Sorni wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> (Note: Frank's snipping tactics employed. DOES make for easier rebuttal!)
My "snipping tactics" consist of removing the part of the post to which
I'm not replying. Elementary Usenet etiquette. Sorry it, too,
confuses you!
> > How odd, though, to berate someone for actually studying the issue
> > under discussion, and for knowing what they're talking about!
>
> "Hmmm. Right again, Frank" (line from a M*A*S*H episode, dripping with
> sarcasm.)
Right, indeed. Why _do_ you keep posting based on ignorant guesses?
Why _do_ you make fun of people who have actually learned about this
issue?
>
> Let's say there's X number of cyclists out there. Do, what, 60% of 'em use
> helmets? 55%?? 52%??? They're all stupid or ill-informed or brainwashed?
> (Similarities to national elections purely coincidental.)
Well, let's consider. In 1890, cycling was incredibly popular - at
least, among the middle and upper classes that could afford it. The
vast majority of people thought it was safe enough that no helmets were
needed.
In the 1940s and 1950s in France cycle touring was incredibly popular.
All those families riding out of the cities into the countryside
thought it was safe enough that no helmets were needed.
In the Netherlands, Denmark, China, India and many other nations,
cycling remains incredibly popular. The vast majority of cyclists
think it's safe enough that no helmets are needed.
In the US, in the early 1970s, cycling experienced a tremendous surge
of popularity. The vast majority of cyclists thought it was safe
enough that no helmets were needed.
In about 1975, a manufacturer of motorcycle helmets decided to go after
the American consumers in the booming bike market. Soon they sponsored
ads and articles saying cycling was dangerous, hoping to sell their
flimsy wares. They funneled money into Safe Kids and other lobbying
organizations. They sponsored research to "prove" that helmets were
amazingly (85%) effective.
And sure enough, a large percentage of Americans (who almost invariably
use bikes only as toys) added the heavily advertised hats to their
"special clothes" for cycling.
Are these "gotta-have-the-matching-sox" bikers ill informed and
brainwashed? Or are the millions upon millions more people who have
ridden for decades, through history, for practical transportation as
well as avid recreation?
It's absolutely true today that in societies where cycling is most
common, helmet use is most rare. And vise-versa.
If you're going to pretend it's a vote, at least let _all_ cyclists in
on the count.
- Frank Krygowski
