|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
|
Ads |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On 2/18/2019 9:08 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 4:54:54 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/18/2019 7:02 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: Why are bicyclists singled out as needing to wear helmets and other, larger groups, totally ignored. Perhaps because bicyclists are not knowledgeable and easily influenced? Certainly, a lot of them are. It's been shown here many times. The helmet wars have changed over the years. It used to be there were quite a few people saying "Helmets are really, really necessary if you're going to ride a bike" and "Helmets are really really protective. They are life savers!" After reams of data have been presented on lack of risk and lack of efficacy, it's now toned down to "Well, they're still valuable for the type of macho riding _I_ do" and "I wear one only because they protect against minor injuries." But so many still won't be caught riding without one. Scalp lacerations can be serious. I'd post some grisly pictures, but I'll let you do the Googling. Even without skull fracture, you can get a complex laceration/avulsion that is like sewing-up a jigsaw puzzle. Wearing a helmet is a personal choice, but from a purely biomechanical standpoint, helmets can prevent injuries that are serious by any standard. But apparently, that's not true for the populations that suffer the greatest number of scalp lacerations or other similar injuries, including real traumatic brain injury. Right? I mean, if they worked for the groups that get the majority of those injuries, they'd be promoted for those groups. You know - motorists, pedestrians, people walking around their own homes... We were on a five mile hike in the woods yesterday with other members of our bike club. Parts of the trails were treacherously icy, including trails next to steep drop-offs 50 feet high or more. Nobody wore helmets - go figure. One woman did fall at one point. She tripped on a branch and went down like a ton of bricks. As I helped her up, I quietly said "Tsk - no helmet!" One club member heard it and started to chuckle, then stopped herself. You're not supposed to joke about helmets! -- - Frank Krygowski |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 3:33:41 AM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote to Tom:
How effective do you think bike helmets are at preventing fatalities? At https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.bicycles.tech/new$20york$20jute|sort:date/rec.bicycles.tech/ow2rIVqZ_DU/pdrY0lrdze8J a study is discussed which concludes that helmet-wear in the US might save between 70 and 400 lives every year (of the 716 fatalities in 2008, between ten percent and more than half the cyclists dead on the roads). Andre Jute Always happy to help |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 18:06:31 -0800, "Mark J."
wrote: On 2/18/2019 3:36 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 2:23:19 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote: On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 9:46:45 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote: On 2/18/2019 3:12 PM, jbeattie wrote: Why allow bikes on roads in the first place? They're dangerous! Why allow people to ride on devices with top speeds in excess of 70mph with no license, no training and no supervision! Bicycles should have airbags, collision avoidance systems, back-up cameras and ABS! They should be subject to rigorous regulation with mandatory licensing, registration and driver-training -- and mandatory insurance. With high limits! Bicycles are a terror! https://www.theguardian.com/environm...d-in-the-press To quote Punch Magazine: "Every cyclist to be presumed in all legal proceedings to be a reckless idiot, and on the wrong side of the road, unless he can bring conclusive evidence to the contrary. and Nobody to cycle without a license, issued by the Governor of Newgate, after a fortnight’s strict examination (on bread and water) in elementary mechanics, advanced hydrostatics and riding on the head down an inclined plane. and When a cyclist on any road sees, or has reason to believe that he might see if he chose to look, any horse, cart, carriage, gig or other vehicle, or any pedestrian approaching, he (or she) to instantly dismount, run the machine into the nearest ditch, and kneel in a humble and supplicating attitude till said horse, cart &c., has got at least a mile away." Your bike privilege is showing. You've got some bike-splaining to do! -- Jay Beattie. *ahem* the Paved Roads movement was instigated by CTC (England) and LAW (USA), so who's the interloper on whose roads again? -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 Chalo once made the killer point that cyclists are the predominant form of transport on the roads because the cyclist does not need the permission of an official license for either himself or his bike, whereas a motorist needs a license both for himself and for his car. That is possibly a reflection of who was originally behind the paved roads. Andre Jute A little history will usually supply the answer The ancient Mesopotamians? Which paved roads? The early Good Roads movement in the US was animated by bicyclists, but