Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling

[Just A User]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 08:01:19 -0400, Just A User
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:56:26 -0400, Just A User
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:30:12 -0400, Matt O'Toole
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:12:10 -0700, idomybestworkonabike wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've been riding with MHLs in Australia since 1975. Once you are used to
>>>>>>> it, it's not a bother - except for having to buy a helmet every few
>>>>>>> years. In fact, when I forget to take my helmet, it feels wrong and I go
>>>>>>> home to get it. One side benefit is weather protection - sun or cold. I
>>>>>>> usually hang it on the bars for a long climb. So OK, fight MHLs if you
>>>>>>> like, but don't change where you live on that basis. That would be
>>>>>>> losing proportion.
>>>>>> Where in Australia have they had MHLs since 1975? I lived in Sydney
>>>>>> '78-81, and there was certainly no such thing. As a high school
>>>>>> student it was rare to meet anyone who even owned a bike. Bikes weren't
>>>>>> even on anyone's radar, let alone helmets.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that was a bit odd, seeing as it's commonly (and correctly)
>>>>> stated that the US was the first place where an MHL was passed in
>>>>> 1987.
>>>>>
>>>>> WA passed a law in 1990; NSW in 1991. By 1996 all parts of Australia
>>>>> had MHL's; a 1998 paper published in both _Injury Prevention_ and _The
>>>>> Australian Doctor_ begins with this bald statement:
>>>>>
>>>>> "This article shows that bicycle helmet laws have done more harm than
>>>>> good."
>>>> Well that statement sounds silly. I can't understand how a helmet law
>>>> would do more harm than good, unless SO many people gave up cycling
>>>> rather than wear a head protection device. Which I really can't see
>>>> happening, but I will admit that it's not impossible.
>>>>
>>> You, it appears (like so many) think that wearing a helmet will reduce
>>> your chances of serious injury. The statistics do not support this;
>>> there are quite a few completely sensible explanations for why this is
>>> so; and if you continue to think so, it is not the statements of the
>>> people who actually look at the data that appear silly.
>>>
>>> Some pro-helmet zealots go so far as to proudly proclaim that they
>>> ignore the data, instead considering their own distorted view of
>>> cycling is the truth, studies be dammed. Such statements are silly,
>>> in public, at the top of one's voice.
>>>
>> I don't wear a helmet, I have never even put on on my cranium. But can't
>> see how they could cause harm by wearing one. And I am not going to
>> explore the /data/ thanks but I have better things to do with my time.
>>
>
>
> And how will you argue with people when they start advocating that an
> MHL be passed in your jurisdiction?
>
> www.cyclehelmets.org

Well I guess I will just have to deal with that when that time arrives.

Ken

 

[Just A User]

Wayne Pein wrote:
> Just A User wrote:
>
>
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:30:12 -0400, Matt O'Toole
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>> WA passed a law in 1990; NSW in 1991. By 1996 all parts of Australia
>>>>> had MHL's; a 1998 paper published in both _Injury Prevention_ and _The
>>>>> Australian Doctor_ begins with this bald statement:
>>>>>
>>>>> "This article shows that bicycle helmet laws have done more harm than
>>>>> good."
>
>
> Well that statement sounds silly. I can't understand how a helmet law
> would do more harm than good, unless SO many people gave up cycling
> rather than wear a head protection device. Which I really can't see
> happening, but I will admit that it's not impossible.
>
>
> and
>
>
> I don't wear a helmet, I have never even put on on my cranium. But can't
> see how they could cause harm by wearing one. And I am not going to
> explore the /data/ thanks but I have better things to do with my time.
>
> Ken
>
>
> Yea. Why bother with knowledge of real data from a large population when
> ignorance, folk intuition, and anecdotal evidence is so much easier.
>
> Wayne
>

Well now that is why I avoid all these head / cranium protection device
threads. They get all blown way out of proportion. Enough said.

