Fat kids

[psycholist]

I keep reading in the papers about childhood obesity and it's certainly
evident all around. I've never seen so many fat, unfit kids.

We've really had a nice spell of weather since Christmas and I've been on
the bike a lot. I've almost been hit a few times by young kids on little
motorized scooters. Apparently, they replaced bicycles under the tree this
year. They're everywhere. "Can't have little junior having to expend any
energy ... that wouldn't do. But I wonder why he's getting so fat?"

Well, the bright side is that, maybe we'll get scooter lanes someday and
they'll allow bicycles on them, too.

Bob C.

[Cathy Kearns]

"psycholist" > wrote in message
...
> I keep reading in the papers about childhood obesity and it's certainly
> evident all around. I've never seen so many fat, unfit kids.
>
> We've really had a nice spell of weather since Christmas and I've been on
> the bike a lot. I've almost been hit a few times by young kids on little
> motorized scooters. Apparently, they replaced bicycles under the tree
this
> year. They're everywhere. "Can't have little junior having to expend any
> energy ... that wouldn't do. But I wonder why he's getting so fat?"
>
> Well, the bright side is that, maybe we'll get scooter lanes someday and
> they'll allow bicycles on them, too.
>
> Bob C.

Don't know where you live, but in many places it's illegal for
kids to "drive" them. Here in California they are illegal for
anyone under 16 (but you don't need a driver's license.) The
police will notice soon, and the motorized scooters will go
back into the garages.

[Peter Keller]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:26:43 -0500, psycholist wrote:

> I keep reading in the papers about childhood obesity and it's certainly
> evident all around. I've never seen so many fat, unfit kids.
>
<snip>
> Bob C.
Here in New Zealand this has become a big problem. 40% of our kids are
now fat, compared to about 1% when I was at school (over 40 years ago)
In 1994 it became mandatory for all bicyclists to wear helmets, and the
police have been quite ferocious in enforcing this law. The result has
been quite disastrous -- overall bicycling has deccreased by about 34%;
among children by about 70%, yet the reduction in serious head injuries
has been only 19%. In other words, the rate of head injuries per cyclist
has INCREASED by about 20% since the (supposedly protective) law came in.
But are they going to admit they were wrong and repeal it? Not likely --


--
This message is certified Virus Free as no Microsoft products
were used in its preparation or propagation

[Kamus of Kadizhar]

Cathy Kearns wrote:

> Don't know where you live, but in many places it's illegal for
> kids to "drive" them. Here in California they are illegal for
> anyone under 16 (but you don't need a driver's license.) The
> police will notice soon, and the motorized scooters will go
> back into the garages.

No, they'll go back into garages like every new toy to gather dust, and
the kids will return to watching TV.

I do wish that we'd go back to real neighborhoods, with neighborhood
schools, so kids could walk to school, instead of 50 acre campuses
located 10 miles outside of town.... (That 50 acres is a US federal
gov't 'guideline, BTW.)

With urban planning like that, it's no wonder kids get fat...

-Kamus

--
o__ | If you're old, eat right and ride a decent bike.
,>/'_ | Q.
(_)\(_) | Usenet posting`

[Doug]

Not only are the motorized, but they now have seats to make them even more
comfortable and easy to use!

I think someone mentioned it here before - sports injuries are now related
to watching basketball on TV - "hurt my back getting more chips & beer". Not
only are the kids fatter today but so are the parents.

They'll need to make those scooter lanes "biggie sized"

Doug




"psycholist" > wrote in message
...
> I keep reading in the papers about childhood obesity and it's certainly
> evident all around. I've never seen so many fat, unfit kids.
>
> We've really had a nice spell of weather since Christmas and I've been on
> the bike a lot. I've almost been hit a few times by young kids on little
> motorized scooters. Apparently, they replaced bicycles under the tree
this
> year. They're everywhere. "Can't have little junior having to expend any
> energy ... that wouldn't do. But I wonder why he's getting so fat?"
>
> Well, the bright side is that, maybe we'll get scooter lanes someday and
> they'll allow bicycles on them, too.
>
> Bob C.
>
>
>

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 05:58:43 -0500, Kamus of Kadizhar
> wrote:

>I do wish that we'd go back to real neighborhoods, with neighborhood
>schools, so kids could walk to school, instead of 50 acre campuses
>located 10 miles outside of town.... (That 50 acres is a US federal
>gov't 'guideline, BTW.)

It's be cool if the 50-acre plots were given over to running tracks
and athletic fields instead of parking lots.

[frkrygow]

Peter Keller wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:26:43 -0500, psycholist wrote:
>
>
>>I keep reading in the papers about childhood obesity and it's certainly
>>evident all around. I've never seen so many fat, unfit kids.
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>Bob C.
>
> Here in New Zealand this has become a big problem. 40% of our kids are
> now fat, compared to about 1% when I was at school (over 40 years ago)
> In 1994 it became mandatory for all bicyclists to wear helmets, and the
> police have been quite ferocious in enforcing this law. The result has
> been quite disastrous -- overall bicycling has deccreased by about 34%;
> among children by about 70%, yet the reduction in serious head injuries
> has been only 19%. In other words, the rate of head injuries per cyclist
> has INCREASED by about 20% since the (supposedly protective) law came in.
> But are they going to admit they were wrong and repeal it? Not likely --

And why would they? The helmet manufacturers who financed the "safety"
groups campaigns are still ahead. And the "safety" handwringers still
think they've done a good thing.

Why? "Well, if only ONE life can be saved..." they figure any downsides
are negligible. Even if the downsides include 100 early heart attacks.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

[Joe Cipale]

Zippy the Pinhead wrote:
>
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 05:58:43 -0500, Kamus of Kadizhar
> > wrote:
>
> >I do wish that we'd go back to real neighborhoods, with neighborhood
> >schools, so kids could walk to school, instead of 50 acre campuses
> >located 10 miles outside of town.... (That 50 acres is a US federal
> >gov't 'guideline, BTW.)
>
> It's be cool if the 50-acre plots were given over to running tracks
> and athletic fields instead of parking lots.

But then Ken and Barbie wouldn't be able to drive ther BMW that they got
for their 16th birthday!

Think about the ramifications here, man! :^)

Joe
--
#----------------------------------------------------------#
# Penguinix Consulting #
#----------------------------------------------------------#
# Software development, QA and testing. #
# Linux support and training. #
# "Don't fear the penguin!" #
#----------------------------------------------------------#
# Registered Linux user: #309247 http://counter.li.org #
#----------------------------------------------------------#

[Cathy Kearns]

"Kamus of Kadizhar" > wrote in message
...
> Cathy Kearns wrote:
>
> > Don't know where you live, but in many places it's illegal for
> > kids to "drive" them. Here in California they are illegal for
> > anyone under 16 (but you don't need a driver's license.) The
> > police will notice soon, and the motorized scooters will go
> > back into the garages.
>
> No, they'll go back into garages like every new toy to gather dust, and
> the kids will return to watching TV.
>
> I do wish that we'd go back to real neighborhoods, with neighborhood
> schools, so kids could walk to school, instead of 50 acre campuses
> located 10 miles outside of town.... (That 50 acres is a US federal
> gov't 'guideline, BTW.)
>
> With urban planning like that, it's no wonder kids get fat...

I live in an older town where schools are still in the midst of
neighborhoods and many kids ride their bikes or walk to
school. (You haven't felt heaven until you can sit in your
jammies with your coffee while both kids wander off to
school on their own.) However, there still is a startling
number of parents that will drive their kid to school no
matter how close they live or how safe the road is for
biking/walking. It seems fear of stranger abduction, larger
and fragiler projects (book reports made into cubes,
mobiles explaining science reports, 3x4 foot maps, diaramas),
and large musical instruments conspire to have many folks
driving their loved ones less than 1/4 mile on flat roads
everyday. I think the biggest problem with getting folks
to let their kids ride or walk to school is the cars of the kids
whose parents won't let them ride or walk to school. Quite
the vicious circle, that I'm glad my kids are not a part of.

