and kidnappers; they think it IS a dangerous world out there.
>>>>(And sadly, it often is.)
>>>>
>>>>There's also the "cool factor", and kids prefer skateboards or scruffing
>>>>their feet to pedaling bicycles. Helmets have very little to do with
>>>>it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Helmet laws are being passed for skateboarders and in-line skaters;
>>> despite there being zero or precious little evidence that
>>>
>>> a) there are any significant head injuries among that population; and
>>>
>>> b) that helmets would do anything to reduce a), should it ever occur.
>>>
>>> Much like the situation with cycle MHL's over the past two decades..

>>
>>There was a Surrey youth years ago that always wore his helmut while
>>roller
>>blading. One day while just going up and down his driveway he decided not
>>to and he fell, bumped his head and died. It just takes one time.
>>He was an experienced rollerblader too.
>>

>
> Can we presume that you are speaking about this incident?
>
> http://www.thenownewspaper.com/issues02/064102/news/064102nn1.html
>
> If so, apart from the other errors in your post, are you alleging
> that, had he been wearing a helmet, he would _not_ have died? And are
> you also alleging that there is no possibility that the helmet
> contributed to the injury?
>
> And in light of the debate on the prevalence of such injuries, please
> re-read the comments regarding that point, despite the fact that most
> skateboarders do not wear helmets - which is possibly to their
> advantage...


And you are obviously ignoring the whole article which says...
Recreational pursuits like skateboarding, cycling and rollerblading result
in the second highest number of brain injuries annually in the province
among young adults, according to Maryse Neilson of the Brain Injury
Associations of B.C. Only motor vehicle accidents account for more brain
injuries.

"We stress; always, always, always, wear protective gear. I don't want to
sound like I'm blaming the victim, but it's a shame this little guy wasn't
wearing a helmet," Neilson said.



There is nothing wrong with what I said. Got your head on backwards.

Oh, yeah , skateboarding instead of rollerblading ( cause that is what I do)
and on a residential block near his home most likely instead of driveway.
Does not change anything.

Uncomfortable is not a reason to kill yourself. Duh? But you are rather
ignorant to post what you did.
 
And are
you also alleging that there is no possibility that the helmet
contributed to the injury?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

He was not wearing a helmut. -insubstantial errors on my part- that was 3
years ago for gosh sakes.
Proof you should start wearing yours.
 

Similar threads