Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling

[[email protected]]

On 18 Mar 2007 21:36:07 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

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

For some, math is impossible - even _with_ a calculator.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 18, 10:36 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> 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.....


.......so that's why you just regurgitate the same tired old ********
again and again and again, Franky?

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 19, 4:48 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On 18 Mar 2007 21:36:07 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >For some, thinking is boring, and math is incomprehensible. They
> >won't be able to learn.
>
> For some, math is impossible - even _with_ a calculator.

How are things coming along with posting a link to the post wherein I
"went on record" as being "pro-MHL", liar?

Embarrassed? Or just an ass?

 

[DougC]

Claire Petersky wrote:
>
>
> Earthworms, from what I understand, are male and female at the same time.
>

Yes they are--but they still prefer another to tango with (I dunno
remember if they can do the job themselves...?)
~

 

[di]

"DougC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Claire Petersky wrote:
>>
>>
>> Earthworms, from what I understand, are male and female at the same time.
>>
>
> Yes they are--but they still prefer another to tango with (I dunno
> remember if they can do the job themselves...?)
> ~

I bet it's tough on the male parts, crawling around without legs. This
group gets more educational everyday.

 

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:52:54 -0700, "greggery peccary"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>> We know that nationally, about 99% of severe brain injuries have
>> nothing at all to do with bicycling. I'm curious if Seattle is some
>> sort of Twilight Zone Black Hole of Bicycling, with incredible head
>> injury danger, and if that accounts for the weird attitudes of
>> Thompson, Rivara, "greggery peccary" and the rest of Harborview.
>>
>> Do report back, won't you?
>>
>
>who is Thompson, Rivara?
>

Thompson, Riviera, and Thompson were the authors of the junk science
paper that has become the lynchpin of the pro-helmet zealots; despite
numerous major incapacitating flaws, their statistic of helmets
preventing 85% of head injuries has become gospel to the true
believers, quoted by police departments, politicians, cycle equipment
salesdroids, etcetera.

If you don't know about TRT, you _really_ don't know much about cycle
helmets - better hie off to www.cyclehelmets.org and, um, "report
back".

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 19, 5:42 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:52:54 -0700, "greggery peccary"

>
> >who is Thompson, Rivara?
>
> Thompson, Riviera, and Thompson, the authors of the science
> paper that has become the lynchpin of pro-helmet ; their statistic of helmets
> preventing 85% of head injuries has become gospel.
>
> If you don't know about TRT, you _really_ don't know much about cycle
> helmets.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 17, 9:51 am, [email protected] 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...

And......????

tick-tock ;-)

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 19, 6:52 pm, "greggery peccary"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>
> > Ah, Harborview. The prime helmet promoting and helmet mandating
> > medical organization in the world. The ones that produced the
> > laughable study that promised that helmets would prevent 85% of all
> > head injuries (um, counting cut ears and scratched chins) - and are
> > trying to squelch the fact that helmets haven't made any detectable
> > difference.
>
> > If you really do get to see neurosurgeons at work, please start
> > counting the number of patients that are there from bike crashes, vs.
> > the number from other causes. Report back on what you find.
>
> > We know that nationally, about 99% of severe brain injuries have
> > nothing at all to do with bicycling. I'm curious if Seattle is some
> > sort of Twilight Zone Black Hole of Bicycling, with incredible head
> > injury danger, and if that accounts for the weird attitudes of
> > Thompson, Rivara, "greggery peccary" and the rest of Harborview.
>
> > Do report back, won't you?
>
> who is Thompson, Rivara?

Thompson and Rivara (and another Thompson) authored the 1989 paper
that famously claimed that helmets prevent 85% of head injuries.
That's become the most common claim of helmet effectiveness -
specifically because it's the highest ever made, I think. It's a lot
like the diet ads "Lose 150 pounds in one month!" or other such
nonsense.

Largely as a result of that claim, entire populations of countries
have been forced to wear helmets each time they ride. Yet no
jurisdiction has ever seen anything close to that "85%" benefit. In
fact, on a per-remaining-rider basis, things generally get worse than
before the big increase in helmet use.

How can this be? Briefly, Thompson & Rivara compared very, very
different groups among the 200-odd people in their study. The mostly
poor minority kids riding alone on city streets, being hit by cars,
falling on hard surfaces, who didn't wear helmets were compared with
the mostly middle class kids riding with their parents on bike paths
who fell on soft surfaces while they wore helmets - and T&R "proved"
that the great differences in injury were because of the helmets.

Other researchers examined their data set and used the same techniques
to "prove" that the helmets also reduced serious leg injuries by 75%.
In other words, the injury differences were caused by a lot more than
just helmets.

In addition, T&R defined "head injury" as any cut, scratch, scrape,
bruise or worse above the neck. Yes, they literally called scratched
ears "Head Injuries." Of course, there is no official definition of
"head injury," so they weren't technically lying. But when others
extrapolated to claim helmets would prevent 85% of fatalities, they
never publicly objected.

The most charitable thing to say about T&R and The Harborview
Institute (which they now call themselves and their colleagues) is
that their missionary spirit is so strong that they feel it's not
necessary to actually tell the truth.

BTW, if you're going to make claims for helmet effectiveness, you
really should study up on the issue a bit. Not everybody can
understand the fine points, but you may be able to. Try starting with
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1131

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

Tom Keats wrote:

> Why are cyclists so often our own worst enemies?

How could one cyclist say to another "see you
at harborview (i might even get to see neurosurg
do a crani on you!)" if they had ever had any
real experience with such horror as that?

 

[Tom Keats]

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

> Thompson and Rivara (and another Thompson) authored the 1989 paper
> that famously claimed that helmets prevent 85% of head injuries.
> That's become the most common claim of helmet effectiveness -
> specifically because it's the highest ever made, I think. It's a lot
> like the diet ads "Lose 150 pounds in one month!" or other such
> nonsense.
>
> Largely as a result of that claim, entire populations of countries
> have been forced to wear helmets each time they ride. Yet no
> jurisdiction has ever seen anything close to that "85%" benefit. In
> fact, on a per-remaining-rider basis, things generally get worse than
> before the big increase in helmet use.

I'm not terribly thrilled about exaggerated claims of the
efficacy of bicycle helmets, myself. In fact I suspect
they may well make things worse for riders by lulling car
drivers into more careless attitudes around helmeted riders.
I'm already on record here for opining that insistence of
helmet use comes largely from car drivers who don't want to
undergo the hassle of driving more carefully[*].

I nevertheless question the guessing that increased
helmet use and MHLs results in decreased ridership.

I can make guesses, too. I'll go so far as to guess that
intraversable expressways and other scarily busy roadways
(especially within cities) do a heckuva lot more to discourage
ridership than does helmet usage and MHLs.


cheers,
Tom

[*] A local cycling character recently proposed a sticker
that says: "I wear a helmet so you can drive like
a [expletive deleted] idiot."

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

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>
>> Why are cyclists so often our own worst enemies?
>
> How could one cyclist say to another "see you
> at harborview (i might even get to see neurosurg
> do a crani on you!)" if they had ever had any
> real experience with such horror as that?

I (semi-)recall my first & last serious incident.
It was like being born with some understanding of
the English language. There were a number of fades
in-&-out of consciousness. Going through the MRI
with that ka-CHUNK! ka-CHUNK! noise getting closer
and closer felt like I was gonna be lopped up into
sausages or something. I think that time I just
fainted from the freakiness of the experience.

I also recall being rushed down the hospital corridors
on a gurney and coming-to enough to look up at the ceiling
lights rushing by, reminding me of PF's "The Wall", of which
I made mention.

The first time I woke up, there was a cop asking me a bunch
of questions to which I answered: "I can't remember. Where's
my bike?" I made careful note that he replied that it was
safely stowed in the impound lot, ready for claiming and
pick-up. I'm still riding that hit-head-on frame, but I
had to swap out the fork. Eleven stitches and a sleepless
night later, I retrieved my stalwart steed.

It all happened during a late January night, coming home from
the GF's place. Wee hours, rain turning to snow, me noticing
the wiring had somehow popped out of my headlight just before
everything went blank.

I must've lain in a puddle for a long while before I got
scooped up by the ERT (even though I was practically right
in front of their ambulance/fire hall.) When the hospital
let me go in the morning, they gave me back a doggy-bag of
my swampy, bilaterally dissected clothing, including my
reflective vest. Some custodian with a German accent and
a highly reproachful tone begrudgingly gave me a pair of
pants to go home in. I later turned those navy blue gabardines
into a pair of cycling cutoffs, but eventually wore holes
in the ass end of them.

I was involved in a head-on collision with a car, I was
dutifully wearing a helmet, and I got torpedo-launched
over the handlebar, into a windshield. As I admittedly
vaguely recall it, I was waiting for a break to cross
a certain, local, problematic intersection, and got
rammed-into by a corner-cutting, left-turning driver while
I was dutifully leaving space to my right for upcoming
right-turners.

In retrospect, the street I was on was really too narrow
to do that.

Apparently I got that windshield real good.

Getting clobbered sucks, and nobody should have to endure it.


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 Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:08:18 -0800, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
wrote:

>
>I nevertheless question the guessing that increased
>helmet use and MHLs results in decreased ridership.
>

It's not "guessing"; it's been measured.