[Cathy Kearns]

"Peter Keller" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:26:43 -0500, psycholist wrote:
>
> > I keep reading in the papers about childhood obesity and it's certainly
> > evident all around. I've never seen so many fat, unfit kids.
> >
> <snip>
> > Bob C.
> Here in New Zealand this has become a big problem. 40% of our kids are
> now fat, compared to about 1% when I was at school (over 40 years ago)
> In 1994 it became mandatory for all bicyclists to wear helmets, and the
> police have been quite ferocious in enforcing this law. The result has
> been quite disastrous -- overall bicycling has deccreased by about 34%;
> among children by about 70%, yet the reduction in serious head injuries
> has been only 19%. In other words, the rate of head injuries per cyclist
> has INCREASED by about 20% since the (supposedly protective) law came in.
> But are they going to admit they were wrong and repeal it? Not likely --

This is a particular problem amongst preteen and teen girls.
It's hard to find hair styles that won't be affected by helmet
ridges. Especially if girls are riding to school with just styled,
and still slightly damp, hair. For some reason, by high school
bikes are no longer considered cool at all, for girls or boys. I
don't know why, and have to wonder if helmets have something
to do with it.

[Rick Onanian]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:33:17 GMT, "Cathy Kearns"
> wrote:
>> In 1994 it became mandatory for all bicyclists to wear helmets, and the
>
>and still slightly damp, hair. For some reason, by high school
>bikes are no longer considered cool at all, for girls or boys. I
>don't know why, and have to wonder if helmets have something
>to do with it.

We've never had a mandatory helmet law around here, and when I was a
kid, nobody wore helmets at all. The same uncoolness of bikes showed
up in high school anyway; I believe it's because many kids got to
drive cars to school, so they were the cool ones.
--
Rick Onanian

[Jiyang Chen]

"psycholist" > wrote in message
...
> I keep reading in the papers about childhood obesity and it's certainly
> evident all around. I've never seen so many fat, unfit kids.

What fat % is necessary to be categorized as fat?

[psycholist]

Now that the holidays have just passed, I'm staring at 17% and looking in
the mirror and going WHOOOAAA! But I'm 48 years old and that's probably the
high end of the good range. It increases with age. There are quite a few
websites that provide the body mass index chart which is a common guide
(though many critics say it's too harsh). Do a search and you shouldn't
have any trouble finding them.

Bob C.
"Jiyang Chen" > wrote in message
...
>
> "psycholist" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I keep reading in the papers about childhood obesity and it's certainly
> > evident all around. I've never seen so many fat, unfit kids.
>
> What fat % is necessary to be categorized as fat?
>
>
>

[Ray Heindl]

"Jiyang Chen" > wrote:

>
> "psycholist" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I keep reading in the papers about childhood obesity and it's
>> certainly evident all around. I've never seen so many fat, unfit
>> kids.
>
> What fat % is necessary to be categorized as fat?

The guidelines I've seen are always presented in terms of Body Mass
Index. From <http://nhlbisupport.com/bmi/bmicalc.htm>:

BMI Categories:
Underweight = <18.5
Normal weight = 18.5-24.9
Overweight = 25-29.9
Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater

There probably isn't near as much data on actual percentage of fat, nor
do many people have the means to measure it easily, so the BMI is used
instead.

--
Ray Heindl
(remove the Xs to reply)

[Q.]

"Cathy Kearns" > wrote

<snip>
>For some reason, by high school
> bikes are no longer considered cool at all, for girls or boys. I
> don't know why, and have to wonder if helmets have something
> to do with it.

We had no helmet laws back when I was a teenager in the 80's, but I can tell
you the day I stopped riding a bike was the day I got my drivers license.

Driving in the US is a right of passage, a taste of freedom you didn't have
before. That's one reason.

My high school was about 25 miles away (a regional technical school) so
biking to school was never a consideration however, I probably still would
have taken a car for more base reasons ... sex and drugs and rock & roll.
Seriously. Nothing like picking up your girlfriend, skipping school on a
nice day, cruising to the beach while sparking up and listening to some good
music. I was driving a restored 1970 Oldsmobile Delta 88 too ... nothing
like those old cares either.

Those were my "good ol' days" (c:

Now things are a little different ... I spend a lot of my weekends camping
and bicycling around Cape Cod with my girlfriend(s), and I don't even smoke
cigarettes anymore. A walk along the beach is still just as nice though.

C.Q.C.

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 20:17:09 -0000, Ray Heindl >
wrote:

>
>The guidelines I've seen are always presented in terms of Body Mass
>Index. From <http://nhlbisupport.com/bmi/bmicalc.htm>:

The categories you presented are OK, but with the increasing
prevalence of obesity, such that at BMI of 35 is more commonplace, a
simpler and more realistic classification system is needed.

Here's one with 5 classes which should serve quite well in coming
generations:

1. A person of normal weight
2. Anybody who's just a little bit fatter than the person doing the
evaluating.
3. When this individual goes camping, the bears hide THEIR food.
4. Has own ZIP code.
5. Has own gravitational field.

[Q.]

"Kamus of Kadizhar" > wrote

<snip>
> o__ | If you're old, eat right and ride a decent bike.
> ,>/'_ | Q.
> (_)\(_) | Usenet posting`

Dang, I being quoted now! Coolness ...

C.Q.C.

[Q.]

"Zippy the Pinhead" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 20:17:09 -0000, Ray Heindl >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >The guidelines I've seen are always presented in terms of Body Mass
> >Index. From <http://nhlbisupport.com/bmi/bmicalc.htm>:
>
> The categories you presented are OK, but with the increasing
> prevalence of obesity, such that at BMI of 35 is more commonplace, a
> simpler and more realistic classification system is needed.
>
> Here's one with 5 classes which should serve quite well in coming
> generations:
>
> 1. A person of normal weight
> 2. Anybody who's just a little bit fatter than the person doing the
> evaluating.
> 3. When this individual goes camping, the bears hide THEIR food.
> 4. Has own ZIP code.
> 5. Has own gravitational field.

How about;

Has a chin on the back of their neck
Can pinch an inch on their forehead
Stretch marks on the ankles

Nah, that would be just mean ...

Hey, I'm getting there myself ... but I have my Mothers thighs, I just have
to live with it LOL

Do these spandex tights make my butt look big?
C.Q.C.

[Tom Kunich]

"Cathy Kearns" > wrote in message
m...
>
> I live in an older town where schools are still in the midst of
> neighborhoods and many kids ride their bikes or walk to
> school. (You haven't felt heaven until you can sit in your
> jammies with your coffee while both kids wander off to
> school on their own.)

So do I. And kids USED to ride their bikes to school here. They had
both sides of a long walkway leading to the school entrance lined
competely with bike racks and they were overfilled with bikes all over
the ground and leaning against the buildings.

Then they passed the helmet laws and the principals of the schools
announced that anyone that came to school on a bike without a helmet
would be in trouble. So now instead of kids who might get in an
accident once in 20 years, we have not a single bike ride to school.
Overnight the bikes disappeared. The law was timed to come into effect
over the Christmas break and the first day in January (around 1992?)
instead of a thousand bikes there were a dozen. Then there were none.
Then they removed the bike stands. And now there is a 30 minute
traffic jam out in front of the schools each morning and afternoon.

The fact that there was only a microscopic chance of a kid being
injurred without a helmet and the fact that now the leading causes of
death are becoming weight related doesn't seem to register with those
in power whose only means of expressing something is to pass laws
against it.

[Marlene Blanshay]

In article >, "Doug"
> wrote:

> Not only are the motorized, but they now have seats to make them even more
> comfortable and easy to use!
>
> I think someone mentioned it here before - sports injuries are now related
> to watching basketball on TV - "hurt my back getting more chips & beer". Not
> only are the kids fatter today but so are the parents.
>
> They'll need to make those scooter lanes "biggie sized"
>
> Doug
>
>
It really is discouraging. Canada is not as bad as the US in terms of
obese kids but we're getting there. And teens- I see slack, pasty
teenagers with their fat love handles pouring out of their jeans. Okay,
not everyone has to be a size 5 but what about HEALTH? Imagine how they'll
be at 50 if they are already so out of shape!

Whenever I see kids out on bikes, BMXing or freeriding or whatever, I'm
always cheered. Once, last summer, out on a ride we saw three adolescent
boys stopped at the side of the road and one of them asked us if we had
any tools. He was having some kind of problem with his freeride bike- a
pretty nice one and obviously used a lot. The other kid had a Kona
mountain bike and there was another kid also with some kind of mountain
bike. They were telling us about freeriding and I said, "It sounds like a
lot more fun than video games!" and they said, "Oh yeah!" It's always
encouraging to see kids who at least arent' sitting at home on a nice day
playing Xbox and eating Cheesies! Yeah, freeriding can get you injured
but it's no worse for your health than being a rug rat!

[Marlene Blanshay]

In article >, "Cathy Kearns"
> wrote:

> "Peter Keller" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:26:43 -0500, psycholist wrote:
> >
> > > I keep reading in the papers about childhood obesity and it's certainly
> > > evident all around. I've never seen so many fat, unfit kids.
> > >
> > <snip>
> > > Bob C.
> > Here in New Zealand this has become a big problem. 40% of our kids are
> > now fat, compared to about 1% when I was at school (over 40 years ago)
> > In 1994 it became mandatory for all bicyclists to wear helmets, and the
> > police have been quite ferocious in enforcing this law. The result has
> > been quite disastrous -- overall bicycling has deccreased by about 34%;
> > among children by about 70%, yet the reduction in serious head injuries
> > has been only 19%. In other words, the rate of head injuries per cyclist
> > has INCREASED by about 20% since the (supposedly protective) law came in.
> > But are they going to admit they were wrong and repeal it? Not likely --
>
> This is a particular problem amongst preteen and teen girls.
> It's hard to find hair styles that won't be affected by helmet
> ridges. Especially if girls are riding to school with just styled,
> and still slightly damp, hair. For some reason, by high school
> bikes are no longer considered cool at all, for girls or boys. I
> don't know why, and have to wonder if helmets have something
> to do with it.

That's interesting. A friend of mine who works in a bike shop says he sees
lots of young boys (teens) and young adults coming in and buying bikes,
but almost no girls! The guys are often into BMX and downhill. But he says
girls don't even buy road bikes! I suppose the helmet factor is there, but
the downhillers and BMXers all buy helmets.

[Marlene Blanshay]

In article >, Kamus of Kadizhar
> wrote:

> Cathy Kearns wrote:
>
> > Don't know where you live, but in many places it's illegal for
> > kids to "drive" them. Here in California they are illegal for
> > anyone under 16 (but you don't need a driver's license.) The
> > police will notice soon, and the motorized scooters will go
> > back into the garages.
>
> No, they'll go back into garages like every new toy to gather dust, and
> the kids will return to watching TV.
>
> I do wish that we'd go back to real neighborhoods, with neighborhood
> schools, so kids could walk to school, instead of 50 acre campuses
> located 10 miles outside of town.... (That 50 acres is a US federal
> gov't 'guideline, BTW.)
>
> With urban planning like that, it's no wonder kids get fat...
>
> -Kamus

I bet that's a lot do to with it. It seems that a lot of suburban high
schools are so far that no one can walk or bike there. We used to walk to
school every day, up until junior high (which was too far) but in high
school, most of us who lived nearby walked. Some kids were bused and a few
had souped up cars.

[FlyingCoyote]

In m,
Cathy Kearns > scribbled:
>> Don't know where you live, but in many places it's illegal for
>> kids to "drive" them. Here in California they are illegal for
>> anyone under 16 (but you don't need a driver's license.) The
>> police will notice soon, and the motorized scooters will go
>> back into the garages.

It may be illegal but it's hardly enforced. At least here in the East Bay
Area. We see little kids on those things all the time, zipping around.
Sometimes with a helmet, sometimes not. I hope the police do start noticing.
I've seen more than one very close call.

As for the fat kids... it must be at least partially due to those fricking
scooters and cable tv. Baby fat doesn't last that long.

--

FlyingCoyote
http://boarsgut.com

--

[Peter Keller]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 11:01:12 -0500, frkrygow wrote:

> Peter Keller wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:26:43 -0500, psycholist wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I keep reading in the papers about childhood obesity and it's certainly
>>>evident all around. I've never seen so many fat, unfit kids.
>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>Bob C.
>>
>> Here in New Zealand this has become a big problem. 40% of our kids are
>> now fat, compared to about 1% when I was at school (over 40 years ago)
>> In 1994 it became mandatory for all bicyclists to wear helmets, and the
>> police have been quite ferocious in enforcing this law. The result has
>> been quite disastrous -- overall bicycling has deccreased by about 34%;
>> among children by about 70%, yet the reduction in serious head injuries
>> has been only 19%. In other words, the rate of head injuries per cyclist
>> has INCREASED by about 20% since the (supposedly protective) law came in.
>> But are they going to admit they were wrong and repeal it? Not likely --
>
> And why would they? The helmet manufacturers who financed the "safety"
> groups campaigns are still ahead. And the "safety" handwringers still
> think they've done a good thing.
>
> Why? "Well, if only ONE life can be saved..." they figure any downsides
> are negligible. Even if the downsides include 100 early heart attacks.

