|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Government Bicycle Program News
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. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Government Bicycle Program News
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Government Bicycle Program News
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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Government Bicycle Program News
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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Government Bicycle Program News
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. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Government Bicycle Program News
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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Government Bicycle Program News
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. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Government Bicycle Program News
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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Government Bicycle Program News
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
General Bicycle News | jbeattie | Techniques | 2 | February 23rd 20 09:33 PM |
Bicycle News | [email protected] | Techniques | 0 | November 10th 14 03:17 AM |
Chinese bicycle news | AMuzi | Techniques | 5 | March 1st 13 01:48 PM |
Bikeability Toolkit: free seminars for Bicycle User Groups & local government | cfsmtb | Australia | 0 | October 5th 06 08:30 AM |
California: Bicycle Recycling Program proposed by assemblywoman | Ken Marcet | General | 17 | March 22nd 05 09:28 PM |