Government Bicycle Program News

On 6/26/2020 5:19 PM, Duane wrote:
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...

If you don't give a damn, Duane, why are you bothering with your usual
snipe and retreat?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 12:25:48 -0400, 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

No, I wasn't defining "recreational cyclists" as those who wear fancy
cycling gear, although the usually do, I was rather trying to
differentiate between people who ride a bicycle for "fun" and those
who use it as their only means of local transportation.

Amazingly we still have some people here that don't own an auto or
motorcycle and use a bicycle as a transportation device. You can see
them every morning going back and forth to either local shops or a
large open market for the day's food. Usually with a basket on the
front and often a large plastic crate strapped on the rear carrier.

And never a helmet :-)

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.

It must be something local as there is a helmet law here for
motorcycles and it is rigidly enforced and strangely enough small
~100cc motorcycles are literally "all over the place".


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.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 6/26/2020 3:54 PM, wrote:

Just to add one more point to the index. In my neighborhood I have noticed a lot of kids and old people riding bikes on the street in front of my house. Window looking at street. In the afternoon. Likely/certainly due to the Covid-19. They are at home and exercising or just moving about. Most, many do have helmets.

I'd be interested in numbers, percentages, etc. Also I'm interested in
your general location. I've traveled a lot, and biked in (so far) 47
states. The only place I remember seeing most cyclists in helmets is
Portland. In my area, I did my own counts for two years running and
found about one third in helmets.

Parents walking on sidewalk with kids riding on sidewalk in front. Old people with old people style bikes riding on street. They do NOT fit Frank's definition of recreational, stylish cyclist. They look pretty much identical to people you would see walking around in a store. NO cycling specific clothing. My state does not have a mandatory helmet law for bicycles, or motorcycles. I assume the dead helmetless motorcycle riders are a great source of organ donations.

As it happens, one of my very good friends used to do organ transplant
education and promotion. (He seems to be working on a record for kidney
transplant longevity - something like 30 years now, IIRC.)

Anyway, long ago I asked him about the "organ donor" issue. He said the
greatest bulk of organ donations are from stroke victims or cardiac
victims. He said bicyclists and motorcyclists are a negligible percentage.

And it's easy enough to find data that at least roughly corroborates
that. Look at ranked lists of causes of death in the U.S. Over two
million people die each year. Maybe a thousand of them are on bikes,
maybe 4000 on motorcycles. Together they're much less than half a
percent of the total.

Oh, and BTW, the number of helmeted motorcycle fatalities exceeds the
number who die without helmets.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/26/2020 7:00 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 12:25:48 -0400, 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

No, I wasn't defining "recreational cyclists" as those who wear fancy
cycling gear, although the usually do, I was rather trying to
differentiate between people who ride a bicycle for "fun" and those
who use it as their only means of local transportation.

Amazingly we still have some people here that don't own an auto or
motorcycle and use a bicycle as a transportation device. You can see
them every morning going back and forth to either local shops or a
large open market for the day's food. Usually with a basket on the
front and often a large plastic crate strapped on the rear carrier.

And never a helmet :-)

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.

It must be something local as there is a helmet law here for
motorcycles and it is rigidly enforced and strangely enough small
~100cc motorcycles are literally "all over the place".

I've noticed that motorcycle helmet laws are also universally obeyed in
the European countries I've visited. But I think there are significant
differences between MHLs for bicycles and for motorcycles - even small
motorcycles.

The first difference is the danger level. Many people seem to think that
anything with two wheels has the same level of risk, but that's not even
close to true. I've seen data rating motorcycling at over 30 times more
dangerous than bicycling per hour exposure.

There's also a difference in convenience. A bike is a lightweight,
highly portable device with, typically, no locked storage capacity.
Motorcycles are relatively large, heavy devices that usually have some
relatively secure way of storing a helmet. And the helmet inconvenience
anyone when carrying a motorcycle indoors, because nobody does that.

There's the relative expense. The typical motorcycle helmet costs more
than the typical bike helmet, but it's a negligible percentage of the
machine's cost. A cheap bike helmet can cost as much as a garage sale bike.

For many people, there's a comfort issue with bike helmets - they feel
hotter when riding in one, or they have problems with sweat in the eyes.
There's much less of that with a motorcycle.