But it appears as though lives are NOT being saved! Quite the reverse!
(unless you consider scaring people off bicycles is a way of stopping
fatal bicycling injuries --
As I say, the proportion of fatal injuries have gone down LESS than the
proportionate reduction of bicyclists.
The safety handwringers are too much swayed by heart-rending anecdote; "If
I wasn't wearing my helmet I would be dead!" etc. This is not scientific
or truthful at all! Two troubles with anecdotes:
1) It is not possible to say what would have happened in the other
condition. It is difficult to run an experiment using a living human
twice, once with helmet and once without. To say nothing about people
without helmets tending to ride more carefully --
2) If the anecdotes were true, we should see a marked blip in the head
injury statistics with the wholesale uptake of helmets. This has simply
not happened. If anything, the rate of head injuries has INCREASED!!!

--
This message is certified Virus Free as no Microsoft products
were used in its preparation or propagation

[Peter Keller]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 23:35:13 +0000, Tom Kunich wrote:

> "Cathy Kearns" > wrote in message
> m...
>>
>> I live in an older town where schools are still in the midst of
>> neighborhoods and many kids ride their bikes or walk to
>> school. (You haven't felt heaven until you can sit in your
>> jammies with your coffee while both kids wander off to
>> school on their own.)
>
> So do I. And kids USED to ride their bikes to school here. They had
> both sides of a long walkway leading to the school entrance lined
> competely with bike racks and they were overfilled with bikes all over
> the ground and leaning against the buildings.
>
> Then they passed the helmet laws and the principals of the schools
> announced that anyone that came to school on a bike without a helmet
> would be in trouble. So now instead of kids who might get in an
> accident once in 20 years, we have not a single bike ride to school.
> Overnight the bikes disappeared. The law was timed to come into effect
> over the Christmas break and the first day in January (around 1992?)
> instead of a thousand bikes there were a dozen. Then there were none.
> Then they removed the bike stands. And now there is a 30 minute
> traffic jam out in front of the schools each morning and afternoon.
>
> The fact that there was only a microscopic chance of a kid being
> injurred without a helmet and the fact that now the leading causes of
> death are becoming weight related doesn't seem to register with those
> in power whose only means of expressing something is to pass laws
> against it.

And the stupid thing is, places which have introduced helmet laws have
seeen the percentage of head injuries dropping less than the percentage
reduction in cycling! In other words, the chances of an individual
cyclist getting a head injury have actually INCREASED!

--
This message is certified Virus Free as no Microsoft products
were used in its preparation or propagation

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 17:26:44 -0500, "Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com>
wrote:


>How about;
>
>Has a chin on the back of their neck

More chins than the San Francisco phone book...

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 23:55:08 GMT, (Marlene
Blanshay) wrote:

> It's always
>encouraging to see kids who at least arent' sitting at home on a nice day
>playing Xbox and eating Cheesies! Yeah, freeriding can get you injured
>but it's no worse for your health than being a rug rat!

Cheesies leave some yellow stuff in your body, and it eventually works
its way into those stupid yellow lumps that grow under fat peoples'
eyes.

It would be better to have some proper surgical scars from freeriding
when you get old than to have your belly flopping around your knees
and yellow cheesy lumps under your eyelids, now, wouldn't it?

[Dane Jackson]

Marlene Blanshay > wrote:
>
> It really is discouraging. Canada is not as bad as the US in terms of
> obese kids but we're getting there. And teens- I see slack, pasty
> teenagers with their fat love handles pouring out of their jeans. Okay,
> not everyone has to be a size 5 but what about HEALTH? Imagine how they'll
> be at 50 if they are already so out of shape!

Well, it's not always irreversible. I spent most of my life (from about
10 - 26 ) either overweight or obese. Only in the last two years did I
get on the bike and become fit.

It's strange meeting people I haven't seen for years.

