Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:01:08 -0800, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
wrote:

>> 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?

>
>I guess you don't know much about British Columbia,
>where adult MHL is de rigeur.
>
>Go ahead and blame us for rolling over and letting
>it happen.
>
>Nevertheless, I and many other riders continue
>to ride, despite the MHL.
>

With or without helmets?

Did you wear one before?

People often find that MHL's are not a problem if

a) they have already been convinced that wearing a helmet will save
their lives; or

b) the MHL applies to other people but not to them.

How much has cycling decreased following the MHL?

Was it like Nova Scotia where cycling decreased by over 60% in the
year following the MHL?

How much has the injury rate changed following the MHL?

Is it like Alberta where the head injury percentage among cyclists
admitted to hospital ER's doubled following the MHL?

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 15, 5:59 pm, "di" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've never seen
> anyone so obsessed in something so trivial.

It's trivial if you've already bought all the propaganda, and
consequently you're too afraid to ever bike without a funny hat.

It's trivial if you don't mind cycling being misrepresented as a
terribly hazardous activity, an "extreme sport."

It's trivial if you don't have kids who may give up cycling because of
the helmet laws.

It's trivial if you never bike at all, so the issue affects only other
people.

It's trivial if you don't care that MHLs discourage cycling
significantly.

It's trivial if you don't care that the promotion of helmets has, for
many years, displaced more important, and more effective, safety
efforts.

In othe words, it's "trivial" if it doesn't affect you, and/or if you
don't really care about cycling.

But if that's the case, you probably should avoid this discussion.
The exception would be the person who doesn't think it's important,
but is curious enough to learn about the issue.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 16, 6:46 am, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 6:20 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:47:17 -0800, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
> > wrote:
>
> > >In article <[email protected]>,
> > > [email protected] writes:
>
> > >> Sorry, all; I forgot...
>
> > >> "Ozark" is on record as being in favour of an MHL.
>
> > >So, what? We all have to stone him now?
>
> > Goodness no.
>
> > Just remember it when reading his posts that attack helmet skeptics;
> > some of them border on rabid, and it helps to know why.
>
> Yo, "j":
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/22mec4
>
> People are gonna start to think you are full 'o' **** if you don't
> provide that link, jboy


Yo, "j", are you having a problem providing that link?

 

[di]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mar 15, 5:59 pm, "di" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I've never seen
>> anyone so obsessed in something so trivial.
>
> It's trivial if you've already bought all the propaganda, and
> consequently you're too afraid to ever bike without a funny hat.
>
> It's trivial if you don't mind cycling being misrepresented as a
> terribly hazardous activity, an "extreme sport."
>
> It's trivial if you don't have kids who may give up cycling because of
> the helmet laws.
>
> It's trivial if you never bike at all, so the issue affects only other
> people.
>
> It's trivial if you don't care that MHLs discourage cycling
> significantly.
>
> It's trivial if you don't care that the promotion of helmets has, for
> many years, displaced more important, and more effective, safety
> efforts.
>
> In othe words, it's "trivial" if it doesn't affect you, and/or if you
> don't really care about cycling.
>
> But if that's the case, you probably should avoid this discussion.
> The exception would be the person who doesn't think it's important,
> but is curious enough to learn about the issue.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

I think it's trivial to believe all this BS, and to keep posting the same
stuff over and over for weeks. I could care less if helmets are mandatory or
not, certainly not enough to be obsessed with it. How long does it take
someone to express their opinion? If you don't want to wear a helmet then
don't, you are not going to be thrown in jail. As far as requiring a
helmet, I think most people know it's an attempt to keep bloodsucking
lawyers at bay.

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 16, 5:59 pm, "di" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I think it's trivial to believe all this BS...

Which? The BS that cycling is so dangerous? Or the BS that 3/4" inch
of styrofoam will save countless serious head injuries?

> and to keep posting the same stuff over and over for weeks.

As always, reading any thread is voluntary. Read only what's
interesting to you.

> I could care less if helmets are mandatory or not, certainly not enough to be obsessed with it.

You probably mean "I couldn't care less..."