And most people are very familiar with bicycling - indeed, most people
probably rode bikes as kids, and without helmets. The bike helmet is a
new imposition. Very few ride motorcycles as kids, at least in the U.S.,
and IME, those that do are wannabe off-road racers. Their parents suit
them up like the pros from an early age. Of course, that includes the
helmet.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/26/2020 7:27 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/26/2020 7:00 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 12:25:48 -0400, 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 IÂ* 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

No, I wasn't defining "recreational cyclists" as those who wear fancy
cycling gear, although the usually do, I was rather trying to
differentiate between people who ride a bicycle for "fun" and those
who use it as their only means of local transportation.

Amazingly we still have some people here that don't own an auto or
motorcycle and use a bicycle as a transportation device. You can see
them every morning going back and forth to either local shops or a
large open market for the day's food. Usually with a basket on the
front and often a large plastic crate strapped on the rear carrier.

And never a helmet :-)

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.

It must be something local as there is a helmet law here for
motorcycles and it is rigidly enforced and strangely enough small
~100cc motorcycles are literally "all over the place".

I've noticed that motorcycle helmet laws are also universally obeyed in
the European countries I've visited. But I think there are significant
differences between MHLs for bicycles and for motorcycles - even small
motorcycles.

The first difference is the danger level. Many people seem to think that
anything with two wheels has the same level of risk, but that's not even
close to true. I've seen data rating motorcycling at over 30 times more
dangerous than bicycling per hour exposure.

There's also a difference in convenience. A bike is a lightweight,
highly portable device with, typically, no locked storage capacity.
Motorcycles are relatively large, heavy devices that usually have some
relatively secure way of storing a helmet. And the helmet inconvenience
anyone when carrying a motorcycle indoors, because nobody does that.

There's the relative expense. The typical motorcycle helmet costs more
than the typical bike helmet, but it's a negligible percentage of the
machine's cost. A cheap bike helmet can cost as much as a garage sale bike.

For many people, there's a comfort issue with bike helmets - they feel
hotter when riding in one, or they have problems with sweat in the eyes.
There's much less of that with a motorcycle.

And most people are very familiar with bicycling - indeed, most people
probably rode bikes as kids, and without helmets. The bike helmet is a
new imposition. Very few ride motorcycles as kids, at least in the U.S.,
and IME, those that do are wannabe off-road racers. Their parents suit
them up like the pros from an early age. Of course, that includes the
helmet.

Typing mistake. "And the helmet _doesn't_ inconvenience anyone when
carrying a motorcycle indoors..."


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 10:44:07 -0700, sms wrote:

On 6/25/2020 6:58 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

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.

Frank is wrong of courseâ„¢.

There has never been any evidence that helmet laws have led to a
reduction in cycling.

Perhaps you can point people to the evidence?
Over, there is no evidence of such. No surveys were taken before MHL.

On 6/26/2020 6:00 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 12:25:48 -0400, 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

No, I wasn't defining "recreational cyclists" as those who wear fancy
cycling gear, although the usually do, I was rather trying to
differentiate between people who ride a bicycle for "fun" and those
who use it as their only means of local transportation.

Amazingly we still have some people here that don't own an auto or
motorcycle and use a bicycle as a transportation device. You can see
them every morning going back and forth to either local shops or a
large open market for the day's food. Usually with a basket on the
front and often a large plastic crate strapped on the rear carrier.

And never a helmet :-)

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.

It must be something local as there is a helmet law here for
motorcycles and it is rigidly enforced and strangely enough small
~100cc motorcycles are literally "all over the place".


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.



I'm no expert on Thai culture but in my State the
legislature danced with a motorcycle helmet law once. Some
50,000 riders surrounded the Capitol[1] for days and the
bill was dropped. That was the end of any mandatory helmet
discussion.

Bicyclists don't have such solidarity. Threaten them with
legislative punishment and they would attack each other over
whose tires are too skinny or fat, which gearing is
heretical and whether or not crank tapers need lubrication.


[1] No violence, firebombings, statues toppled, businesses
looted. Also no litter. As exemplary a 'peaceable assembly'
and 'petition' as ever there was:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sd-XHD_GuM
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 3:56:20 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/26/2020 5:19 PM, Duane wrote:
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...

If you don't give a damn, Duane, why are you bothering with your usual
snipe and retreat?

That's as far as he wants to go into a religious war. Your village has low ridership and few people wear helmets. My village has high ridership and many people wear helmets. This proves a direct correlation between helmets and ridership. Helmets put people on bikes. QED. You should be out distributing helmets if you want to improve the woeful ridership in your village..

And yes, all the pictures of Portland rush hour bicycle traffic are made up.. It's like the Truman show (or North Korea) -- a band of cyclists just rotates around the city to give it that bike commuter feel. Only the ones with helmets allow their pictures to be taken. Conspiracies abound. I'm still waiting for my check from Big Helmet.

I told my son to wear a helmet when he was a kid because it was the law, but I didn't chase him all over town when he went for a ride. I'm not sure about his compliance. He probably complained about wearing a helmet now and then, among other things. He complained more about the hill to grade school and the hill to middle school and the hill to high school. Anyway, he sure didn't quit riding. Sadly, he wears skin tight lycra and garish jerseys and has no Chihuahua bag -- so he is not a TRUE cyclist. WE of the Big Chihuahua Bag Conspiracy hope to convert him one day.

By the way, I was coming back from riding through the hills last night and stopped at the Thai cart to pick up dinner. Its a little over a mile from my house. The orders come in a fairly robust paper bag and do my usual routine of just holding the bag around my left lever, but this time it starts to rip! I should have bought my Chihuahua bag! But wait, I shoved it under my garish lycra jersey. Never underestimate jerseys. https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/insp...challenge1.jpg

I could probably put six Chihuahuas under my jersey, so long as the get along and are housebroken.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 5:39:40 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/26/2020 6:00 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 12:25:48 -0400, 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

No, I wasn't defining "recreational cyclists" as those who wear fancy
cycling gear, although the usually do, I was rather trying to
differentiate between people who ride a bicycle for "fun" and those
who use it as their only means of local transportation.

Amazingly we still have some people here that don't own an auto or
motorcycle and use a bicycle as a transportation device. You can see
them every morning going back and forth to either local shops or a
large open market for the day's food. Usually with a basket on the
front and often a large plastic crate strapped on the rear carrier.

And never a helmet :-)

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.

It must be something local as there is a helmet law here for
motorcycles and it is rigidly enforced and strangely enough small
~100cc motorcycles are literally "all over the place".


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.



I'm no expert on Thai culture but in my State the
legislature danced with a motorcycle helmet law once. Some
50,000 riders surrounded the Capitol[1] for days and the
bill was dropped. That was the end of any mandatory helmet
discussion.

Bicyclists don't have such solidarity. Threaten them with
legislative punishment and they would attack each other over
whose tires are too skinny or fat, which gearing is
heretical and whether or not crank tapers need lubrication.


[1] No violence, firebombings, statues toppled, businesses
looted. Also no litter. As exemplary a 'peaceable assembly'
and 'petition' as ever there was:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sd-XHD_GuM

I always preferred the motorcycle accidents when the rider was wearing a helmet. I don't know about survival rates, but there was certainly less cleanup. Asphalt can abrade right through a skull. It's gross.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Friday, 26 June 2020 21:16:19 UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 3:56:20 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/26/2020 5:19 PM, Duane wrote:
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...

If you don't give a damn, Duane, why are you bothering with your usual
snipe and retreat?

That's as far as he wants to go into a religious war. Your village has low ridership and few people wear helmets. My village has high ridership and many people wear helmets. This proves a direct correlation between helmets and ridership. Helmets put people on bikes. QED. You should be out distributing helmets if you want to improve the woeful ridership in your village.

And yes, all the pictures of Portland rush hour bicycle traffic are made up. It's like the Truman show (or North Korea) -- a band of cyclists just rotates around the city to give it that bike commuter feel. Only the ones with helmets allow their pictures to be taken. Conspiracies abound. I'm still waiting for my check from Big Helmet.

I told my son to wear a helmet when he was a kid because it was the law, but I didn't chase him all over town when he went for a ride. I'm not sure about his compliance. He probably complained about wearing a helmet now and then, among other things. He complained more about the hill to grade school and the hill to middle school and the hill to high school. Anyway, he sure didn't quit riding. Sadly, he wears skin tight lycra and garish jerseys and has no Chihuahua bag -- so he is not a TRUE cyclist. WE of the Big Chihuahua Bag Conspiracy hope to convert him one day.

By the way, I was coming back from riding through the hills last night and stopped at the Thai cart to pick up dinner. Its a little over a mile from my house. The orders come in a fairly robust paper bag and do my usual routine of just holding the bag around my left lever, but this time it starts to rip! I should have bought my Chihuahua bag! But wait, I shoved it under my garish lycra jersey. Never underestimate jerseys. https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/insp...challenge1.jpg

I could probably put six Chihuahuas under my jersey, so long as the get along and are housebroken.

-- Jay Beattie.

Lots of water bottles under this guy's jersey.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELhHRfBPHk0

Cheers