Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through



J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:48:00 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>The public has had cycling helmets beaten into their heads for about the
>last 20 years, especially helmets for children. It's not just articles
>in ad insert magazines like Parade, it's in schools, from health plans,
>etc. It all goes in one ear and out the other.


********. The idea that helmets render the wearer nigh-on invincible
is now so deeply ingrained in the handwringer community that I
challenge you to find any press article on the death or injury of a
cyclist which does not mention the H word, even when the injuries are
not to the head.

Exhibit A: a widow whose husband was killed by a motorist; his
insurers are not going to pay out the full amount because he was not
wearing a helmet. The motorist was convicted of careless driving, but
the insurers think it perfectly acceptable to require the victim's
widow to disprove the idea that helmets make one invincible, rather
than (as should more properly be the case) standing up and providing
evidence that it would have made a difference in this particular
case..

Exhibit B: Carlie Annetts, whose son Troy was killed when he rode off
a footway into the path of a car on a bike with defective brakes. She
thinks this is an example of why helmets should be compulsory, clearly
believing that the child would have obeyed a helmet law while happily
breaking the laws on construction and use and footway cycling.

>What I don't like to see is the idea being pounded into peoples heads
>that cycling is somehow an extremely dangerous activity, and that all
>the danger can be eliminated by wearing a helmet.


This is the primary promotion technique of the helmet lobby.

>Some of the worst injuries can be prevented, i.e reductions in brain
>injuries from 45% (some studies show much higher reductions, but even
>the most conservative study showed a 45% reduction). 45% seems high, but
>less than 15% of serious injuries involve brain injuries in the first place.


I am aware of no credible evidence linking helmet use to reductions in
the prevalence of serious brain injury (i.e. none which is supported
by studies which do not contain self-selection bias and other
confounding). But do prove me wrong by citing some. Do bear in mind
that brain injury in the studies almost invariably refers to
concussion, by the way. You did know that didn't you?

And 45% is not "the most conservative" figure - there are studies
showing zero and negative benefit.

>The bottom line is that the chance of being involved in an accident
>where a helmet would make a difference is very small, so no MHL is
>necessary. There is probably no way to undo the laws regarding kids and
>helmets, and it it makes parents allow their kids to ride when they
>otherwise wouldn't, then I guess it's okay.


On the other hand it is just as likely that some parents will have
banned their children from cycling because it is so dangerous it may
not be done without special protective equipment, and others may not
think it worth the cost for the amount of cycling their child does, so
the bike is in the back of the garage and never used any more.

Given that enforced helmet laws always lead to reductions in cycling,
especially among teenagers and doubly so among girls, I would want to
see some kind of evidence that any helmet law would actually encourage
cycling.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:59:57 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>the publications you listed were for the most part so obscure
>that the effects would be nearly zero


When was the last time you saw any report of a cyclist injury in a
newspaper which did not mention the H word?

On second thoughts, actually, yes, they do happen - when a cyclist is
killed wearing a helmet. Then the magic foam hat often escapes
mention, presumably for reasons of space.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:24:16 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>The issue was someone insisting that Steven write letters to the
>Ontario government or newspapers, not a general discussion on usenet.


Or rather that, as he claims to oppose the law, it is reasonable to
ask what exactly he is doing about it, other than throwing insults at
those who can and do work against anti-cyclist legislation.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 02:47:55 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>> True. But we know what you /don't/ read, because you keep proving
>> it...


>Even when I've *quoted* an article, you morons claim I didn't read
>it.


And when you admitted to not having read one study you used the excuse
of the library being closed for July 4 (presumably you live in some
kind of Groundhog Day, since it had been published years before). You
have also admitted to only having read the abstracts of other articles
you attempted to discuss, and you have cited other articles which, on
reading them, turn out not to support you at al, so clearly you had
not read them.

I think that, overall, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that
there is a lot of the literature you have not read. Including the
1989 Seattle study, still the most influential study out there.

Don't worry, though - I quite understand why, having worked long and
hard to maintain your blind faith, you would not want it challenged by
reading the evidence.

>Back into your timeout, Guy - you've shown once again that you still
>can't manage a civil discussion. All your remaining garbage will
>be skipped today.


Translation: laa laa, I'm not listening. As usual.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
B

Bill Z.

Guest
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >>Bill Z. wrote:
> >>
> >>>I just gave you a criteria *in advance* which would allow
> >>>you to prove your case about helmet "promotion."
> >>
> >>Just to be clear, Bill: Are you claiming that bike helmets are _not_
> >>being promoted?

> > I'm suggesting that the examples *you* have given are so trivial and
> > ineffective as to not qualify as promotion, and gave you a nice,
> > clear, crisp criteria to prove otherwise.

>
> Sorry about trimming the rest of your post, but it sounds like you're
> merely saying you didn't like my particular examples.


You trimmed it because you don't want to answer the question.
You've made claims about "helmet promotion" and to show that it is
less trivial, you should be able to model this as advertising
impressions, and see if it reaches the threshold needed for a
real advertising campaign.

> So, do you agree helmets _are_ being heavily promoted? Can we get at
> least that much agreement out of you?


No I don't, based on how little of such "promotion" I actually hear or
see.
> And since the only request for that work has come from someone who's
> rejected all other information I've ever provided, I choose not to
> waste my time on your homework assignment! I'll choose which pearls
> to cast before swine, thank you. ;-)


Repeating yourself, Krygoski, and not showing the decency to apologize
for your outburst. I might add that in previous discussions, you've
asked people to be "civil" (only the people you disagree with, as you
ignored foaming-at-the-mouth anti-helmet types) so I'd say you are quite
the hypocrite.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
B

Bill Z.

Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:59:57 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>
> >the publications you listed were for the most part so obscure
> >that the effects would be nearly zero

>
> When was the last time you saw any report of a cyclist injury in a
> newspaper which did not mention the H word?


Mentioning the "H" word as in "the victim was/was-not wearing a helmet"
is not promoting anything. It is simply reporting the facts, whether
accurately or not. Most of the time that is all the reporter says.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
B

Bill Z.

Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:24:16 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>
> >The issue was someone insisting that Steven write letters to the
> >Ontario government or newspapers, not a general discussion on usenet.

>
> Or rather that, as he claims to oppose the law, it is reasonable to
> ask what exactly he is doing about it, other than throwing insults at
> those who can and do work against anti-cyclist legislation.


Oh come off it. Steven has no obligation to actively oppose
legistation in a country he doesn't live in (and he subsequently
did write a letter, as you should well know.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
B

Bill Z.

Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 02:47:55 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>
> >> True. But we know what you /don't/ read, because you keep proving
> >> it...

>
> >Even when I've *quoted* an article, you morons claim I didn't read
> >it.

>
> And when you admitted to not having read one study you used the excuse
> of the library being closed for July 4 (presumably you live in some
> kind of Groundhog Day, since it had been published years before).


Let's see. I stated I *found* a URL that day (the discussion had
been dead for years on the newsgroup I'm following) put the URL in
a response, and you and maybe some others started to whine that I
didn't first go down to the library on a day it was closed. Did
you want me to break in or something?

> You
> have also admitted to only having read the abstracts of other articles
> you attempted to discuss ...


Guy, you are a liar. You go back into your timeout. You've run out
of arguments and are now foaming at the mouth and making a fool of
yourself.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
F

Frank Krygowski

Guest
Bill Z. wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>>Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>So, do you agree helmets _are_ being heavily promoted? Can we get at
>>>>least that much agreement out of you? (A one-word answer is sufficient.)
>>>
>>>No I don't.

>>
>>Ok, thanks, Bill.

>
>
> It is particularly telling that Krygowski forged/modified my reply,
> which stated
>
> "No I don't, based on how little of such "promotion" I actually
> hear or see."
>
> Note Krygowski's editing of punctuation, giving the impression that he
> was quoting a full sentence.


OK, my mistake. I should have indicated that you actually attached some
rationalization. Correction will be duly posted.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
F

Frank Krygowski

Guest
Bill Z. wrote:

> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
>


>
>>So, do you agree helmets _are_ being heavily promoted? Can we get at
>>least that much agreement out of you? (A one-word answer is sufficient.)

>
>
> No I don't, based on how little of such "promotion" I actually hear or
> see.


OK, thanks, Bill.

"None is so blind as he who will not see." :)


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
B

Bill Z.

Guest
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >>Bill Z. wrote:


> >>>No I don't.
> >>
> >>Ok, thanks, Bill.

> > It is particularly telling that Krygowski forged/modified my reply,
> > which stated
> > "No I don't, based on how little of such "promotion" I
> > actually hear or see."
> > Note Krygowski's editing of punctuation, giving the impression that
> > he
> > was quoting a full sentence.

>
> OK, my mistake. I should have indicated that you actually attached
> some rationalization. Correction will be duly posted.


Given that the phrase you cut was only 12 words long, you should
have quoted the full sentence.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
B

Bill Z.

Guest
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
> >

>
> >
> >>So, do you agree helmets _are_ being heavily promoted? Can we get at
> >>least that much agreement out of you? (A one-word answer is sufficient.)

> > No I don't, based on how little of such "promotion" I actually hear
> > or
> > see.

>
> OK, thanks, Bill.
>
> "None is so blind as he who will not see." :)


People who hear and see things that are not there are normally assumed
to have certain problems that can sometimes be managed with
medication.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
F

Frank Krygowski

Guest
Bill Z. wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
>>>

>>
>>>>So, do you agree helmets _are_ being heavily promoted? Can we get at
>>>>least that much agreement out of you? (A one-word answer is sufficient.)
>>>
>>>No I don't, based on how little of such "promotion" I actually hear
>>>or
>>>see.

>>
>>OK, thanks, Bill.
>>
>>"None is so blind as he who will not see." :)

>
>
> People who hear and see things that are not there are normally assumed
> to have certain problems that can sometimes be managed with
> medication.
>


:) Whereas people who don't see what is plainly there... ??

Actually, there is a chance you're being completely honest. That is,
you may never look at bikes in department stores. You may never read
articles directed at parents, concerning bicycling. You may have never
visited a "Health Fair" at a mall. You may have never volunteered at a
bike rodeo. You may have never seen "Bike Safety" information put out
by state governements. You may have never attended a "Conference on
Child Safety" at a university. You may have never been handed leaflets
by a Safe Kids president. You may never have been asked to help write,
and speak in, bike safety PSAs for television. You may never have been
interviewed on TV regarding cycling.

I have done all these, and more. And in each and every one of these,
I've seen intense promotion of helmets.

So, you may not have noticed. But it exists.

And I think there's a chance that this promotion is why helmet use has
gone from an "enthusiast only" thing to a
"Mygod-don't-let-your-child-ride-without-it!" thing in the past 25 years.

I'm sure you disagree, of course! ;-)

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
B

Bill Z.

Guest
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >>Bill Z. wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
> >>>
> >>
> >>>>So, do you agree helmets _are_ being heavily promoted? Can we get at
> >>>>least that much agreement out of you? (A one-word answer is sufficient.)
> >>>
> >>>No I don't, based on how little of such "promotion" I actually hear
> >>>or
> >>>see.
> >>
> >>OK, thanks, Bill.
> >>
> >>"None is so blind as he who will not see." :)

> > People who hear and see things that are not there are normally
> > assumed
> > to have certain problems that can sometimes be managed with
> > medication.
> >

>
> :) Whereas people who don't see what is plainly there... ??


.... may live in a different environment than you claim to.

> Actually, there is a chance you're being completely honest.


Well, I was being completely honest.

> That is,
> you may never look at bikes in department stores.


Yep, that's true. Why do you look at them? Is that where you bought
your bike? I try to avoid department stores anyway.

> You may never read articles directed at parents, concerning
> bicycling.


That's true too. Why should I read such articles when I probably know
more than the author?

> You may have never visited a "Health Fair" at a mall.


Yep, I avoid malls as much as possible and have never visited such a
"Health Fair", whatever the hell that is. If I want medical advise,
I'll ask my physician.

> You may have never volunteered at a bike rodeo.


That's true too, although I have helped in a "train the parents in how
to get their kids to school session," so parents riding along with the
kids on their first day to school would actually know something. When
one asked about signaling, we told them that the important thing was
to look over your shoulder to get a positive indication that the
driver saw the signal and was going to let you in (the context was a
lane change), adding that signaling does not give you permission to
move sideways on the road. When asked about helmets, we suggested
adjusting and fitting them properly, treating them merely as a bit of
extra protection, and that what we really wanted to concentrate on was
how to avoid accidents in the first place. The "helmet" discussion (in
reply to a question) took all of 15 seconds. Is that what you mean
by "helmet promotion?"

> You may have never seen "Bike Safety" information put out by state
> governements.


Nope ... never read the stuff. Why should I? What could I possibly
learn from it?

> You may have never attended a "Conference on Child Safety" at a
> university. You may have never been handed leaflets by a Safe Kids
> president. You may never have been asked to help write, and speak
> in, bike safety PSAs for television. You may never have been
> interviewed on TV regarding cycling.


Blah, blah, blah... you are simply being tiresome. Oh, and as I
told you in a previous message, I generally don't watch TV, so why
would you ask about what I saw on TV? Did you actually read what
you are responding to?


> I have done all these, and more. And in each and every one of these,
> I've seen intense promotion of helmets.


Oh please. What do we have here? Sounds to me like you are whining
about a lot of trivia. Like the tags on department store bikes (no
doubt put their at the suggestion of a corporate lawyer trying to
cover the store's ass in case of a lawsuit) you or someone once cried
about as flagrant helmet promotion. Hint: people ignore warning
labels, seeing them as yet more visual fluff. When warnings are put
on so many things, they get treated as background noise. You know,
like corporate logos decorating most products.

> So, you may not have noticed. But it exists.


Yep, I don't see that very much if at all.

> And I think there's a chance that this promotion is why helmet use has
> gone from an "enthusiast only" thing to a
> "Mygod-don't-let-your-child-ride-without-it!" thing in the past 25
> years.
>
> I'm sure you disagree, of course! ;-)


Of course - you are quite frankly charging off out of control, like
the proverbial bull looking at the matador's red cape.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
S

Steven M. Scharf

Guest
Bill Z. wrote:

<snip>

> When asked about helmets, we suggested
> adjusting and fitting them properly, treating them merely as a bit of
> extra protection, and that what we really wanted to concentrate on was
> how to avoid accidents in the first place. The "helmet" discussion (in
> reply to a question) took all of 15 seconds. Is that what you mean
> by "helmet promotion?"


This is the situation in California, it may be different where Frank is.
I find the same thing, helmets are not promoted, they're a given, due to
the child helmet law. They are definitely not promoted as the end-all in
terms of safety, but as some head protection in case you crash and hit
your head. In the past, some organizations went overboard in their
promotion of helmets, and people see what is happening in Ontario and
try to claim that the same sort of nonsense is occuring everywhere.

What Frank is trying to do is to promote the idea that helmets are being
touted as the single most important safety device, but of course this is
not what is happening at all. The approach of the safety organizations
is more to point out the facts regarding the reduction of death and
injury due to head injuries, due to helmets.
 
F

Frank Krygowski

Guest
Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>
> I find the same thing, helmets are not promoted, they're a given, due to
> the child helmet law.


It's certainly true that helmets get significantly less "promotion" when
a mandatory helmet law exists! At that point, you don't need to
promote. You can simply fine anyone who dares to ride with any other
choice of hat!

They are definitely not promoted as the end-all in
> terms of safety, but as some head protection in case you crash and hit
> your head.


I can't speak for California at present. I can certainly say that
helmets _have_ frequently been promoted as the absolute most important
bike safety measure. In certain circles, they still are.

I'm sure that Bill, in his studied ignorance, has never viewed the Safe
Kids video titled "Jello in a Jar." A few years ago, this was widely
shown at any gathering at which Safe Kids could get a foot in a door.

The video was roughly 15 minutes long (I forget exactly). All but the
last 30 seconds consisted of propaganda telling how dangerous bicycles
were, how a simple fall from a bike could kill or permanently maim, how
the human brain was terribly unprotected (by some grievious fault of
either God or evolution, I suppose) and how bike helmets were absolutely
necessary and wonderful protection.

The last 30 seconds - if that - had about five kids quickly rattling off
_other_ safety advice, like "Never ride facing traffic," "Stay on the
nice safe bike path," "Never ride at night" etc. using a machine-gun
delivery. Not only were these points unemphasized, they went by so
quickly the appropriate response was "What did they say???"

Yes, helmets were seen as the end-all in terms of safety. Unless you
count an aural, fine-print footnote as being equal to the entire rest of
the video.

In the past, some organizations went overboard in their
> promotion of helmets, and people see what is happening in Ontario and
> try to claim that the same sort of nonsense is occuring everywhere.


Not everywhere, strictly speaking. There are pockets of sanity.

> What Frank is trying to do is to promote the idea that helmets are being
> touted as the single most important safety device, but of course this is
> not what is happening at all.


Oh, of course not. Nobody would think that - unless, say, they visited
bike safety websites and printed material to see what really gets the
emphasis!

There are some sites that have decent balance. But there are many more
that claim or imply that helmets are the most important aspect of bike
safety, or claim that helmets are absolutely necessary, or that you're
likely to be permanently injured or die if you ride without a helmet.

Does following traffic laws get the same fearsome promotion? How about
using headlights at night?

What really gets the emphasis?

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
B

Bill Z.

Guest
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:


> I'm sure that Bill, in his studied ignorance, has never viewed the
> Safe Kids video titled "Jello in a Jar." A few years ago, this was
> widely shown at any gathering at which Safe Kids could get a foot in a
> door.


Krygowksi, being rude as ever, fails to realize that "Safe Kids"
videos are hardly required viewing material. You'd have to wonder
why he'd waste his time watching them if he is as experienced a
cyclist as he pretends to be.

> The video was roughly 15 minutes long (I forget exactly).


15 minute videos, oh my! We're off to see the wizard! Krygowksi,
you are out to lunch. The idea that some 15 minute video some kiddie-
oriented group shows is worth mentioning is completely bonkers.


> Yes, helmets were seen as the end-all in terms of safety. Unless you
> count an aural, fine-print footnote as being equal to the entire rest
> of the video.


At one point, we had our bike education classes in the public schools
taught by an _Effective Cycling_ instructor. You were saying?

> Does following traffic laws get the same fearsome promotion? How
> about using headlights at night?
>
> What really gets the emphasis?


Well, I certainly wouldn't ask you. :)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
B

Bill Baka

Guest
Bill Z. wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>
>>I'm sure that Bill, in his studied ignorance, has never viewed the
>>Safe Kids video titled "Jello in a Jar." A few years ago, this was
>>widely shown at any gathering at which Safe Kids could get a foot in a
>>door.

>
>
> Krygowksi, being rude as ever, fails to realize that "Safe Kids"
> videos are hardly required viewing material. You'd have to wonder
> why he'd waste his time watching them if he is as experienced a
> cyclist as he pretends to be.
>
>
>>The video was roughly 15 minutes long (I forget exactly).

>
>
> 15 minute videos, oh my! We're off to see the wizard! Krygowksi,
> you are out to lunch. The idea that some 15 minute video some kiddie-
> oriented group shows is worth mentioning is completely bonkers.
>
>
>
>>Yes, helmets were seen as the end-all in terms of safety. Unless you
>>count an aural, fine-print footnote as being equal to the entire rest
>>of the video.

>
>
> At one point, we had our bike education classes in the public schools
> taught by an _Effective Cycling_ instructor. You were saying?
>
>
>>Does following traffic laws get the same fearsome promotion? How
>>about using headlights at night?
>>
>>What really gets the emphasis?

>
>
> Well, I certainly wouldn't ask you. :)
>

Well,
This Bill thinks that those things they present in school are brain dead
and should be banned from little Johnnies or Susies classrom. I have
seen 3 people creamed by a train, one a drunk who though he could hop it
on a trestle and his innards went down on top of a couple who WAS
enjoying lunch. Another was a daredevil kid who too took one too many
double dares, And the other was so into her cell phone (ON FOOT) that
she did not hear the 90 MPH express passenger train in time if at all.
She didn't even notice that the gates were down as she wandered across
the tracks looking up at the air as if she was thinking about world
problem. She doesn't need to worry now.
There are hundred more reports all over the world. Helmets won't work if
you head gets cleanly cut off or if you body get totally mangled so
those of us who want to risk it should be allowed that 'reckless' chance
to actually enjoy riding unencumbered.

P.S. my 35 degree riding has made me wonder about a full face shield
with a plastic view cover just to beep my eyes, ears, nose, etc. warm.
Bill Baka
 
F

Frank Krygowski

Guest
Bill Z. wrote:

> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>
>>I'm sure that Bill, in his studied ignorance, has never viewed the
>>Safe Kids video titled "Jello in a Jar." A few years ago, this was
>>widely shown at any gathering at which Safe Kids could get a foot in a
>>door.

>
>
> Krygowksi, being rude as ever, fails to realize that "Safe Kids"
> videos are hardly required viewing material. You'd have to wonder
> why he'd waste his time watching them if he is as experienced a
> cyclist as he pretends to be.


The video was being shown to me by a representative of Safe Kids,
because I was our club's Safety Chairman, and was teaching cycling
classes. She was trying to convince me that a) helmets really, really
WERE the most important thing about bike safety, and b) I should show
this "wonderful" video to my club and to any cycling classes I taught.
She was also hoping to get my support for a mandatory helmet law.


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
 
M

Mitch Haley

Guest
Bill Baka wrote:
> P.S. my 35 degree riding has made me wonder about a full face shield
> with a plastic view cover just to beep my eyes, ears, nose, etc. warm.



The problem is accomplishing that without trapping your hot wet breath
inside and blinding you with condensation on the windshield.

Mitch.
 

Similar threads