Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, 26 June 2020 13:56:47 UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 9:25:52 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/25/2020 9:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 21:47:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/25/2020 7:02 PM, sms wrote:


Remember the AHZ argument that if helmets are required then health care
costs will increase because, instead of buying a $20 helmet, former
cyclists will stay home watching TV and eating fatty snacks causing
nationalized health care costs to soar? Perhaps they'll make the same
argument here, 'without government funded bicycle repair we're going to
not ride and it'll cost the government even more money.'

Mayor Scharf (AKA "sms") should stick to losing one argument at a time,
instead of resurrecting past losses.

Data clearly shows mandating helmets reduces cycling, typically by about
30%. A reasonable person might doubt the exact percentage, but only a
fool would say there would be no effect.

Interesting. Over here there is no "helmet Law" for bicycles yet I
can't remember when I've seen a recreational cyclist without a helmet.
Note that I differentiate between, would one say "normal" cyclists,
and recreational cyclists as we still do have a certain number of
people that use a bicycle as their only means of local transportation.

If you define "recreational cyclist" as a person with a stylish bike as
promoted in some bicycling magazine, with clipless pedals (um... that
you clip into), wearing lycra shorts, riding gloves, a brightly colored
cycling jersey (bonus points if it advertises the brand of bike) then
yes, that person will almost certainly wear a helmet. Come on! Would you
expect the Shriners to parade without their red hats?
https://medinah.org/wp-content/uploa...rs-parades.jpg

We just wear all that stuff to ****-off the bearded curmudgeons with
their Chihuahua bags riding position one, ringing their bells and
calling out cracks in the road. Talk about a Shriner's Parade. I just
waive as I'm passing by, unless they're throwing out candy.

I've told this story, but three times I got stuck riding in the Corbett
Fourth of July Parade coming back from Larch Mountain.
https://pamplinmedia.com/go/42-news/...f-july-parade-
I'm too weak to do that ride this year. If you try to get around he
fire engine, you get pelted with candy.


But if you talk about other people riding bicycles, the majority in my
area do not wear helmets. And if you told them they must wear a helmet
or be subject to a penalty, ridership would certainly decrease by some
amount. in Australia and New Zealand, where those laws are still being
enforced, ridership is way, way down, especially if you index it to
population growth.

The majority in my area do, and its not required by law.
https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/...o-essay-182506


Even a little kid will ride less. Kids' typical riding is over to
Johnny's house for a little while, then to Georgie's house, then to the
playground, then home for a snack, etc. Tell them they MUST strap on a
helmet, then remove it, then strap it on each time and the kid is going
to say "screw it" and stop using the bike as much.

Maybe yes and maybe no. My son objected to wearing a helmet a couple of
times and groused about riding anywhere -- because it always involved a
climb. Girls may be different about helmets.

-- Jay Beattie.

Dos Frank mean t o say that if a person rides a stylish bike as promoted
in some bicycling magazine but uses toe-clips and straps or doesn't wear
a helmet that they're no longer a "recreational bicyclist"?

Cheers


No I think it’s his way of not ever insulting people who are different than
him as we know it’s his gang that are insulted for handlebar bags or some
such nonsense as that. Although you may have a point. Hard to keep
track. Or give a damn...