if cycling could be

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by iguana, Apr 20, 2006.

  1. iguana

    iguana Guest

    if cycling could be made into the transport of the people
    again as it should be instead of just the helmet wearing subset there
    would be a stronger push for your better facilities. Too many people
    have been discouraged and alienated from cycling because they are
    adverse to wearing a helmet, There is no evidence that the law has
    worked in preventing injury so it should be reviewed, but the
    Government refuses to. That's while we should fight over it.
     
    Tags:


  2. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    It has NOTHING to do with helmets and everything to do with even the
    police pushing cyclists off of the road with motor vehicles.

    Start jailing those who threaten cyclists with vehicles and you'd see a
    large increase in cycle commuting.
     
  3. Josh Hassol

    Josh Hassol Guest

    iguana wrote:
    > if cycling could be made into the transport of the people
    > again as it should be instead of just the helmet wearing subset there
    > would be a stronger push for your better facilities. Too many people
    > have been discouraged and alienated from cycling because they are
    > adverse to wearing a helmet, There is no evidence that the law has
    > worked in preventing injury so it should be reviewed, but the
    > Government refuses to. That's while we should fight over it.


    You may be *intending* to start a flame war, but you probably have!

    Personally, I can't imagine anybody saying "gee, I'd love to use my
    bicycle for daily transportation, if only I didn't need to wear a
    helmet."

    Cheers!

    Josh
     
  4. Per Josh Hassol:
    >Personally, I can't imagine anybody saying "gee, I'd love to use my
    >bicycle for daily transportation, if only I didn't need to wear a
    >helmet."


    I could be one.... but then when I don't feel like it, I just don't wear the
    thing...
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
  5. bill

    bill Guest

    Other than NY state, where else is a a helmet required by law, for
    adult cyclists?
     
  6. Len

    Len Guest

    No, Tom, it's not just about cagers attacking bicyclists. It's about
    selfish people.

    It's about people who use the sidewalks for their own personal
    expressway. And people who ignore traffic control, like one way
    streets, stop lines, stop signs, and traffic lights. And people who
    believe in "sharing the road", ie passing the other vehicles in 6" or
    free lane, but then believe in "taking the lane" when they get in front
    of everybody.

    One of the advantages of using bicycles is that it takes up less space.
    "One less car". But when we ride along 2 or 3 abreast, just so we can
    chat, and block the other traffic, the cagers see us as time wasting
    twits. That's what causes road rage, and that's why some of them like
    to run us off the road.

    Granted, there are a few bicyclists who believe in observing the laws
    of the road. But the ones who don't are the ones who are most visible.
    They're the ones who make the public think that we're a bunch of
    anarchists.
     
  7. Dane Buson

    Dane Buson Guest

    our complaint properly
    X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
    Xref: usenetserver.com alt.mountain-bike:566126 rec.bicycles.misc:470419 ba.bicycles:141113 rec.bicycles.racing:516078
    X-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:34:00 EDT (be02)

    bill <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Other than NY state, where else is a a helmet required by law, for
    > adult cyclists?


    Lots of individual cities and some larger municipalities. King county
    here in Washington state has such a law.

    --
    Dane Buson - [email protected]
    You are never given a wish without also being given the
    power to make it true. You may have to work for it, however.
    -- R. Bach, "Messiah's Handbook : Reminders for the Advanced Soul"
     
  8. dgk

    dgk Guest

    On 20 Apr 2006 10:27:00 -0700, "bill" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Other than NY state, where else is a a helmet required by law, for
    >adult cyclists?


    I live in NY and do not believe that a helmet is required for adults.
    14 and younger, yes.
     
  9. bill

    bill Guest

    dgk wrote:
    > On 20 Apr 2006 10:27:00 -0700, "bill" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >Other than NY state, where else is a a helmet required by law, for
    > >adult cyclists?

    >
    > I live in NY and do not believe that a helmet is required for adults.
    > 14 and younger, yes.


    OK; that is like Connecticut. Frankly, if it ever comes to a helmet
    law, they can arrest me all they want; I'll wear one when I feel it is
    a good idea, not all the time. If I felt that I truly needed a helmet
    for safety *all the time* then I would also have to believe that I
    would need one for walking, or jogging, or playing tennis, or anything
    else other than watching television--heck even that is dangerous--you
    never know when someone might throw the remote at you!.

    Strap me down and intubate me already--I must be a danger to myself,
    thinking that I might actually have some *control* of my coordination
    and the right to make my own safety choices.
     
  10. Eric S

    Eric S Guest

    Len wrote:
    ....
    > One of the advantages of using bicycles is that it takes up less space.
    > "One less car". But when we ride along 2 or 3 abreast, just so we can
    > chat, and block the other traffic, the cagers see us as time wasting
    > twits.

    ....
    KSA 8-1590. (c) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride
    more than two abreast, except on paths or parts of roadways set aside
    for the exclusive use of bicycles.

    Perhaps it's down to their sheer ignorance of the law. I wonder if
    these cagers also see the following people as time wasting twits:

    motorists who drive alone past their co-workers' homes;
    motorists who drive alone past their neighbors' workplaces;
    people who drive to restaurants, ball games, theaters, book shops;
    people who drive less than a mile to work, shop or school;
    the oncoming traffic which is the true cause of their inability to pass
    2-up cyclists;

    all of which contribute to delaying me waaaaaaay more often and for
    longer at a time than any cyclist or group of cyclists anywhere,
    anytime.

    Because if they don't, then you must certainly agree that there is no
    justification for their road rage toward cyclists in any case.

    Not that you think there is.

    Of course, if you agree that each person should only be allowed the
    right-most 50cm of the lane, right up against the white line, then how
    are we to drive our cars?

    E
     
  11. JD

    JD Guest

    jpuddinhead wrote:
    > if cycling could be made into the transport of the people
    > again as it should be instead of just the helmet wearing subset there
    > would be a stronger push for your better facilities. Too many people
    > have been discouraged and alienated from cycling because they are
    > adverse to wearing a helmet, There is no evidence that the law has
    > worked in preventing injury so it should be reviewed, but the
    > Government refuses to. That's while we should fight over it.



    Ridiculous as usual, puddinhead. Of course it has nothing to do with
    mountain biking and everything to do with sidewalk riding.

    JD
     
  12. Scott

    Scott Guest

    Josh Hassol wrote:
    > iguana wrote:
    > > if cycling could be made into the transport of the people
    > > again as it should be instead of just the helmet wearing subset there
    > > would be a stronger push for your better facilities. Too many people
    > > have been discouraged and alienated from cycling because they are
    > > adverse to wearing a helmet, There is no evidence that the law has
    > > worked in preventing injury so it should be reviewed, but the
    > > Government refuses to. That's while we should fight over it.

    >
    > You may be *intending* to start a flame war, but you probably have!
    >
    > Personally, I can't imagine anybody saying "gee, I'd love to use my
    > bicycle for daily transportation, if only I didn't need to wear a
    > helmet."
    >
    > Cheers!
    >
    > Josh


    >From what I understand having read about various studies that have been

    conducted on this subject, the strong pro-helmet push does just that,
    discourages cycling. Seems that it's not so much that some people
    don't want to wear a helmet, it's that they don't want to do something
    so dangerous that they need a helmet. If cycling's that dangerous,
    they won't do it.

    The problem is, cycling's not that dangerous and helmets don't really
    help (yea, yea... spare me the anecdotal evidence, statistically
    speaking helmets do not reduce the incidence of head injuries across
    the general population of cyclists).

    But, the chicken little approach, proclaiming near-certain death if you
    don't wear a helmet, has many people convinced that cycling is an
    inherently dangerous activity, while in fact it is a very safe
    activity.

    I wish I'd kept a particular article, but didn't. Anyway, I believe it
    was in Cycle Sport and it addressed Great Britain's recent decision to
    stop pushing the pro-helmet agenda as they found that the general
    negative affect of having fewer people cycling outweighed any positive
    benefit that might be gained by increased helmet use. They'd rather
    have more people, with or without helmets, on bikes than fewer people,
    all with helmets.
     
  13. Len

    Len Guest

    Eric S wrote:
    > Len wrote:
    > ...
    > > One of the advantages of using bicycles is that it takes up less space.
    > > "One less car". But when we ride along 2 or 3 abreast, just so we can
    > > chat, and block the other traffic, the cagers see us as time wasting
    > > twits.

    > ...
    > KSA 8-1590. (c) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride
    > more than two abreast, except on paths or parts of roadways set aside
    > for the exclusive use of bicycles.
    >
    > Perhaps it's down to their sheer ignorance of the law. I wonder if
    > these cagers also see the following people as time wasting twits:
    >
    > motorists who drive alone past their co-workers' homes;
    > motorists who drive alone past their neighbors' workplaces;
    > people who drive to restaurants, ball games, theaters, book shops;
    > people who drive less than a mile to work, shop or school;
    > the oncoming traffic which is the true cause of their inability to pass
    > 2-up cyclists;
    >
    > all of which contribute to delaying me waaaaaaay more often and for
    > longer at a time than any cyclist or group of cyclists anywhere,
    > anytime.
    >
    > Because if they don't, then you must certainly agree that there is no
    > justification for their road rage toward cyclists in any case.
    >
    > Not that you think there is.
    >
    > Of course, if you agree that each person should only be allowed the
    > right-most 50cm of the lane, right up against the white line, then how
    > are we to drive our cars?


    Well, when I'm in my cage, I don't drive it in the right most 50 cm
    lane and pass folks on the right.

    And when I'm cycling, I don't selectively pass folks on the right (in
    that 50 cm lane) then block them from passing me on the left in the
    other 255 centimeters. That's almost the same as giving them a one
    finger salute. And I don't agree with road rage (DUH) but I do
    understand that, if we don't clean up our act, some of us will end up
    victims. Whether we're in the right or not.

    And whether we agree with the individual use of the cages, we shouldn't
    use our lack of agreement as an excuse for the shite we pull.

    We have to be consistent in traffic, if we expect for the rest of the
    traffic to see us as legitimate. If I expect for the cager in front of
    me to automatically yield that 50 cm when I want it, I expect to yield
    the 255 centimeters to him when he wants it. That's consistency, and
    courtesy. Inconsistency yields road rage.

    Their vehicles are bigger, and can hurt me more. I could be right, but
    dead.
     
  14. iguana bwana

    iguana bwana Guest

    Josh Hassol wrote:
    > iguana wrote:
    > > if cycling could be made into the transport of the people
    > > again as it should be instead of just the helmet wearing subset there
    > > would be a stronger push for your better facilities. Too many people
    > > have been discouraged and alienated from cycling because they are
    > > adverse to wearing a helmet, There is no evidence that the law has
    > > worked in preventing injury so it should be reviewed, but the
    > > Government refuses to. That's while we should fight over it.

    >
    > You may be *intending* to start a flame war,


    flame war here that would be new.
     
  15. bill wrote:
    > Other than NY state, where else is a a helmet required by law, for
    > adult cyclists?


    Helmets are required for _all_ cyclists in New Zealand, most of
    Australia, most of Spain, a few other European countries (Iceland and
    the Czech Republic, IIRC) and in at least 30 cities and counties in the
    US.

    And of course, helmets are requried for kids in many more places.

    Absolutely ludicrous.

    - Frank Krygowski
     
  16. Josh Hassol wrote:
    >
    > Personally, I can't imagine anybody saying "gee, I'd love to use my
    > bicycle for daily transportation, if only I didn't need to wear a
    > helmet."


    That's just a failure of imagination.

    When helmets were mandated in the Australian states, cycling nosedived.
    When telephone polls were conducted to find out why, people responded
    that it was because of the helmet laws. They gave up cycling rather
    than wear helmets.

    On average, people really don't like the things. People correctly
    judge that they're not sufficiently valuable, and that they don't want
    to wear them. That's why helmet promoters turn to mandatory helmet
    legislation.

    "We know better than you what's good for you. And - since the nice
    people at Snell gave us this lobbying money - we'd rather have you stop
    cycling than ride without our special hat."

    - Frank Krygowski
     
  17. On 20 Apr 2006 10:05:44 -0700, "Josh Hassol" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Personally, I can't imagine anybody saying "gee, I'd love to use my
    >bicycle for daily transportation, if only I didn't need to wear a
    >helmet."


    There are people w/o a lot of money in a county near me who are put
    off from riding due to helmets being required.

    JT

    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************
     
  18. On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:52:30 -0400, dgk <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On 20 Apr 2006 10:27:00 -0700, "bill" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>Other than NY state, where else is a a helmet required by law, for
    >>adult cyclists?

    >
    >I live in NY and do not believe that a helmet is required for adults.
    >14 and younger, yes.


    In at least one county in NY it is required for everyone.

    JT

    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************
     
  19. Bill Baka

    Bill Baka Guest

    John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
    > On 20 Apr 2006 10:05:44 -0700, "Josh Hassol" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> Personally, I can't imagine anybody saying "gee, I'd love to use my
    >> bicycle for daily transportation, if only I didn't need to wear a
    >> helmet."

    >
    > There are people w/o a lot of money in a county near me who are put
    > off from riding due to helmets being required.
    >
    > JT
    >
    > ****************************
    > Remove "remove" to reply
    > Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    > ****************************


    Mandatory helmets made me cut way down on motorcycle use. At least on a
    bicycle I don't HAVE to wear one. I would rather have to comb out my
    ratty hair after a ride than wear a helmet, although I do insist that
    any kids riding with me or even near me wear one. I would have a few
    more front teeth if I had worn a helmet but only a full face motorcycle
    helmet, and this was a bicycle crash, good one, but still only a bike
    crash. Rocks win, teeth lose, even with a road bike helmet.
    Bill Baka
     
  20. Donald Munro

    Donald Munro Guest

    bill wrote:
    >>I live in NY and do not believe that a helmet is required for adults.
    >>14 and younger, yes.


    John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
    > In at least one county in NY it is required for everyone.


    Even non-cyclists ?
     
Loading...
Loading...