D
di
Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 00:49:23 GMT, "David Tang" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>What is bothersome is that the US in 1996 had a death rate
>>at least five times higher than the lowest countries on the
>>chart. Again, considering the chart is for a single year
>>and that over time some reversion to the mean will take place,
>>and assuming the cyclehelmets.org guys grabbed the most skewed
>>statistics to prove a point, it would seems to me that the US
>>may be running around twice the rate of deaths as the lowest
>>countries.
>>
>>Why might that be? And if that is the reality, I think the
>>argument should be what to do about it, rather than whether
>>MHLs have any effect on fatality rate or cycling participation.
>>
>
> You seem to be missing the point.
>
> One of the most common reasons that people give for not cycling is
> that they think it is dangerous.
>
> People who do not now cycle look at cyclists wearing helmets, and draw
> the obvious conclusion - it _must_ be dangerous, they are wearing a
> helmet.
>
BS. people also think Mountain Climbing is also dangerous, but it's not
because they wear helmets, it's because they fall from great heights on
rocks. They think bikes are dangerous because cars smash into them and
they also fall on pavement, nothing to do with helmets, personally I think
it;'s the Parrot colored jerseys that make it dangerous.
My last post on this stupid subject.
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 00:49:23 GMT, "David Tang" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>What is bothersome is that the US in 1996 had a death rate
>>at least five times higher than the lowest countries on the
>>chart. Again, considering the chart is for a single year
>>and that over time some reversion to the mean will take place,
>>and assuming the cyclehelmets.org guys grabbed the most skewed
>>statistics to prove a point, it would seems to me that the US
>>may be running around twice the rate of deaths as the lowest
>>countries.
>>
>>Why might that be? And if that is the reality, I think the
>>argument should be what to do about it, rather than whether
>>MHLs have any effect on fatality rate or cycling participation.
>>
>
> You seem to be missing the point.
>
> One of the most common reasons that people give for not cycling is
> that they think it is dangerous.
>
> People who do not now cycle look at cyclists wearing helmets, and draw
> the obvious conclusion - it _must_ be dangerous, they are wearing a
> helmet.
>
BS. people also think Mountain Climbing is also dangerous, but it's not
because they wear helmets, it's because they fall from great heights on
rocks. They think bikes are dangerous because cars smash into them and
they also fall on pavement, nothing to do with helmets, personally I think
it;'s the Parrot colored jerseys that make it dangerous.
My last post on this stupid subject.