|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 itās his way of not ever insulting people who are different than him as we know itās 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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |