A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Government Bicycle Program News



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 26th 20, 06:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,043
Default Government Bicycle Program News

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 courseā„¢.

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

Cycling levels go up and down for a plethora of reasons including
economic cycles, changes in mass transit, changes in bicycle
infrastructure, weather, and now apparently, pandemics (at least in the
U.S.).

I'm not sure what my favorite AHZ misinformation campaign has been, but
the two contenders were the following:

1) a count of cyclists that was done, after an MHL was implemented,
where they omitted large numbers of cyclists that passed by claiming
that they were not part of the normal cycling numbers

2) when they admitted that cycling levels continued to rise even after
an MHL was implemented but insisted that since the levels went up slower
than the rate that the population increased that this "proved" that the
MHL depressed cycling levels.

In any case, there are few, if any MHLs for adult cyclists in the U.S.
and I think that only one person on RBT has ever advocated for MHLs.

Frank is giving Donald Trump a run for his money when it comes to
spreading misinformation.



Ads
  #22  
Old June 26th 20, 06:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,938
Default Government Bicycle Program News

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.
  #23  
Old June 26th 20, 07:42 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,972
Default Government Bicycle Program News

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
  #24  
Old June 26th 20, 08:03 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,988
Default Government Bicycle Program News

On 6/26/2020 1:56 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 9:25:52 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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.


How funny that a sport cyclist in garish skin tight lycra would make fun
of a person riding competently in normal clothing!

I just waive as I'm passing by, unless they're throwing out candy.


You lawyers are always wanting to waive something or other. Do you pass
out legal briefs for reference with your waive motions? And are briefs
even legal under your skin tight lycra?

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


Portland does have an unusually high helmet wearing percentage, just as
Portland has an unusually high bike mode share for a U.S. city. I think
that both are due to an unusually active propaganda machine.

Maus's website and photos like you linked are a significant part of that
propaganda. Like most such promoters (Streetsblog is another), he
chooses his photos carefully. Don't show empty bike lanes; wait until a
crowd of cyclists in in the viewfinder. Don't show people without
helmets; as with many bike magazines (_Bicycling_ for a long time, and
the LAB magazine), a photo of a bareheaded rider gets automatically
rejected - unless they are visibly "third world" or minority.

As evidence: Surveys have repeatedly shown 80% of Portland cyclists wear
helmets. Maus routinely shows photos with 100% in helmets.

(BTW, note the pedestrians in the photos. Which group has more serious
TBI per mile traveled? Which group should be wearing helmets?)

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.


I don't know how old your kid was and what sort of riding he was doing
at that time. I'm talking about kids I see in our neighborhood and in
two others I visit frequently. Kids buzz around each others' houses like
bees after nectar. They ride up to a house, drop their bikes on the
lawn, run in the house, then jump back on the bike five minutes later.
Their average distance per ride is less than a tenth of a mile. If a
helmet is visible, it's hanging from the handlebars.

The exceptions are the ones being shepherded by their parents, going
slowly down the sidewalk, often with training wheels. They wear helmets,
of course. Those are not the ones having fun with bikes.

If you tell the parents "Bicycling causes SO many head injuries! Don't
let your kid ride without a helmet!" how can it not reduce bike riding?


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #25  
Old June 26th 20, 08:08 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,988
Default Government Bicycle Program News

On 6/26/2020 2:42 PM, 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"?


It was John who says he can't remember seeing a recreational cyclist
without a helmet. I suggest you ask him how he decided who was a
"recreational cyclist."

I strongly suspect he did that by noting the costume. And the helmet is
a very, very important part of the "recreational cyclist" costume.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #26  
Old June 26th 20, 08:24 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,988
Default Government Bicycle Program News

On 6/26/2020 1:44 PM, 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 IĀ* 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 courseā„¢.

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


Bull****, as usual, which ignores available data. And repeating bull****
doesn't make it true. See
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...8/?tool=pubmed
for just one example.

Cycling levels go up and down for a plethora of reasons including
economic cycles, changes in mass transit, changes in bicycle
infrastructure, weather, and now apparently, pandemics (at least in the
U.S.).


Of course cycling levels rise and fall. That does not mean mandating
helmets has zero effect.

Again, there are certainly some people who will decide a MHL proves
cycling is just too dangerous. There are certainly some people who
decide they just don't want to wear a helmet for reasons of comfort or
style. There are those who can't afford a helmet. (Our bike club has
given bikes to people who can't afford a $20 used bike; they can't
afford even a $10 helmet.) Those and other people will ride less, or
give it up entirely.

But nobody will say "Whoa! Now I have to wear a weird hat to legally
ride a bike?? That does it! I'm taking up bicycling!"

Do some reading. Get someone to help you think about the issues.

https://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets

https://www.outsideonline.com/237323...e-safety#close

https://www.northcoastjournal.com/hu...nt?oid=2913125

And please don't pretend the skepticism is only mine.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #27  
Old June 26th 20, 08:40 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,640
Default Government Bicycle Program News

On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 11:25:51 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 6:21:32 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/24/2020 7:12 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 12:03:40 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 9:06:00 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tuesday, June 23, 2020 at 5:38:06 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
https://cyclingindustry.news/details...cher-released/

What could go wrong? Will it be an efficient and necessary
use of tax revenues, unlike every other ****hole program in
the past? Hope springs eternal.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Of course the money must come from somewhere do there will be taxes placed on bicycle ownership soon to be followed by a ministry of pedestianism and a shoe tax.

Or evil, terrible, horrible Joe Biden, IF elected, could just roll back a small fraction of the Trump tax giveaways. That would be enough money to build every bicycle infrastructure project imagined.

Are you serious about Biden even getting 10% of the vote?



Mailed ballots, wherein every malcontent in the County
Clerk's office gets a veto.


Really? Oregon has been doing vote by mail for local elections for almost 40 years. 25 years for federal elections. There is zero evidence of disaffected county clerks doing anything. In fact, vote by mail is popular with both Democrats and Republicans.

-- Jay Beattie.


Yes. In Iowa they recently had an election. Primary? Not sure what it was. But the state of Iowa, run by a Republican governor and legislature, sent mail ballots to everyone who asked for one via a postcard request they had sent earlier. And they got the highest percentage of voters on record. Mail in voting increases voting percentage. And everyone who does it loves it.
  #28  
Old June 26th 20, 08:54 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,640
Default Government Bicycle Program News

On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 12:56:47 PM UTC-5, 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.


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. 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.
  #29  
Old June 26th 20, 10:19 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 116
Default Government Bicycle Program News

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 itā€™s his way of not ever insulting people who are different than
him as we know itā€™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...

  #30  
Old June 26th 20, 11:23 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Radey Shouman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,532
Default Government Bicycle Program News

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 6/26/2020 1:56 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 9:25:52 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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.


How funny that a sport cyclist in garish skin tight lycra would make
fun of a person riding competently in normal clothing!

I just waive as I'm passing by, unless they're throwing out candy.


You lawyers are always wanting to waive something or other. Do you
pass out legal briefs for reference with your waive motions? And are
briefs even legal under your skin tight lycra?

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


Portland does have an unusually high helmet wearing percentage, just
as Portland has an unusually high bike mode share for a U.S. city. I
think that both are due to an unusually active propaganda machine.

Maus's website and photos like you linked are a significant part of
that propaganda. Like most such promoters (Streetsblog is another), he
chooses his photos carefully. Don't show empty bike lanes; wait until
a crowd of cyclists in in the viewfinder. Don't show people without
helmets; as with many bike magazines (_Bicycling_ for a long time, and
the LAB magazine), a photo of a bareheaded rider gets automatically
rejected - unless they are visibly "third world" or minority.

As evidence: Surveys have repeatedly shown 80% of Portland cyclists
wear helmets. Maus routinely shows photos with 100% in helmets.

(BTW, note the pedestrians in the photos. Which group has more serious
TBI per mile traveled? Which group should be wearing helmets?)

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.


I don't know how old your kid was and what sort of riding he was doing
at that time. I'm talking about kids I see in our neighborhood and in
two others I visit frequently. Kids buzz around each others' houses
like bees after nectar. They ride up to a house, drop their bikes on
the lawn, run in the house, then jump back on the bike five minutes
later. Their average distance per ride is less than a tenth of a
mile. If a helmet is visible, it's hanging from the handlebars.


I can confirm that my niece and nephew, back in grade school, reacted to
their mother's insistence on following the state helmet law by more or
less giving up bicycling. They never threatened to do so as a
competitive sport, instead just riding around the neighborhood.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2020 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.