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Tom Keats) writes:

> Seattle suffers immensely from car traffic congestion.
> I mean, just look at this:
> http://www.answers.com/topic/traffic-congestion-map

I forgot to note: Vancouver BC does not have any expressways
running through it. We do have some feeder routes to the
Trans-Canada Highway, but cyclists as well as pedestrians
have pushbuttons to stop the traffic so we can get across
them safely (as long as drivers don't run their red lights.)

Vancouver BC and Seattle WA are pretty much twin cities,
and we share much culture between us, including MHLs.
But we also have differences. Vancouver is fairly cycling
successful. Frankly, I think Seattle is, too, but is
under-recognized.

Anyways, Vancouver BC and Seattle are similar in having MHLs
and the same weather systems, and all kinds of similar conditions.
Except for being stuck with expressways.

If Seattlites don't want to ride as much as Vancouverites,
there's something else going on besides helmet requirements.
In Vancouver, you can at least get around at all (except for
the omnipresent street work.) And if you look broke and are
helmetless, the cops don't bug ya. Usually.


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

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] writes:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:08:18 -0800, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
> wrote:
>
>>
>>I nevertheless question the guessing that increased
>>helmet use and MHLs results in decreased ridership.
>>
>
> It's not "guessing"; it's been measured.

You've been measured, too.

You're a little short.

Between you 'n me, a little screechy, too.


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

 

[Tom Keats]

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

I have figures that show cycling /during/ the MHL.

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

I have refs to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia
listing collision aftermath stats.

You can get those via Google too, if you have the will.

> 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.

No we won't. But I'm sure we'll be subjected to your
continued propagandistic idealoguery BS anyway.

***********!! There's a whole bunch of things that discourage
cycling. And yet you won't address those things. Instead, you
distract with a bunch of relentless helmet BS.

Y'know what? You're the 5th Column!

~You~ are the enemy! And I'm sayin' that as someone who
doesn't really believe in helmets either.


--
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 Tue, 20 Mar 2007 02:43:39 -0800, [email protected]l (Tom
Keats) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] writes:
>> 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?
>
>I have figures that show cycling /during/ the MHL.
>

I'll take that's a "No", then?

>> b) any change in the rate of head injury following the MHL?
>
>I have refs to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia
>listing collision aftermath stats.
>

That would be a "No", as well?

>You can get those via Google too, if you have the will.

But they won't tell us what happens following increases in helmet use.

>
>> 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.
>
>No we won't. But I'm sure we'll be subjected to your
>continued propagandistic idealoguery BS anyway.
>

Um, in what way can posting a synopsis of the results of carefully
designed and carried out studies on the (lack of) effectiveness of
cycle helmets be considered "propaganda", "idealistic", or "BS"?
Do you deny that those are the results found - cycling decreases and
head injury rates do not?

>***********!! There's a whole bunch of things that discourage
>cycling. And yet you won't address those things.

Like the BC ban on unicycles, fixed gear cycles, and ordinaries?

Like the BC court decision that cyclists must use the graveled
shoulder if it exists, rather than the bitumen?

As a google expert, you migft be able to find some posts from yours
truly addressing those...

 

[[email protected]]

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] writes:
> > Tom Keats wrote:
> >
> >> Why are cyclists so often our own worst enemies?
> >
> > How could one cyclist say to another "see you
> > at harborview (i might even get to see neurosurg
> > do a crani on you!)" if they had ever had any
> > real experience with such horror as that?
>
> I (semi-)recall my first & last serious incident.
> It was like being born with some understanding of
> the English language. There were a number of fades
> in-&-out of consciousness. Going through the MRI
> with that ka-CHUNK! ka-CHUNK! noise getting closer
> and closer felt like I was gonna be lopped up into
> sausages or something. I think that time I just
> fainted from the freakiness of the experience.
>
> I also recall being rushed down the hospital corridors
> on a gurney and coming-to enough to look up at the ceiling
> lights rushing by, reminding me of PF's "The Wall", of which
> I made mention.
>
> The first time I woke up, there was a cop asking me a bunch
> of questions to which I answered: "I can't remember. Where's
> my bike?" I made careful note that he replied that it was
> safely stowed in the impound lot, ready for claiming and
> pick-up. I'm still riding that hit-head-on frame, but I
> had to swap out the fork. Eleven stitches and a sleepless
> night later, I retrieved my stalwart steed.
>
> It all happened during a late January night, coming home from
> the GF's place. Wee hours, rain turning to snow, me noticing
> the wiring had somehow popped out of my headlight just before
> everything went blank.
>
> I must've lain in a puddle for a long while before I got
> scooped up by the ERT (even though I was practically right
> in front of their ambulance/fire hall.) When the hospital
> let me go in the morning, they gave me back a doggy-bag of
> my swampy, bilaterally dissected clothing, including my
> reflective vest. Some custodian with a German accent and
> a highly reproachful tone begrudgingly gave me a pair of
> pants to go home in. I later turned those navy blue gabardines
> into a pair of cycling cutoffs, but eventually wore holes
> in the ass end of them.
>
> I was involved in a head-on collision with a car, I was
> dutifully wearing a helmet, and I got torpedo-launched
> over the handlebar, into a windshield. As I admittedly
> vaguely recall it, I was waiting for a break to cross
> a certain, local, problematic intersection, and got
> rammed-into by a corner-cutting, left-turning driver while
> I was dutifully leaving space to my right for upcoming
> right-turners.
>
> In retrospect, the street I was on was really too narrow
> to do that.
>
> Apparently I got that windshield real good.
>
> Getting clobbered sucks, and nobody should have to endure it.