Ken

 

[Cathy Kearns]

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I find the notion of 20-30% decrease in cycling to be very hard to
>> believe.
>> I don't see how such could be the case among though who enjoy cycling.
>
> I'm virtually certain it's not so much the "core" riders as the marginal
> riders that disappear. Helmets increase the "friction" of cycling.
> Instead of being a case where you can grab a bike and roll down the
> street, now you have to have a helmet. Which means that you have to buy
> a helmet. Since you only rolled around the park or the neighborhood
> every few days anyways, getting a helmet is a hassle and an expense.
>
> And also, you mess your hair. This doesn't matter much to you or I, but
> you accept that helmet hair is part of riding, and I am on the precipice
> of my last haircut ever (I had a good 30 years. That's more than a lot
> of guys get). Everybody else considers a sweaty, mussed head an
> impediment to using a bike for most rides. Sure, your friend lives only
> ten minutes away by bike, but you'll wreck your hair.
>
> It certainly seems strange that such minor issues would have major
> effects, but they do. The stats are pretty compelling, and similar
> effects (which might be lumped in with the famous "broken windows"
> experiment) have been observed in many sorts of real-life circumstances.
> Economics blogs are good way to learn about these, since economists love
> this sort of non-rational (or at least unintentionally consequential)
> economic activity.

I have seen trend amongst the local teenage girls. As elementary school
kids they rode bikes everywhere. They started dropping biking once they got
to junior high. My eldest is a good example She wouldn't bike, and despite
the distance of just over a mile, she preferred to walk. Biking messed her
hair up for the whole day, and it just wasn't worth it to her. As she out
grew her bike she didn't ask for a new one. Now, when looking at colleges
she did say if she got into a college where biking was the way to get around
(UCSB for example) she would consider taking up biking again, as now she's
old enough to ride without a helmet. Yep, that was her one reason for
dropping biking, helmets. Stupid as it sounds to guys that wander around
all day with the ridges in their hair and one pant leg rolled up, it really
is a reason people don't bike.

If I am dressed in lycra, and planning on getting all sweaty anyway, I wear
the helmet. When I'm on the back of the tandem it had kept me from getting
my hair torn by branches my captain managed to duck in front of. It doesn't
hurt. If that is the only type of cycling you do, a MHL will make no
difference. When I'm wearing my skirt and heels and heading off to a
teacher's conference on my town bike I don't wear a helmet. At that point
my choices are take the bike without the helmet or drive the car. The bike
gives me some exercise. The car adds to global warming. The risk of riding
without a helmet versus the risk of a sedentary life style. For me it's
worth the risk. I wouldn't move to an area where I couldn't (or wouldn't)
run errands on my bike. I love the "groceries in my panniers" lifestyle. So
for me MHL do make a difference.

 

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:08:45 GMT, "Cathy Kearns"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I have seen trend amongst the local teenage girls. As elementary school
>kids they rode bikes everywhere. They started dropping biking once they got
>to junior high. My eldest is a good example She wouldn't bike, and despite
>the distance of just over a mile, she preferred to walk. Biking messed her
>hair up for the whole day, and it just wasn't worth it to her. As she out
>grew her bike she didn't ask for a new one. Now, when looking at colleges
>she did say if she got into a college where biking was the way to get around
>(UCSB for example) she would consider taking up biking again, as now she's
>old enough to ride without a helmet. Yep, that was her one reason for
>dropping biking, helmets. Stupid as it sounds to guys that wander around
>all day with the ridges in their hair and one pant leg rolled up, it really
>is a reason people don't bike.
>
>If I am dressed in lycra, and planning on getting all sweaty anyway, I wear
>the helmet. When I'm on the back of the tandem it had kept me from getting
>my hair torn by branches my captain managed to duck in front of. It doesn't
>hurt. If that is the only type of cycling you do, a MHL will make no
>difference. When I'm wearing my skirt and heels and heading off to a
>teacher's conference on my town bike I don't wear a helmet. At that point
>my choices are take the bike without the helmet or drive the car. The bike
>gives me some exercise. The car adds to global warming. The risk of riding
>without a helmet versus the risk of a sedentary life style. For me it's
>worth the risk. I wouldn't move to an area where I couldn't (or wouldn't)
>run errands on my bike. I love the "groceries in my panniers" lifestyle. So
>for me MHL do make a difference.
>

Would you move away if an MHL were passed?