the real road building was for cars -- funded by license and registration fees and then gas taxes. We bicyclists love to take credit for paved roads, but that's basically wishful thinking. For a history of the Oregon Movement: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf We also have no constitutional right to ride on the roads, nor is it in the Bible or based on the "rights of man" or "natural rights" (whatever those might be). A local legislature could just say "No bikes . . . too annoying. Thank you. Come again." Check your bike privilege. The reference looks very interesting (history of Oregon Good Roads movement). But as to rights to the road, I thought I had read on RBT some years back about there being some basis in English common law. A quick google found this: https://publications.parliament.uk/p...04/jones07.htm I'll admit I didn't read carefully enough to see what main point it was discussing, it may be something about easements, but in it I found: "In Rankine, The Law of Land, Ownership in Scotland, 4th ed. (1909), p. 325 it is stated that the definition of a highway in English law as "a right of passage in general to all the King's subjects" applies also to Scotland." Now, granted, this is to /people/, not modes of conveyance, but it may be the background that is implicit for us (but you're the lawyer). Mark J. I'm not a lawyer but from my reading of several state's laws it appears that the basis is that a bicycle is classified as a vehicle and vehicles have the right to use most roads although that right may be subject to a number of circumstances. For example, a farm wagon is a vehicle but that doesn't mean you can drive it down a major city street, at high noon, or as is quite often found I believe, neither can you ride your bicycle on many limited access, high speed, highways. -- Cheers, John B. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 18:35:53 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 5:56:42 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote: On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 4:48:50 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/18/2019 6:36 PM, jbeattie wrote: We also have no constitutional right to ride on the roads... Other lawyers have disagreed, of course. But then, that's why there are multitudes of lawyers. And multitudes of vehicle rules and regulations, so if there is a right to use the roads rather than a privilege, it is certainly subject to extensive regulation. And that regulation can be a MHL -- or a bicycle license, registration, etc., etc. I'm proposing a local ordinance requiring all bicyclists to have operating calliopes to alert others to their presence. There is a bagpipe alternative. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGGO035dolE -- Jay Beattie. -- Jay Beattie. The "RIGHT" to travel is a part of the liberty of which the Citizen "cannot be deprived" without due process of the law under the 5th Amendment. See: Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 Err... Tommy, that judgment was specifically concerning the right of the Secretary of State to issue or not issue a passport and even more specifically to the Secretary of State denying passports to petitioners because of their alleged Communistic beliefs and associations and their refusal to file affidavits concerning present or past membership in the Communist Party. It had nothing whatsoever to do with traveling on the nation's roads. Your continuing failure to understand common English words is frightening. As I said, you cannot stop a pedestrian from using any public road though they do limit them for purposes of safety that is NOT enough to prevent public use of the roads. Absolute right to use public roads by a bicyclist without limitations has passed into common law. Do you remember when they tried to license bicycles? That was an utter failure though I cannot remember the circumstances around it. I think that it was because almost everyone ignored such stupid laws and the 5th Amendment would have made it far too costly to uphold and would not hold up under Supreme Court scrutiny. Motor vehicles and commercial vehicles CAN be licensed and drivers can be licensed on the grounds that it supports public safety though today's government considers regulation of it's citizens a God Given Right. One more conservative justice on the Supreme Court and the saying that a judge is a lawyer with a better suit will finally be reduced. -- Cheers, John B. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:20:07 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 18:35:53 -0800 (PST), wrote: The "RIGHT" to travel is a part of the liberty of which the Citizen "cannot be deprived" without due process of the law under the 5th Amendment. See: Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 Err... Tommy, that judgment was specifically concerning the right of the Secretary of State to issue or not issue a passport and even more specifically to the Secretary of State denying passports to petitioners because of their alleged Communistic beliefs and associations and their refusal to file affidavits concerning present or past membership in the Communist Party. It had nothing whatsoever to do with traveling on the nation's roads. Your continuing failure to understand common English words is frightening. It is that "great intellect" of his. Sheesh. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 7:33:41 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2019 7:40 PM, wrote: On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 12:48:41 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/18/2019 2:16 PM, wrote: On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 9:42:30 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/17/2019 4:52 PM, wrote: Why would you say "anecdotal" when I have timed the two bikes many times over the same stretches of road? You never give us data, Tom. Give us your data. Also are you suggesting that people have gotten stronger and that is why there is a one mile per hour gain in speed from 2006 to 2016 on the world 10 mile TT records? You might perhaps not think of that as much but it is all hell and gone faster for speed records to jump that much. Let's back up a bit. The article by Moulton makes clear that elite bike racing deaths have increased significantly, not decreased, with the popularity of (or mandates for) helmet use. IOW, that data gives no evidence that helmets save lives. The needle isn't even moving in the right direction. Are you now trying to say that helmets are actually terrifically effective at saving lives, but their wonderful benefit is totally wiped out by a few miles per hour more speed? That's weird in several ways. In other places - such as when you compared time-series counts of pedestrian and bike fatalties - you said helmets were obviously NOT saving lives. (Note, that was a rare instance of you actually giving data.) Perhaps you should concisely clarify your real position on the effectiveness of bike helmets regarding prevention of fatalities. Exactly where in the hell are you coming from? At what point did I ever say that helmets save lives? We were talking about the aerodynamics of the newer bicycles increasing the speeds. Your dopey losing track of the conversation is rather silly. I don't have to give you ANY of my personal experiences when I can show huge speed increases in the 10 mi TT speeds. Is your Alzheimer's acting up today? Oh good grief! Talk about forgetfulness! Start about six posts up, in your response to John. Never mind, since you've demonstrated difficulty with your mouse's scroll wheel, I'll paste below the end of his remark and your response: As Dave Moulton pointed out in his Blog, more professional cyclists have died since the helmet law went into effect then had died prior to the law's enactment. -- Cheers, John B. To that, you wrote: "This probably has nothing whatsoever to do with helmets. Professional cycling speeds have gone up significantly..." etc. You didn't specifically say they might save lives. But you implied that the lack of life saving was not some fault of the helmets, that minor speed increases were the cause. Why not just concisely clarify your real position on the effectiveness of bike helmets regarding prevention of fatalities? Maybe that will clear up the confusion. Frank - I really don't follow what in he heck you mean. Are you saying that wearing a helmet CAUSES more cyclist's deaths? What I mean is what I said in my last paragraph above. Don't deflect into aerodynamics, downhill speeds or anything else. Please concisely clarify your real position: How effective do you think bike helmets are at preventing fatalities? -- - Frank Krygowski I'm deflecting but you refuse to actually say what you mean. I will ask you again: Are you saying that helmets cause fatalities? And exactly why would you ask me how many lives I thought were saved by helmets when I'm the one that wrote the paper that said that they had no statistical effect? What have you ever done besides sign on to several forums and whine about helmets with no information that you didn't get from me? I would suggest you grow up but it is pretty plain that you're going through your second childhood. If you have any wits to knit it might occur to you that the paper I wrote also showed that there were no secondary effects from wearing helmets so the only possible reason that more racers would die after the imposition of helmets were because they were going faster. It doesn't take any brains to actually look it up and discover that the increase in deaths in the professional peleton started in 2010 which was also when highly aero bikes and much higher speeds in the peleton appeared. So explain all this to us Frank - if you believe that helmets are what is causing increased deaths in the peleton why did the huge jump in deaths not start until 2010? While helmets were not made mandatory until 2010 the entire peleton was wearing them from about 1985 on because the helmet companies sponsored most of the teams - and ALL of the teams in the Grand Tours. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mandatory treadmill helmet laws soon to be announced.. | James[_8_] | Techniques | 2 | November 6th 14 11:57 AM |
Helmet propaganda debunked | [email protected] | Social Issues | 310 | June 23rd 05 07:56 AM |
Helmet propaganda debunked | [email protected] | Racing | 17 | April 27th 05 04:34 PM |
Helmet propaganda debunked | [email protected] | UK | 14 | April 26th 05 10:54 AM |
No mandatory helmet law in Switzerland... for now. | caracol40 | General | 0 | December 21st 04 11:58 AM |