Left turners are the worst. It is like being
attacked by a fire breathing dragon when
they come down on you like that, or being
scooped up in the talons of a giant pteradactyl.
In a shocking instant the realization of the
inequality of the cyclist's situation hits, the
powerlessness, the ease at which one could
be snuffed out, with just a moment of
distraction or a flick of the wheel from a
driver.

Glad you are still with us. Sounds like it
could have gone either way.

Robert

 

[[email protected]]

Tom Keats wrote:

> Seattle suffers immensely from car traffic congestion.
> I mean, just look at this:
> http://www.answers.com/topic/traffic-congestion-map
>
> Seattle /could/ be a Bicycle Utopia, if only they
> could just get rid of their Car Hades.
>
> I submit Seattle's cycling ridership would be increased
> more by increased accessibility, than by repealment of
> their MHL. I think Seattle is just a hard place to ride
> around in, unless you really know your way around.

I didn't find it very difficult to navigate around Seattle
on a bike. I mean, it's a confusing city geographically,
but that's another matter. With all that water to deal
with there are some pinch points. Congestion is considerable
but not a real impediment to cycling in a city with lots
of useful bike routes, bike lanes, wol's, and other access,
not to mention some of the most considerate drivers
to be found in the lower 48. The main MUP used by
transportational cyclists in Seattle could use some
improvement; it's a fairly rough asphalt surface, and
crosses a load of driveways and intersections. There
are a few laughable bike lanes but for the most part
they do a good job with bike lanes there. New bike
lanes in Seattle and Denver have been placed out
of door zones in their entirety, for instance.

Note when I talk about casual transportational
cycling I am not talking about 'serious commuters'
but short trips to the store, bar, coffeeshop,
concerts, etc. And some people may not care
about this at all, but the low-income population
in Seattle does not use bicycles the way they
are used in many other cities, all of which must
contribute significantly to traffic congestion.

Robert


> I retain the rest of your post unedited, for contextual and
> honesty purposes (unlike certain propagandist idea-logs.)
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>
>
> > Totally different worlds. Compared to almost
> > everywhere in the US for that matter.
> > That .7% is surprisingly low -- I would've
> > guessed at least twice that, closer to
> > other top US cycling cities.
> >
> > Robert
> >
>
> --
> 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 Mar 20, 1:19 am, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:

[snip]

> Seattle suffers immensely from car traffic congestion.
> I mean, just look at this:
> http://www.answers.com/topic/traffic-congestion-map
>
> Seattle /could/ be a Bicycle Utopia, if only they
> could just get rid of their Car Hades.
>
> I submit Seattle's cycling ridership would be increased
> more by increased accessibility, than by repealment of
> their MHL. I think Seattle is just a hard place to ride
> around in, unless you really know your way around.

[snip for propaganda purposes]

Dear Tom,

I submit that Seattle's cycling ridership would be increased more by
moving south to California, where the light and weather are better.

I'm not sure that "increased accessibility" would bring out hordes of
Seattle riders in rain capes, eager to test their lighting systems.



That traffic map is for 5:30pm, rush hour on 20 December 2005:

http://www.answers.com/topic/seattle-traffic-map-heavy-gif

Sunrise in Seattle that day was at 7:53am.

Sunset was at 4:20pm.

It was raining.

http://www.wunderground.com/history...tml?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

For those curious about the missing scale, King County streets are
laid out on a numbered grid, with about ten blocks to the mile. Thus
my friend who lives on 190th Avenue in Issaquah on the lower right of
the map is about 19 miles east of downtown Seattle on the left.
(Microsoft is in the upper right at Redmond.)

To be fair, Seattle has nice weather and long days in summer. But
traffic will always be a mess if you build a large city in a tangle of
lakes and bays.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel