Fat kids

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

David Kerber ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net said:

On a per-mile basis I'm sure you're correct, but on a per-year basis, I'll bet the dedicated
roadie who does 5k or 10k miles per year averages more injuries per year than the kid who does 20
miles per year going down the street to her friend's house.

What Frank said. Excluding those who ride next to nothing, an experienced rider doing four or five
times the mileage of an inexperienced rider is less likely to have a crash, AIUI.

Could be, but I'm talking about mileage differences of 25 to 50, not 4 or 5.

Quoted message said:

The average member of the UK's Cyclists' Touring Club will crash about once every 3,500 years. Not
exactly a big risk. Which is probably why a regular cyclist lives a decade longer than average,
according to the British Medical Association :-)

I question the 3500 year number itself, but I don't doubt the overall conclusions at all.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

Zippy the Pinhead said:

Kevan Smith said:

There is no "they." There is only an us and various degrees of lack of understanding that there is
only an us.

That's what they'd like you to think...

We: cyclists. Them: non-cyclists.

Pretty simple. 😉

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

frkrygow said:

Kamus of Kadizhar said:

I doubt that it's the helmet laws alone.... I see it all the time - I plan and develop
communities, and I fight an uphill battle against developers, staff (both city and county)
planners, school districts etc. all the time.

Basically, all of our communities, even the so-called walking communities, are planned around car
access. *Everything else* is secondary.

It's certainly not the helmet laws _alone_. But we can't pretend the helmet laws do not have an
effect. There have been too many examples of step changes (always decreases) in cycling counts
upon implementation of helmet laws. And in at least some cases, there were subsequent telephone
surveys in which respondents said the helmet laws were the reasons they rode less.

It has been suggested that helmet manufacturers have lobbied for compulsory helmet larws. If so,
they were short-sighted and stupid! In some cases (Nova Scotia) the reduction of bicyclists after
the introduction of the law was so great that the numbers of HELMETTED bicyclists also went down. So
much for these greedy companies trying to make a killing by selling more useless helmets at wildly
inflated prices -- They would have sold more helmets and made more money by normal advertising
extolling helmets' virtues, without advocating compulsion to wear them!

--
This message is certified Virus Free as no Microsoft products were used in its preparation or
propagation

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Yes, I'm only referring to head injuries even though I failed to say so. The main cause in a
dedicated rodie would be a car turning or pulling out in front of them while they are going fast.
We've probably all had close encounters like that even if we never actually made contact.

Not really, I'm not a dedicated roadie, so I don't go at top speed in town or near hazzards, and
certainly do not push my luck trying to corner as fast as possible.

"Kamus of Kadizhar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Q. said:

Dang, I being quoted now! Coolness ...

Hey, some time ago I came across one of my usenet snippets in someone else's sig. I'm just
returning the favor.

When I saw that I did a google search for it ... I had kinda forgot what I wrote. I came up with a
page where that same post was partially quoted on a Denmark page. I still haven't translated it ...
they're only slightly less scary than the Germans (c:

Thanks! I love quotes, and collect quotes .... it's nice to be quoted.

Quoted message said:

Besides, I'm getting old, and I ride a decent bike. I'm still working on the 'eat right' part -
unless buffalo wings and beer qualify as a post-ride training diet. :-)

See, I call that a "caveman" diet. I heard that someplace and it made sense. Only eat what our
ancestors have been eating for thousands of years. Beer counts, that's been around for a while ...
read "The Botany of Desire: A Plant's Eye View of the World" sometime, great book. It gives me a
good excuse to go hunting all winter too (Archery season is 4 months here). Wild game is much better
than store bought meat, and pretty much forces you to learn to cook it yourself. I'm honestly
working towards owning a nice piece of land and cutting all meat out of my diet, except that which I
harvest myself. My girlfriend is Hindi and a life long vegetarian, so we agreed on that compromise
if we get married. If I eat a nasty fast food burger she wont even kiss me for hours. If that's not
incentive I don't know what is ...

BTW, I used to think being a vegetarian was a bit lame but now that I date a 30 year old woman with
a body in better shape than most of the girls I dated in high school I'm starting to find a new
appreciation for it (c:

C.Q.C.Still kinda young, still don't eat quite that well, and still hasn't owned any bike better
than half way decent.

Quoted message said:

-Kamus

--
o__ | If you're old, eat right and ride a decent bike. ,>/'_ | Q. (_)\(_) | Usenet posting`

Marlene Blanshay said:

Imagine being 45 and saying, "I'm going out for a bike ride. WHEE!"

Imagine? I do it as often as I can. Nothing like going out with a bunch of young riders and leaving
them in the dust :-)

Those days don't come too often anymore, but occasianally I do get those days when everything falls
into place and I can dust those 20-something Marines who show up for our rides....

My role models now are those guys (and gals) who are too old (or perhaps too wise) to ride an
upright, so they get a trike. Ever saw a real racing trike in action? Good lord, they're fast, and
most of those riding them are *old*. I saw a woman who had to be in her 70s, just hauling *ss on
one of those.

That's my goal. To get chased down when I'm 60 because I'm pushing the pace too fast :-)

-Kamus

--
o__ | If you're old, eat right and ride a decent bike. ,>/'_ | Q. (_)\(_) | Usenet posting`

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Yes, I'm only referring to head injuries even though I failed to say so. The main cause in a
dedicated rodie would be a car turning or pulling out in front of them while they are going
fast. We've probably all had close encounters like that even if we never actually made contact.

Not really, I'm not a dedicated roadie, so I don't go at top speed in town or near hazzards, and
certainly do not push my luck trying to corner as fast as possible.

I slow down in those situations, too, but I've still had cars turn left in front of me while I was
doing about 15 mph on a highway. I had to slam on the brakes, but managed to avoid contact. I think
the biggest problem is that cars tend to misjudge cyclists' speed, subconsciously thinking that
everybody on a bike is only going 5 mph.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 01:00:19 -0800, Zoot Katz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And in at least some cases, there were subsequent telephone surveys in which respondents said the
helmet laws were the reasons they rode less.

Depending on the phrasing of survey question, it was possibly those fat kids looking for an easy
ready-made excuse to not ride.

Like they need an excuse.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:09:08 +1300, Peter Keller <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It has been suggested that helmet manufacturers have lobbied for compulsory helmet larws.

I've not seen evidence of that, I have to say. The campaigns are mainly led by handwringers inspired
by trauma doctors who have not considered the overall picture. Shroud-waving is prominent.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Zoot Katz <[email hidden]> wrote:
: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 22:11:37 -0500, <[email hidden]>, "frkrygow"
: <"frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu> wrote:

:>And in at least some cases, there were subsequent telephone surveys in which respondents said the
:>helmet laws were the reasons they rode less.

: Depending on the phrasing of survey question, it was possibly those fat kids looking for an easy
: ready-made excuse to not ride.

Wearing a helmet in the heat is not much fun. I live in one of the cooler areas, but felt more
comforable breaking the law today than ending up hot and sweaty when I arrived at work.

Kids are bound to t be put off cycling by helmets when it's hot, if adults are. And all this for
a law that made no difference whatsoever to head injury rates, despite massive increases in
helmet wearing.

Helmets are not the only factor, but they certainly have an effect.

Dorre

Zoot Katz said:

Mon, 05 Jan 2004 22:11:37 -0500, <[email hidden]>, "frkrygow"

frkrygow'@omitcc.ysu.edu said:

And in at least some cases, there were subsequent telephone surveys in which respondents said the
helmet laws were the reasons they rode less.

Depending on the phrasing of survey question, it was possibly those fat kids looking for an easy
ready-made excuse to not ride.

Except that the surveys were done after the sudden drop in riding occurred. If a fat kid rides
before the MHL, then gives it up immediately when the MHL is in effect, it's unlikely that mere
laziness was the root cause.

And it doesn't matter anyway. Whatever the minute details of the personal motivation, the net effect
was the same: institute MHL, watch sudden drop in cycling.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

Quoted message said:

Seat belt laws are stupid, gun control is not. But gun control is a smokescreen to obscure the real
reasons behind the US's incredible firearms homicide rate. After all, the Canadians seem not to
shoot themselves, and they've got just as many guns.

I'm not so sure about that, Guy. Seat belt laws are good, I wouldn't even think about getting into a
motor vehicle without strapping in.

That's a public education campaign that worked.

The problem with gun control is that, well, a lot of gun owners aren't socially responsible or
properly trained.

Somewhat like cycling.

But I'm not hand wringing here, I can see the stats and the facts.

On balance, could we save more lives with firearms instruction than seatbelt laws? Probably not.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email hidden]__________

Just zis Guy said:

Peter Keller said:

It has been suggested that helmet manufacturers have lobbied for compulsory helmet larws.

I've not seen evidence of that, I have to say. The campaigns are mainly led by handwringers
inspired by trauma doctors who have not considered the overall picture. Shroud-waving is
prominent.

Again, I think that an investigative reporter tracking the money would find the American handwringer
society Safe Kids getting money from helmet manufacturers through _some_ path. It may be "washed" by
going through an intermediary organization, but I doubt that's even necessary.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:02:10 +1300, Peter Keller <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately I made the mistake of doing some research and looking up some statistics. My
conclusion: compulsory helmet laws do FAR more harm than good.

Smart man. I plotted the % of cyclist injuries which are head injuries for a period encompassing the
introduction of the law in NZ. Looking at the figures it is impossible to even guess which year saw
helmet use increase from about 43% to over 95%. Funny, that. I guess you've got better data than me,
though - is your Reply-To mail valid? I could do with a bit of detail specifically to do with
children, if you don't mind, because one of our MPs has been bamboozled by the Liddites into
bringing a bill to introduce mandatory helmet wearing for children. It will fail, as it doesn't have
Government support, but there needs to be some careful lobbying to ensure that it doesn't get
resurrected.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 12:57:52 -0500, "Eric S. Sande" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Seat belt laws are stupid, gun control is not. But gun control is a smokescreen to obscure the
real reasons behind the US's incredible firearms homicide rate. After all, the Canadians seem not
to shoot themselves, and they've got just as many guns.

Quoted message said:

I'm not so sure about that, Guy. Seat belt laws are good, I wouldn't even think about getting into
a motor vehicle without strapping in.

Neither would I, *but* in the UK the initial trial of the compulsory seat belt law resulted in the
largest recorded year-on-year rise in pedestrian, cyclist and rear-seat passenger fatalities, and no
measurable change in driver fatality rates. This was known at the time the law was made permanent
but the report was buried by the sponsoring department until after the relevant debates.

Quoted message said:

The problem with gun control is that, well, a lot of gun owners aren't socially responsible or
properly trained.

Quite. I learned to shoot when I was still at school, and I grew up in a house which had a rifle
stored in it (unusual in the UK! My father held a commission in the RAF reserves and was a shooting
instructor).

I enjoy shooting as a sport, but an assault rifle is a pointless weapon to use for target or game
shooting, and I have never had any desire to carry a gun in public or even hold one off-range. Not
since I outgrew the initial surge of testosterone, anyway. The whole business of penis extensions -
vehicular or firearms - baffles me.

Quoted message said:

On balance, could we save more lives with firearms instruction than seatbelt laws? Probably not.

You think? We could certainly save more laws with driver education than either, though.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

"Eric S. Sande" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The problem with gun control is that, well, a lot of gun owners aren't socially responsible or
properly trained.

Even if its not a lot, 1 in 10,000 thats far far too many.

Eric S. Sande said:

The problem with gun control is that, well, a lot of gun owners aren't socially responsible or
properly trained.

OK Eric, we'll get you an appointment with the Crips, so you can give them a training session. But
frankly, I think society is better served by having another excuse to arrest the [censored].

Matt O.

Eric S. Sande said:

Quoted message said:

Seat belt laws are stupid, gun control is not. But gun control is a smokescreen to obscure the
real reasons behind the US's incredible firearms homicide rate. After all, the Canadians seem not
to shoot themselves, and they've got just as many guns.

I'm not so sure about that, Guy. Seat belt laws are good, I wouldn't even think about getting into
a motor vehicle without strapping in.

That's a public education campaign that worked.

The problem with gun control is that, well, a lot of gun owners aren't socially responsible or
properly trained.

Somewhat like cycling.

But I'm not hand wringing here, I can see the stats and the facts.

On balance, could we save more lives with firearms instruction than seatbelt laws? Probably not.

The two are not at all comparable.

Irresponsible use of a firearm endangers not only the wielder of the firearm, but anyone within a
considerable distance of that person.

Not wearing a seat belt has no probable consequences beyond greater injury to the party not wearing
a seat belt if a collision occurs.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

Just zis Guy said:

Neither would I, *but* in the UK the initial trial of the compulsory seat belt law resulted in the
largest recorded year-on-year rise in pedestrian, cyclist and rear-seat passenger fatalities, and
no measurable change in driver fatality rates. This was known at the time the law was made
permanent but the report was buried by the sponsoring department until after the relevant debates.

ISTR a discussion somewhere that perturbing any system will result in wild swings - thus when you
begin innoculation against a disease, often the first visible result is a sharp spike in its
incidence. Something to do with chaos theory - any mathematicians around?

OTOH, lots of the helmet laws don't really make sense. For example, helmets are mandatory for kids
under 16. OK, so we have parents riding with kids; parents have no helmets, kids do. What's the
message here?

I've seen people refuse to ride if they had to wear a helmet because of "fashion" concerns....

OTOH, I believe in helmets - they save lots of nasty recovery time, and scalp injuries *hurt*.

So, around my house, the rules are simple. No helmet, no ride. Anything with wheels. Scooters,
bikes, skates, whatever. And it applies to all of us. (I do get some strange looks when I'm on a
child's scooter with a helmet, but I can't expect my kids to wear them if I don't....) My kids don't
even think about it. And yes, we have all slapped our helmets on the concrete (except for the 3 year
old, and his time is coming....)

-Kamus

--
o__ | If you're old, eat right and ride a decent bike. ,>/'_ | Q. (_)\(_) | Usenet posting`

Kamus of Kadizhar said:

ISTR a discussion somewhere that perturbing any system will result in wild swings - thus when you
begin innoculation against a disease, often the first visible result is a sharp spike in its
incidence. Something to do with chaos theory - any mathematicians around?

Maybe David Johnson will chime in. I'm merely an engineer - but AFAIK, "perturbing any system will
result in wild swings" is in general, false. Counterexamples abound.

Quoted message said:

So, around my house, the rules are simple. No helmet, no ride. Anything with wheels. Scooters,
bikes, skates, whatever. And it applies to all of us.

Times are strange! I noticed in the Sharper Image 2002 Christmas catalog (IIRC) that every
ridiculously priced set of wheels they sold came with a sanctimonious (or lawyer-satisfying)
"Warning! Always wear a helmet when riding!" This was for bicycles, scooters, electric skateboards,
tiny circus-clown bikes with 8" wheels, motorized pedalcars for the overweight kiddies, etc.

The only type of wheeled vehicle which is exempt from this paranoia is the one which causes by FAR
the greatest number of serious head injuries, and fully 50% of the head injuries fatalities in
America: the private automobile. Go figure.

Quoted message said:

(I do get some strange looks when I'm on a child's scooter with a helmet, but I can't expect my
kids to wear them if I don't....) My kids don't even think about it. And yes, we have all slapped
our helmets on the concrete (except for the 3 year old, and his time is coming....)

Yep. All normal kids have always bumped their heads on the ground while growing up. This has been
true for the last 100,000 years at least!

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]