 

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:32:26 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Just A User wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>> You, it appears (like so many) think that wearing a helmet will
>>> reduce your chances of serious injury. The statistics do not
>>> support this; there are quite a few completely sensible explanations
>>> for why this is so; and if you continue to think so, it is not the
>>> statements of the people who actually look at the data that appear
>>> silly.
>
>> I don't wear a helmet, I have never even put on on my cranium. But
>> can't see how they could cause harm by wearing one. And I am not
>> going to explore the /data/ thanks but I have better things to do
>> with my time.
>
>Bear in mind that you're arguing with an hyterical zealot who just a day or
>two ago said that helmets don't save lives "except on rare occasions", and
>now says they can't even reduce the /chance/ of serious injury.
>
>Flailor's a liar who'll say anything.
>

You've had trouble with attributions before; and this is the second
time you have done so with this particular quote - perhaps it's just
that you will, um, "...say anything".

The part you quote came from a post by "landotter".

And as for not saving lives, you could just go read the data that you
have repeatedly told us you'd rather ignore...

www.cyclehelmets.org

 

[Bill Sornson]

Just A User wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:

>> You, it appears (like so many) think that wearing a helmet will
>> reduce your chances of serious injury. The statistics do not
>> support this; there are quite a few completely sensible explanations
>> for why this is so; and if you continue to think so, it is not the
>> statements of the people who actually look at the data that appear
>> silly.

> I don't wear a helmet, I have never even put on on my cranium. But
> can't see how they could cause harm by wearing one. And I am not
> going to explore the /data/ thanks but I have better things to do
> with my time.

Bear in mind that you're arguing with an hyterical zealot who just a day or
two ago said that helmets don't save lives "except on rare occasions", and
now says they can't even reduce the /chance/ of serious injury.

Flailor's a liar who'll say anything.

ENJOY! LOL

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 9, 2:55 pm, Just A User <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is
> important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas
> west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for
> cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found
> that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about
> regular road riding?
>
> Ken

The most bicycle friendly community that I have ever visited is Davis,
Cal. The city vehicles have a bicycle as their emblem. Stoplights
have pedestrian walk buttons out in the bike lanes (I guess they're
not really walk buttons but you know what I mean). It's very flat
there but the Sierras are not too far away. The weather is not as
nice as my hometown of San Diego but probably better than Florida. I
don't know about off road riding in that area.

Tom

 

[Cathy Kearns]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:08:45 GMT, "Cathy Kearns"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I have seen trend amongst the local teenage girls. As elementary school
>>kids they rode bikes everywhere. They started dropping biking once they
>>got
>>to junior high. My eldest is a good example She wouldn't bike, and
>>despite
>>the distance of just over a mile, she preferred to walk. Biking messed
>>her
>>hair up for the whole day, and it just wasn't worth it to her. As she out
>>grew her bike she didn't ask for a new one. Now, when looking at colleges
>>she did say if she got into a college where biking was the way to get
>>around
>>(UCSB for example) she would consider taking up biking again, as now she's
>>old enough to ride without a helmet. Yep, that was her one reason for
>>dropping biking, helmets. Stupid as it sounds to guys that wander around
>>all day with the ridges in their hair and one pant leg rolled up, it
>>really
>>is a reason people don't bike.
>>
>>If I am dressed in lycra, and planning on getting all sweaty anyway, I
>>wear
>>the helmet. When I'm on the back of the tandem it had kept me from
>>getting
>>my hair torn by branches my captain managed to duck in front of. It
>>doesn't
>>hurt. If that is the only type of cycling you do, a MHL will make no
>>difference. When I'm wearing my skirt and heels and heading off to a
>>teacher's conference on my town bike I don't wear a helmet. At that point
>>my choices are take the bike without the helmet or drive the car. The
>>bike
>>gives me some exercise. The car adds to global warming. The risk of
>>riding
>>without a helmet versus the risk of a sedentary life style. For me it's
>>worth the risk. I wouldn't move to an area where I couldn't (or wouldn't)
>>run errands on my bike. I love the "groceries in my panniers" lifestyle.
>>So
>>for me MHL do make a difference.
>>
>
> Would you move away if an MHL were passed?

