Jay Beattie said:On Jul 8, 2:47 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:He's saying, in public, that cycling without a helmet is a net danger.
That plays right into the hands of MHL. It's supporting their
rationale.
I advocate riding on the right side of the road, not riding brakeless
fixed gears, not running lights, using lights at night, etc., etc. I
guess I am just anti-bicycling?
Please, Jay. You're a lawyer. You should be able to spot the
differences.
The items you list above are all standard rules of the road for ALL
vehicle operators. Saying they apply to bicyclists is in no way
discriminatory, and does not imply that cycling is more dangerous than
other transportation modes.
Requiring helmets, or even promoting helmets as extremely valuable, is
another matter entirely. It's founded on the mistaken idea that
cycling generates an extraordinary number of serious head injuries.
Publicizing that falsehood IS anti-cycling!
Quoted message said:
I mean motorist have to wear seatbelts, use booster seats for kids
under 4'9", not drive and talk on cellphones, etc., etc. What is the
big f****** deal with wearing a helmet on a bike? Helmets do prevent
certain injuries, and who cares if they are not super-big, fatal
injuries. Getting one's head stitched up still uses ER time...
So why do your ideas not apply to all the OTHER sources of even minor
head injuries? In fact, why do they not apply to all other sources of
stitched-up wounds anywhere on the body? Is a stitch on the scalp
somehow worse than a stitch on the neck, or hand, or other body part?
Face it, you HAVE bought into the propaganda.
And for you, wearing a helmet may not be a big deal, but it obviously
is for others. If that were not so, there would be no helmet laws.
And if someone detests wearing a particular fashion accessory, why
should they conform to your idea of fashion?
(And don't pretend it isn't "fashion" unless you're willing to give us
data showing cycling's risks are extreme. Good luck finding that!)
Quoted message said:And considering that MHLs in most US states only apply to kids,it is
even more ridiculous to argue the point.
It's ridiculous to accept those MHLs. I chose to let my kids ride
helmetless, based on my knowledge of the subject and my personal
judgement. My judgement turned out to be perfectly correct - the kids
never came close to ANY head injury, and they continued riding when
they otherwise would not have, until (and after) they were adults. In
fact, my own parents made the same correct decision. The science in
this matter does NOT justify taking away the rights of parents to
decide this issue!
Quoted message said:I don't care about all the nellies in New Zeland or Australia who
allegedly quit riding a bike due to the MHL.
Then you don't care about promoting cycling. Which is fine, I
suppose, in the sense that everyone chooses their issues.
But you're going beyond that. You're arguing from ignorance (the
preceding "allegedly" indicates that) and attacking people who DO care
about this issue, simply because it's not your issue. That's pretty
intolerant.
Quoted message said:Bicyclists are as thick
as fleas in PDX, and the vast majority wear helmets without anyone
saying a word.
Sorry, that's [censored]. People did NOT wear bike helmets until there
were many, many thousands of false words thrown about. Granted, lots
of Portland folks may now be doing it just because everyone else does
it - but the process started with lies about unusual dangers, and lies
about extraordinary protection.
If you travel today to places where "nobody has said a word" about
bike helmets, you'll see lots of cyclists, but you will NOT see lots
of helmets. I've been there.
Quoted message said:The kids have to wear helmets by law, and I don't see
any mass exodus of kids from the world of cycling.
How would you tell??
Quoted message said:The truth is that
their parents drive them every where. That's what's keeping them from
riding.
And why do you think parents don't just let their kids bike, as they
did a generation ago? Ask some parents! Yes, some of it is probably
senseless fear of stranger abduction (another ridiculous paranoia),
but much of it is fear for the kids' safety on bikes.
Why are parents now fearful of kids' safety on bikes? Because ever
since about 1985, they've been told that a simple fall off a bike can
kill their kid - as if my generation had piles of kids bodies in every
morgue!
Decades of fearmongering have had their effects. Sure, one effect has
been to sell millions of overpriced helmets, and make tons of money
for big corporations. The other effect has been to suppress cycling,
about which those big corporations don't give a damn. And neither,
apparently, do you.
Quoted message said:
You want to promote cycling? Tell your kid to ride his bike. I do. I
also tell him to wear his helmet, which he does.
And what will you do when your kid says "If I have to wear that thing,
I'm not going to ride my bike."
I've known families where that happened. I've known parents who said
"Then you can't ride." And the kid never did again. Not once.
Quoted message said:I don't want to
spend all day in an ER getting his scalp stitched up -- although the
last time he split his scalp, I just tied his hair together, but that
was when he had long hair and a recent tetanus booster. Anyway, who
knows, maybe the helmet will prevent some greater injury, like skull
fracture (as opposed to rotational injury), and I certainly cannot fix
a skull fracture at home.
Again, you're giving ample evidence that you've bought all the
propaganda. You apparently do believe that lacerated scalps, skull
fractures or worse are a likely outcome of bicycling. Unless, that
is, you make your kid wear a helmet while playing tag, climbing trees,
playing baseball (even outfield), running through the woods...
You've hung around Usenet for years. You're not an unintelligent
guy. Is there _nothing_ we can do to get you to actually look up the
facts?
- Frank Krygowski
