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
  #41  
Old June 27th 20, 02:34 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Government Bicycle Program News

On 6/26/2020 8:23 PM, jbeattie wrote:
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.


One does see motorcycle helmets here from time to time
(notably on traffic police).

The compelling phrase at the time and forevermo "Let
those who ride decide." Could not imagine any better public
policy for this or any other similar issue.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


Ads
  #42  
Old June 27th 20, 03:51 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Government Bicycle Program News

On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 9:16:19 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 3:56:20 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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.


A university's philosophy department faculty are having a serious
theological discussion. A fundamentalist bursts in, says "You're all
going to hell!" and leaves. Is that fundamentalist to be admired?


And yes, all the pictures of Portland rush hour bicycle traffic are made up.


Come on Jay, be serious. Does Maus _not_ choose his photos to buttress
his arguments?

What about the discrepancy between his photos of 100% helmets, vs the consistent findings of 80% wearing rates? Are you saying the photos
are more correct than the available data?

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.


You could ask him. He'd probably tell you the truth.

When my kids were young, I believed in helmets, since I had not yet looked
into the relevant data. My wife especially wanted them to wear helmets,
and I was much less adamant but I concurred. Both of the kids (years apart)
said then they'd not ride. I told my wife we'd better drop the issue.

This was regarding their about town riding. When we did bike club rides,
the kids wore the hats because almost everyone did. Peer pressure!

Sadly, he wears skin tight lycra and garish jerseys and has no Chihuahua bag -- so he is not a TRUE cyclist.


Dude, let's review: YOU mocked handlebar bags before I defended them.
And if I offer skepticism - or too much "benefit vs. detriment" -
about the latest tech fashion, you label me a retrogrouch. It's like
"Thou shalt not question the advertisements."

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.


??? And what, you're bragging about that? Sheesh.

Yesterday I rode to the bike shop and bought a pair of cycling shoes. It was a
rainy day, so I kept my old shoes on for the ride home. The new ones
went in my bag. Should I really have stuffed them in my shirt for the
15 mile ride home? How is that better than having a bag?

- Frank Krygowski
  #43  
Old June 27th 20, 03:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Government Bicycle Program News

On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 9:34:06 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/26/2020 8:23 PM, jbeattie wrote:

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.


One does see motorcycle helmets here from time to time
(notably on traffic police).

The compelling phrase at the time and forevermo "Let
those who ride decide." Could not imagine any better public
policy for this or any other similar issue.


Agreed - although I'd prefer that the relevant publicity be accurate
and honest. That's often lacking.

- Frank Krygowski
  #44  
Old June 27th 20, 05:56 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,041
Default Government Bicycle Program News

On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 8:34:06 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/26/2020 8:23 PM, jbeattie wrote:
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.


One does see motorcycle helmets here from time to time
(notably on traffic police).


In my state, which is very close to your state, I see about 50/50 helmet usage. People riding Harleys because they thinks its cool don't wear helmets.. People riding about any other type of motorcycle do wear helmets.



The compelling phrase at the time and forevermo "Let
those who ride decide." Could not imagine any better public
policy for this or any other similar issue.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


I'd argue with that statement. Seatbelt usage is mandatory in all states I believe. Cops do stop and ticket people for not wearing seatbelts I believe. When I was a kid there were no seatbelt laws and I never wore a seatbelt. Sometime in the 80s I think seatbelt laws were passed. And laws requiring all cars to have airbags came later too. I think its prudent to wear a seatbelt now and always wear one when in a car. I don't think my constitutional rights are being violated by making me wear a seatbelt. And I'm not going to get a gun and hold a rally at the state capital demanding the government stop persecuting and regulating me.
  #45  
Old June 27th 20, 06:02 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,041
Default Government Bicycle Program News

On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 6:00:16 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
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.

John B.


I'd agree with that statement. Recreational cyclists ride their bikes for fun and exercise. They do it because they want to. And most, almost all, wear bicycle specific clothing to do it and ride newer style bikes.
  #46  
Old June 27th 20, 06:20 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,041
Default Government Bicycle Program News

On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 6:10:34 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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.

--
- Frank Krygowski


I am in Des Moines, Iowa. Center of the Midwest. I do not have numbers. Other than each afternoon for the past few weeks or so, I have seen 2-3-4-5 or so people and kids riding bicycles on the street and sidewalks in front of my house. I live in a residential neighborhood so not too much traffic on the streets. Most, 51%+, of the people I see riding through my front window, have helmets. Some do not. But I'd estimate more do than don't. These people for the most part are not devoted serious bicyclists who populate Google bicycle forums. They are nearby residents and kids who are bicycling now due to Covid-19. Their bicycle rides may only be 0.5-1-2 miles long. They are just on their bicycles due to Covid-19 quarantine. I also see some kids on their bicycles who are riding on the sidewalks because they are kids who must live nearby. They don't have helmets. But the kids I see riding with their parents walking behind them do have helmets.

I also ride on the hundreds of miles of paved bicycle trails around my town.. Almost all on the trails fit into the recreational cyclist definition. Riding newer, last 30 years, bicycles and wearing cycling shorts and jerseys. And helmets too.

Iowa does have a strong bicycle connection due to RAGBRAI. RAGBRAI does influence cycling in Iowa. If you are going to ride 4-500 miles in 7 days, it helps to ride a nicer bike and wear cycling specific clothing. Including a helmet. And clipless pedals/shoes. RAGBRAI has 10-15-20,000 participants each year. But its canceled this year due to Covid-19.
  #47  
Old June 27th 20, 09:43 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Government Bicycle Program News

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 15:24:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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 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 course™.

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.


On the other hand, I understand that skiers now wear helmets, and of
course horsemen wear helmets and, oh lets see, scooter riders,
motorcyclists, most people in the building trades, those that climb
mountains, and I could go on and on. Strange that it is only
bicyclists that refuse to wear them. "No Siree Bob!
I ain't gonna ride no stupid bicycle if I gotta rear a skid lid!
--
cheers,

John B.

  #48  
Old June 27th 20, 10:02 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Government Bicycle Program News

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 19:27:55 -0400, 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 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.


I wouldn't say that the motorcycle helmet law is universally obeyed
here but I would say that seeing a motorcyclist without a helmet on is
rather unusual, primarily because the police enforce the law.

As a sort of "test" of your theory I asked the Cleaning Lady my wife
has in several days a week if she ever gave any thought to not riding
her 100 cc motorcycle because the police made her wear a helmet...
and she looked at me as thought I was some sort of idiot and replied,
"how would I get to work?"

So apparently, here at least, the terrifying helmet law doesn't seem
to cause "transportation motorcyclists" to give up motorcycles because
they have to wear a helmet.

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.


Rationalize it any way that you want to but my guess is that if the
state were to promulgate a helmet law, and enforce it, that the
numbers of bicyclists would remain about the same.

Or are you telling us that if you were forced to wear a helmet you
would give up bicycles?
--
cheers,

John B.

  #49  
Old June 27th 20, 10:11 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Government Bicycle Program News

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 19:31:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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 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.


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


Well, if a bicycle helmet inconveniences you when carrying a bicycle
indoors then I would have to say that you must be so uncoordinated
that it is a miracle that they can even ride a bicycle.

And yes, I have a helmet hanging on the handle bars of whatever bike I
plan to ride that day and I take my bikes "indoor" when I'm not riding
them.

Again, out of curiosity, I asked my wife to move my "Sunday" Bike
inside and lo and behold! She went ahead and wheeled it right inside.
Hot Damn! And she is 75 years old.
--
cheers,

John B.

  #50  
Old June 27th 20, 10:21 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Government Bicycle Program News

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 19:39:42 -0500, 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.


Wouldn't work so well over here. Partly because you would be talking
about 50,000 people skipping a day's work to protest? And a bloke
standing right there ready to take your job when they fire you for not
showing up for work. Not hardly.

You might be able to get some collage students to protest but
certainly not about motorcycle helmets. Collage students all come from
families that have cars :-)

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

--
cheers,

John B.

 




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 10:33 PM
Bicycle News [email protected] Techniques 0 November 10th 14 04:17 AM
Chinese bicycle news AMuzi Techniques 5 March 1st 13 02:48 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 10:28 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.