Given the choice of retiring here, but stuck in a car, or retiring
elsewhere, I'd retire elsewhere. But I find it unlikely that a MHL would be
passed here, especially in this time of concerns about global warming.
Helmets are seldom argued vigorously when everyone is thinking bicyclists
are small children or those racer guys on bikes. But there you aren't
talking about saving car trips. When you start talking about people running
errands, riding to work, taking a car off the road, the conversation is
different.

One of the bigger differences is the cycling concerns jump from how do we
keep these throngs of daring exercisers safe on our existing roadways, to
how do we make people feel safe enough to ride 3 miles to the
grocery/mall/theatre/restaurant/school. As much as those using cycling as
exercise love the feel of the open road, and hate MUPs, those MUPs are the
mainstay for folks just trying to live their lives without cars. When it's
faster to get to the library on bike cut-thrus than it is to drive around on
the roads, more people will take the bike/pedestrian cut-thrus. I can ride,
mostly on MUPs, from my house to Stanford about 6 miles away. By bike it is
over a mile shorter than by car. When I'm going to see a sporting event
where parking on campus is expensive and inconvienent, I ride my bike. When
trying to reach the Stanford Shopping Center (a large mall) on the busiest
shopping day of the year, I ride my bike. The fastest way to my girls' high
school or elementary school is on bike, for the junior high it is about a
wash. (And if it's a nice night, I ride my bike anyway...)

It's fun watching the responses to the question what are the best places for
cycling. Some are answering as if the question was "where can I get the
best cycling workout" which is asking for good climbs. Some are answering
as if the question was "where can I ride the fastest", which picks out areas
where there are lots of flat roads. Some are answering "If I like to cycle
everywhere, where is the best place to live." Which then brings up bike
friendly communities where all sorts of businesses are bicycle accessible.
It is only that last question where MHLs come into play.

 

[Veloise]

Pat wrote:

> Did you just mean to say that you collect bottle while riding a bicycle?

Someone's getting w-a-y too far into celebrating the hemicentennial of
the Cat in the Hat.

--Karen D.

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Veloise" <[email protected]> writes:
> Pat wrote:
>
>> Did you just mean to say that you collect bottle while riding a bicycle?
>
> Someone's getting w-a-y too far into celebrating the hemicentennial of
> the Cat in the Hat.

I'd rather have those bottles picked up, than becoming
broken glass sherds all over the street.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

 

[Roger Zoul]

[email protected] wrote:
:: On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:16:05 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:: <[email protected]> wrote:
::
::: peter wrote:
::::: Just A User wrote:
:::::: [email protected] wrote:
::::::: On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:30:12 -0400, Matt O'Toole
::::::: WA passed a law in 1990; NSW in 1991. By 1996 all parts of
::::::: Australia had MHL's; a 1998 paper published in both _Injury
::::::: Prevention_ and _The Australian Doctor_ begins with this bald
::::::: statement:
:::::::
::::::: "This article shows that bicycle helmet laws have done more harm
::::::: than good."
:::::: Well that statement sounds silly. I can't understand how a helmet
:::::: law would do more harm than good, unless SO many people gave up
:::::: cycling rather than wear a head protection device. Which I really
:::::: can't see happening, but I will admit that it's not impossible.
:::::
::::: Not hard to have that happen at all. A study published by the
::::: British Medical Association indicated that the health benefits of
::::: cycling outweighed the risks due to accidents by a ratio of 20 to
::::: 1. I.e. for every person-year lost in a population of cyclists
::::: due to an accident, there was a gain of 20 person-years from the
::::: health benefits associated with their cycling. So even if
::::: helmets were 100% effective in eliminating fatalities and as few
::::: as 5% of the people who would otherwise cycle gave it up in
::::: response to a helmet law the two effects would cancel each other
::::: out and there would be no net gain.
:::::
::::: In practice it has been observed that helmets are way less than
::::: 100% effective (there's serious question whether they reduce
::::: fatalities at all) and ridership studies have shown decreases in
::::: cycling of around 20 - 30% in response to mandatory helmet laws.
::::: So it would be expected that passage of a helmet law will result
::::: in the loss of far more person-years of life than are gained.
:::
::: I find the notion of 20-30% decrease in cycling to be very hard to
::: believe. I don't see how such could be the case among though who
::: enjoy cycling.
:::
::
:: People who find things hard to believe are often easily convinced by
:: the flimsiest of evidence (e.g. TRT and the ravings of pro MHL
:: posters).
::
:: www.cyclehelmets.org