Which tells me that you _don't_ care about misrepresenting cycling,
hyping ineffective "safety" measures, discouraging healthy
transportation, reducing the number of cyclists, etc.

And that's your choice. Put your energy into saving the skeets, or
whatever.

But if you really couldn't care less, it's pretty high-handed to wade
in and tell people not to talk about the issue. Again, if you don't
want to read, don't read.

> How long does it take someone to express their opinion?

It depends. There are people posting to this thread who have refused
for years to learn the most basic facts. You may be among them. When
they repeat the same disproven statements over and over, others will
rebut.

There's also a steady stream of newbies reading these threads, who
have never read the information at, say,
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/why-helmets
(for an easy place to start) or www.cyclehelmets.org (for detailed
science).

> If you don't want to wear a helmet then don't, you are not going to be thrown in jail.

No, but I certainly could be fined, and in fact I've run that risk.
And again, I _do_ care about unjust laws created by corporate
lobbying, designed to mandate sales of their commercial products.
Personally, I think that's much worse than even Microsoft's predatory
tactics. It's like something Halliburton would do.

> As far as requiring a helmet, I think most people know it's an attempt to keep bloodsucking lawyers at bay.

That's largely fiction. And to the degree it's true, it's only
because people like you have swallowed the "Danger! Danger!" hype,
hook line and sinker.

Want to learn? Read the web pages cited. Don't want to learn? Fine,
learning is voluntary. Stop reading. But don't tell others to stop
discussions just because you're not interested!

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 16, 12:45 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 15, 5:59 pm, "di" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I've never seen
> > anyone so obsessed in something so trivial.
>
> It's trivial if you've already bought all the propaganda, and
> consequently you're too afraid to ever bike without a funny hat.
>
> It's trivial if you don't mind cycling being misrepresented as a
> terribly hazardous activity, an "extreme sport."
>
> It's trivial if you don't have kids who may give up cycling because of
> the helmet laws.
>
> It's trivial if you never bike at all, so the issue affects only other
> people.
>
> It's trivial if you don't care that MHLs discourage cycling
> significantly.
>
> It's trivial if you don't care that the promotion of helmets has, for
> many years, displaced more important, and more effective, safety
> efforts.
>
> In othe words, it's "trivial" if it doesn't affect you, and/or if you
> don't really care about cycling.
>
> But if that's the case, you probably should avoid this discussion.
> The exception would be the person who doesn't think it's important,
> but is curious enough to learn about the issue.
>
> - Frank Krygowski




Lesson learned from reading the above: the somewhat trivial seems not
at all trivial to the *really* trivial. ;-)

 

[Tom Keats]

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

> It's trivial if you don't care that MHLs discourage cycling
> significantly.
>
> It's trivial if you don't care that the promotion of helmets has, for
> many years, displaced more important, and more effective, safety
> efforts.

Speaking of efforts, it seems to me it wouldn't hurt to
turn away from the hat issue a little, and maybe think
about how such things as bad chip-seal pavement and
poor rumble strip implementations and a whole bunch of
other things that more immediately and directly affect
ridership, discourage cycling significantly. Now, /those/
are things to stop a rider in his/her tracks -- much more
than the question of whether or not to wear a helmet before
mounting up and setting foot to pedal.

Having to wear a helmet, or even having the choice of
wearing a helmet, doesn't stop anybody nearly as much
as unnecessarily, arbitrarily uglified roads that one
can't even ride a bike /on/ because they have such
horrible surfaces.

I think some more perspective is called-for. In fact,
desperately wanting. The helmet issue distracts from
other, more important concerns too much.


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

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:00:25 -0800, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] writes:
>
>> It's trivial if you don't care that MHLs discourage cycling
>> significantly.
>>
>> It's trivial if you don't care that the promotion of helmets has, for
>> many years, displaced more important, and more effective, safety
>> efforts.
>
>Speaking of efforts, it seems to me it wouldn't hurt to
>turn away from the hat issue a little, and maybe think
>about how such things as bad chip-seal pavement and
>poor rumble strip implementations and a whole bunch of
>other things that more immediately and directly affect
>ridership, discourage cycling significantly. Now, /those/
>are things to stop a rider in his/her tracks -- much more
>than the question of whether or not to wear a helmet before
>mounting up and setting foot to pedal.
>
>Having to wear a helmet, or even having the choice of
>wearing a helmet, doesn't stop anybody nearly as much
>as unnecessarily, arbitrarily uglified roads that one
>can't even ride a bike /on/ because they have such
>horrible surfaces.
>


Do you have stats to back this up?

There are population studies that show drops in cycling exceeding 50%
when MHL's are passed; and because they affect everyone within their
jurisdiction, it is probable that they have a greater effect than some
road repairs outside a few people's houses.

Not that we should not campaign for a cyclist-friendly culture, but
dismissing the helmet issue is a BAD idea - it seems to be the major
way that governments attempt to persuade voters that they are in
favour of cycling. As long as we have people in the cycling community
who do not know the facts about helmet use and the effects of MHL's,
we will be saddled with them, and our numbers will fall, and we will
get an even more cycle-unfriendly culture.

Just look at the factoid in the press release about the auto-shifting
bike recently introduced - 161 millions adult Americans have not
ridden a cycle since they were children. How many million of these
_were_ children when the MHL's started being passed?

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 15, 4:21 pm, [email protected] lied:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:55:39 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
> >On 15 Mar 2007 10:55:33 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>On Mar 15, 10:29 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On 15 Mar 2007 08:50:06 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> >On Mar 15, 8:32 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >>> >> 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.
>
> >>> >Gee, it doesn't seem to work that way with motorcycle MHLs; despite
> >>> >virtually all states having a "child/minor" motorcycle MHL (ages/
> >>> >details vary by state), *universal* motorcycle MHLs have been on a
> >>> >steady *decrease*, from a high of 47 states in 1975 to 20 as of 2001:
>
> >>> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/ynjet
>
> >>> >(see the graph on the right, about a third of the way down)
>
> >>> >How do ya 'splain that, Chicken Little? ;-)
>
> >>> Motorcyclists are effective in their oposition to MHL's.
>
> >>BINGO!!! The first rational post from "jtaylor" in......forever.
>
> >What have YOU done to oppose MHL's - or are you instead in favour of
> >them?
>
> Sorry, all; I forgot...

A line made famous by "Scooter" Libby, another notorious, proven liar
>
> "Ozark" is on record as being in favour of an MHL.
>

That is a lie. Another in a long line of lies, half-truths and
distortions from the infamous "jtaylor".

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 17, 8:04 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:00:25 -0800, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
> wrote:
>
> >Speaking of efforts, it seems to me it wouldn't hurt to
> >turn away from the hat issue a little, and maybe think
> >about how such things as bad chip-seal pavement and
> >poor rumble strip implementations and a whole bunch of
> >other things that more immediately and directly affect
> >ridership, discourage cycling significantly. Now, /those/
> >are things to stop a rider in his/her tracks -- much more
> >than the question of whether or not to wear a helmet before
> >mounting up and setting foot to pedal.
>
> >Having to wear a helmet, or even having the choice of
> >wearing a helmet, doesn't stop anybody nearly as much
> >as unnecessarily, arbitrarily uglified roads that one
> >can't even ride a bike /on/ because they have such
> >horrible surfaces.
>
> Do you have stats to back this up?
>
> There are population studies that show drops in cycling exceeding 50%
> when MHL's are passed; and because they affect everyone within their
> jurisdiction, it is probable that they have a greater effect than some
> road repairs outside a few people's houses.

And note, the documented MHL-caused drops in cycling show that the
helmet issue discourage those who already ride - that is, those who
tolerate other less-than-optimum cycling conditions.

Also, the observed drops have been step changes, obviously caused by
the laws themselves. I think there's been another change, an
ecological change caused by the decades of warnings that, MHL or no,
you _need_ a helmet to ride. It's convinced many people that cycling
is hazardous. We'd probably have a lot more cycling now if that
hadn't been done.

However, if Tom or anyone else wants to work on improving the cycling
environment, that's fine too. Each person can pick his own project.
(I'm locally working on the one Tom suggested, too.)

Just don't disparage another's project because you think yours is more
worthy.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

On 17 Mar 2007 06:16:54 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> "Ozark" is on record as being in favour of an MHL.
>>
>
>That is a lie. Another in a long line of lies, half-truths and
>distortions from the infamous "jtaylor".

Are you denying that you called for an MHL in my jurisdiction?

Remember, your posts have been archived by Google Groups...

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 17, 9:51 am, jtaylor, master of the half-truth, wrote:
> On 17 Mar 2007 06:16:54 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> "Ozark" is on record as being in favour of an MHL.
>
> >That is a lie. Another in a long line of lies, half-truths and
> >distortions from the infamous "jtaylor".
>
> Are you denying that you called for an MHL in my jurisdiction?
>
> Remember, your posts have been archived by Google Groups...


Please *do* provide a link to that post; the original, unedited,
unsnipped text in it's original context.

I think we could all use a laugh today, "j"! ;-)

 

[[email protected]]

Tom Keats wrote:

> Speaking of efforts, it seems to me it wouldn't hurt to
> turn away from the hat issue a little, and maybe think
> about how such things as bad chip-seal pavement and
> poor rumble strip implementations and a whole bunch of
> other things that more immediately and directly affect
> ridership, discourage cycling significantly. Now, /those/
> are things to stop a rider in his/her tracks -- much more
> than the question of whether or not to wear a helmet before
> mounting up and setting foot to pedal.
>
> Having to wear a helmet, or even having the choice of
> wearing a helmet, doesn't stop anybody nearly as much
> as unnecessarily, arbitrarily uglified roads that one
> can't even ride a bike /on/ because they have such
> horrible surfaces.
>
> I think some more perspective is called-for. In fact,
> desperately wanting. The helmet issue distracts from
> other, more important concerns too much.

Tom I share much of your frustration with
the endless helmet 'debate' and the debaters.
But I think the helmet issue and the MHL
issue are separate. I believe MHLs do
have a significant detrimental effect on
cycling where they are implemented.
Seattle has relatively nice roads, nice
bicycle infrastructure, and considerate
drivers; but it has relatively
little casual transportational cycling.

Robert

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 13:23:46 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> Tom Keats wrote:
>>
>>> Speaking of efforts, it seems to me it wouldn't hurt to
>>> turn away from the hat issue a little, and maybe think
>>> about how such things as bad chip-seal pavement and
>>> poor rumble strip implementations and a whole bunch of
>>> other things that more immediately and directly affect
>>> ridership, discourage cycling significantly. Now, /those/
>>> are things to stop a rider in his/her tracks -- much more
>>> than the question of whether or not to wear a helmet before
>>> mounting up and setting foot to pedal.
>>>
>>> Having to wear a helmet, or even having the choice of
>>> wearing a helmet, doesn't stop anybody nearly as much
>>> as unnecessarily, arbitrarily uglified roads that one
>>> can't even ride a bike /on/ because they have such
>>> horrible surfaces.
>>>
>>> I think some more perspective is called-for. In fact,
>>> desperately wanting. The helmet issue distracts from
>>> other, more important concerns too much.
>>
>> Tom I share much of your frustration with
>> the endless helmet 'debate' and the debaters.
>> But I think the helmet issue and the MHL
>> issue are separate. I believe MHLs do
>> have a significant detrimental effect on
>> cycling where they are implemented.
>> Seattle has relatively nice roads, nice
>> bicycle infrastructure, and considerate
>> drivers; but it has relatively
>> little casual transportational cycling.
>
>Probably due more to climate (wet, cold, hot) than an MHL.
>

How do you explain documented, stepwise reductions in cycling
following the passage of an MHL?

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>
>> Speaking of efforts, it seems to me it wouldn't hurt to
>> turn away from the hat issue a little, and maybe think
>> about how such things as bad chip-seal pavement and
>> poor rumble strip implementations and a whole bunch of
>> other things that more immediately and directly affect
>> ridership, discourage cycling significantly. Now, /those/
>> are things to stop a rider in his/her tracks -- much more
>> than the question of whether or not to wear a helmet before
>> mounting up and setting foot to pedal.
>>
>> Having to wear a helmet, or even having the choice of
>> wearing a helmet, doesn't stop anybody nearly as much
>> as unnecessarily, arbitrarily uglified roads that one
>> can't even ride a bike /on/ because they have such
>> horrible surfaces.
>>
>> I think some more perspective is called-for. In fact,
>> desperately wanting. The helmet issue distracts from
>> other, more important concerns too much.
>
> Tom I share much of your frustration with
> the endless helmet 'debate' and the debaters.
> But I think the helmet issue and the MHL
> issue are separate. I believe MHLs do
> have a significant detrimental effect on
> cycling where they are implemented.
> Seattle has relatively nice roads, nice
> bicycle infrastructure, and considerate
> drivers; but it has relatively
> little casual transportational cycling.

Probably due more to climate (wet, cold, hot) than an MHL.

 

[Alan]

Check out www.cycleoregon.com .
Alan

 

[Tom Keats]

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

>> I think some more perspective is called-for. In fact,
>> desperately wanting. The helmet issue distracts from
>> other, more important concerns too much.
>
> Tom I share much of your frustration with
> the endless helmet 'debate' and the debaters.
> But I think the helmet issue and the MHL
> issue are separate. I believe MHLs do
> have a significant detrimental effect on
> cycling where they are implemented.

The decision to ride or not is generally binary.
You either go, or you don't.

Those who will ride, will ride. Many of those
who won't, will cough up all kinds of excuses --
"My cyclocomputer battery is dead."
"The dog ate my toeclip straps."
"I'm having a Preparation H moment."

It's so convenient for a casual, lyric cyclist
to attribute "having" to wear a helmet to their
non-desire to ride. But if it's not helmets,
it'll be something else. Personally, if
somebody just plain doesn't feel like riding,
that's fine with me. I'll respect their wishes.
They don't need to grasp for excuses.

> Seattle has relatively nice roads, nice
> bicycle infrastructure, and considerate
> drivers; but it has relatively
> little casual transportational cycling.

Vancouver has odius roads, under-developed &
poorly implemented bicycle infrastructure,
pig-ignorant drivers, and tons of transportational
(and other) cycling. ~And~ a comprehensive,
province-wide MHL.

IIRC, Vancouver has the second-highest (after
Victoria BC) per capita cycling modal share
in Canada. Go figure.


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

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 19:20:33 -0800, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
wrote:

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

>
>Vancouver has odius roads, under-developed &
>poorly implemented bicycle infrastructure,
>pig-ignorant drivers, and tons of transportational
>(and other) cycling. ~And~ a comprehensive,
>province-wide MHL.
>
>IIRC, Vancouver has the second-highest (after
>Victoria BC) per capita cycling modal share
>in Canada. Go figure.
>

A single data point tells us nothing.

Do you have a figures that show

a) any change in cycling following the MHL?

b) any change in the rate of head injury following the MHL?

If not, we will have to continue to rely on those figures from other
situations, which tell us that MHL's reduce cycling and do nothing to
(or possibly increase) head injury rates.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

*Weapon of Mass Boredom, launched on an innocent populace by the
notorious Frank Krygowski, who never tires of hearing himself hold
forth again and again and again about the same old tired ********.

On Mar 18, 9:57 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 17, 7:37 pm, "greggery peccary"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 2. i wear mine because it saved my life...twice.
>
> WOW!
>
> Given the fact that there are about

ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz....

(He must be using sleeping gas these days! ;-> )

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 18, 3:32 pm, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> *Weapon of Mass Boredom, launched on an innocent populace by the
> notorious Frank Krygowski, who never tires of hearing himself hold
> forth again and again and again about the same old tired ********.
>
> On Mar 18, 9:57 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Mar 17, 7:37 pm, "greggery peccary"
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > 2. i wear mine because it saved my life...twice.
>
> > WOW!
>
> > Given the fact that there are about
>
> ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz....
>
> (He must be using sleeping gas these days! ;-> )

For some, thinking is boring, and math is incomprehensible. They
won't be able to learn.

But fortunately, not everyone is like that.

- Frank Krygowski