Nonsense.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Roger Zoul wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:16:05 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>> I find the notion of 20-30% decrease in cycling to be very hard to
>>>> believe. I don't see how such could be the case among though who
>>>> enjoy cycling.

>>> People who find things hard to believe are often easily convinced by
>>> the flimsiest of evidence (e.g. TRT and the ravings of pro MHL
>>> posters).

> Nonsense.

Who are these "pro MHL posters"? Name one or two. I have Flailor plonked
for just this kind of disingenuous crapola (AKA a standard tactic).

 

[[email protected]]

On 13 Mar 2007 15:15:33 -0700, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mar 9, 2:55 pm, Just A User <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is
>> important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas
>> west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for
>> cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found
>> that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about
>> regular road riding?
>>
>> Ken
>
>The most bicycle friendly community that I have ever visited is Davis,
>Cal. The city vehicles have a bicycle as their emblem. Stoplights
>have pedestrian walk buttons out in the bike lanes (I guess they're
>not really walk buttons but you know what I mean). It's very flat
>there but the Sierras are not too far away. The weather is not as
>nice as my hometown of San Diego but probably better than Florida. I
>don't know about off road riding in that area.
>

The MHL is California is not an issue for you?

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] writes:
> On Mar 12, 11:47 am, Dane Buson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
> Are there any groups in Seattle working to get this law repealed?
>>
>> Not that I'm aware of. There's a certain amount of grumbling from
>> various cyclists, but no organized effort. It does not help that
>> Cascade, the largest bicycle club is pro-MHL.
>
>
> Do most Seattle cyclists even realize that they have
> been singled out as particularly dangerous and
> unskilled, compared to others in the US?
> Do they assume that such laws are
> in place everywhere else? Don't they feel
> ridiculous when they strap on a
> helmet for a three-block cruise to the coffee
> shop in the morning? Don't they resent it?
>
> Relative to other cities of similar size, there
> seems to be very little casual low-income
> cycling going on in Seattle. Seems like the
> vast majority of transportational cyclists there
> are decked out in a few thousand dollars worth
> of shiny new equipment. Probably a combo
> of weather, terrain, and the MHL.

That is so hurtful, and downright mean.

Why are fellow cyclists our own worst enemies?

Jeez, Robert -- I /know/ you're usually above
this sort of razmatazz.

Better pull out that hair that's up your ass
about MHLs. Then rinse your fingers off, wipe
'em off on your jeans, and shake hands with your
fellow riders to let them know you're still on
their side. Even those who are stuck in MHL
jurisdictions.


cheers, & what John Merrick said,
Tom

--
I /am/ an animal! Grrrr!
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] writes:

>>The most bicycle friendly community that I have ever visited is Davis,
>>Cal. The city vehicles have a bicycle as their emblem. Stoplights
>>have pedestrian walk buttons out in the bike lanes (I guess they're
>>not really walk buttons but you know what I mean). It's very flat
>>there but the Sierras are not too far away. The weather is not as
>>nice as my hometown of San Diego but probably better than Florida. I
>>don't know about off road riding in that area.
>>
>
> The MHL is California is not an issue for you?

A Real Cyclist will ride, MHL or no.


--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:

> The MHL is California is not an issue for you?

Listen, stop trying to equate MHLs for adults with
MHLs for kids. Nobody's buying it.

Robert

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

On Mar 15, 4:34 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On 13 Mar 2007 15:15:33 -0700, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Mar 9, 2:55 pm, Just A User <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is
> >> important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas
> >> west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for
> >> cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found
> >> that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about
> >> regular road riding?
>
> >> Ken
>
> >The most bicycle friendly community that I have ever visited is Davis,
> >Cal. The city vehicles have a bicycle as their emblem. Stoplights
> >have pedestrian walk buttons out in the bike lanes (I guess they're
> >not really walk buttons but you know what I mean). It's very flat
> >there but the Sierras are not too far away. The weather is not as
> >nice as my hometown of San Diego but probably better than Florida. I
> >don't know about off road riding in that area.
>
> The MHL is California is not an issue for you?

Think the OP is over the age where it's a law...

 

[[email protected]]

On 15 Mar 2007 06:59:18 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> The MHL is California is not an issue for you?
>
>Listen, stop trying to equate MHLs for adults with
>MHLs for kids. Nobody's buying it.
>

An MHL is an MHL - there may be exceptions for some, but for the
others (more than 10 million in California) it is still the law.

And the politicians know that the best way to get a bad law passed is
to make it apply first to those who cannot vote; when they are cowed,
then it is easier to include the rest.

 

[[email protected]]

On 15 Mar 2007 07:25:58 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mar 15, 4:34 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> On 13 Mar 2007 15:15:33 -0700, "[email protected]"
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Mar 9, 2:55 pm, Just A User <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is
>> >> important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas
>> >> west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for
>> >> cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found
>> >> that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about
>> >> regular road riding?
>>
>> >> Ken
>>
>> >The most bicycle friendly community that I have ever visited is Davis,
>> >Cal. The city vehicles have a bicycle as their emblem. Stoplights
>> >have pedestrian walk buttons out in the bike lanes (I guess they're
>> >not really walk buttons but you know what I mean). It's very flat
>> >there but the Sierras are not too far away. The weather is not as
>> >nice as my hometown of San Diego but probably better than Florida. I
>> >don't know about off road riding in that area.
>>
>> The MHL is California is not an issue for you?
>
>Think the OP is over the age where it's a law...

The law can change; and unfortunately, in the USofA, the trend is
toward ever increasing MHL's.

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 15, 4:38 am, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:

> > Do most Seattle cyclists even realize that they have
> > been singled out as particularly dangerous and
> > unskilled, compared to others in the US?
> > Do they assume that such laws are
> > in place everywhere else? Don't they feel
> > ridiculous when they strap on a
> > helmet for a three-block cruise to the coffee
> > shop in the morning? Don't they resent it?
>
> > Relative to other cities of similar size, there
> > seems to be very little casual low-income
> > cycling going on in Seattle. Seems like the
> > vast majority of transportational cyclists there
> > are decked out in a few thousand dollars worth
> > of shiny new equipment. Probably a combo
> > of weather, terrain, and the MHL.
>
> That is so hurtful, and downright mean.

Huh? In what way? I am legitimately puzzled
by this issue. Did my exasperation show
too much? Is there some way to bring
up this ridiculous MHL that would be acceptable
to y'all, or is it the law that must not be
spoken of? Am I not allowed to post my own
personal observations from cycling in
Seattle and around King County?

The 'downright mean' and nasty response was
Claire's, not mine.

> Why are fellow cyclists our own worst enemies?

I don't know. Ask the Cascade cycling club.
Are there any other examples anywhere of a
cycling club/advocacy organization that is
PRO adult MHL? What the hell are they
thinking?

Is the goal to get people to ride bikes, to
use their bikes for short trips to the
store, to the bar, to the coffee shop, to
work, to parties, etc. -- or is the goal
to make certain that whoever does these
things is wearing a helmet, even if it
means that far fewer people do it?

> Jeez, Robert -- I /know/ you're usually above
> this sort of razmatazz.

I am definitely not above this sort of razmatazz,
whatever sort of razmatazz you think this is.

> Better pull out that hair that's up your ass
> about MHLs. Then rinse your fingers off, wipe
> 'em off on your jeans, and shake hands with your
> fellow riders to let them know you're still on
> their side. Even those who are stuck in MHL
> jurisdictions.

That's disgusting.

> cheers, & what John Merrick said,
> Tom