I met up with my friend Julie in Vegas this year. We were both attending
a conference there, so we met up at the airport. I spotted her coming
through the crowd, wandered over and waited for her out of the lane of
foot traffic. She stopped a couple feet away from me and started
scanning the crowd. She looked me in the face a couple times and just
kept looking around for me. I realized after a little bit she didn't
recognize me. I've known her for about a decade so it was a little
wierd...

A lot of things would help most of these kids:

1. Throw out the television [0]
2. Go out into the big blue room. Yes it has a distinct lack of ethernet
ports, but you won't actually burst into flame from that bright light
in the sky. [1]
3. Cut down on the fast food
4. Stop chugging down sugar-water. I doubt it surprises anyone that kids
consume twice as much soda as milk.
http://cspinet.org/new/soda_10_21_98.htm

Hopefully as a society we'll figure out a way to discourage some of the
suicidal behaviours we're currently engaging in.

[0] I think I regret the most all the time I spent in my youth rotting
in front of the idiot box. I spent a lot of time in front
of the computer, but at least I learned things there and eventually
ended up using it in real life.
[1] Except my friend Ross. That boy would turn bright red in literally
five minutes on a sunny summer day. Poor jerk.

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
Are you overweight? Take this simple medical test to find out:

Stand with your arms hanging by your sides and your feet slightly
apart. Now look out the window. If you see the United States of America,
then you are overweight, because everybody here is. That's why your
arms are hanging by your sides at a 45-degree angle.

[Pete]

"Zippy the Pinhead" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 17:26:44 -0500, "Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >How about;
> >
> >Has a chin on the back of their neck
>
> More chins than the San Francisco phone book...

His neck looks like a pack of franks...

[Q.]

"Tom Kunich" > wrote
<snip>
> The fact that there was only a microscopic chance of a kid being
> injurred without a helmet and the fact that now the leading causes of
> death are becoming weight related doesn't seem to register with those
> in power whose only means of expressing something is to pass laws
> against it.

It probably does register with them, but to actually do something about it
.... something effective ... would cost MONEY. If they really want to reduce
injuries to bicyclists, then they would have to improve the roads, educate
riders and drivers, enforce traffic laws (as opposed to only enforcing the
artificially low cash cow speed limits) and such things as that. This way
they pass a law, which costs nothing to them since you're the one footing
the cost of purchasing those silly things, and people who don't know
anything about bicycles (save for the fact they're always in the way of
their SUV) believe their wonderful leaders are accomplishing something.

Pretty soon nobody will be able to ride a bicycle on the road. These helmet
laws are only the first nail in the coffin. It seems utterly ridiculous
today, but just think about all the other things that have been outlawed or
severely restricted which people never thought would happen.

C.Q.C.

[Gatsaag.]

Zippy the Pinhead Said:

> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 17:26:44 -0500, "Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >How about;
> >
> >Has a chin on the back of their neck
>
> More chins than the San Francisco phone book...

Makes me think of that song by Weird Al Y.

<quote>
Your butt is wide, well mine is too
Just watch your mouth or I'll sit on you
The word is out, better treat me right
'Cause I'm the king of cellulite
Ham on, ham on, ham on whole wheat, all right

My zippers bust, my buckles break
I'm too much man for you to take
The pavement cracks when I fall down
I've got more chins than Chinatown

Well, I've never used a phone booth
And I've never seen my toes
When I'm goin' to the movies
I take up seven rows

Because I'm fat, I'm fat, come on
(Fat, fat, really really fat)
You know I'm fat, I'm fat, you know it
(Fat, fat, really really fat)
You know I'm fat, I'm fat, come on you know
(Fat, fat, really really fat)
Don'tcha call me pudgy, portly or stout
Just now tell me once again who's fat

When I walk out to get my mail
It measures on the Richter scale
Down at the beach I'm a lucky man
I'm the only one who gets a tan
If I have one more pie a la mode
I'm gonna need my own zip code
<snip>


--

QUIPd 1.02: (599 of 679)
-> Many an ancient lord's last words had been, "You can't kill me
-> because I've got magic aaargh."
-> -- Magic armour is not all it's cracked up to be.
-> (Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times)
##4524 #'Mandrake Linux.'

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
(Marlene Blanshay) wrote:

> In article >, "Cathy Kearns"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Peter Keller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:26:43 -0500, psycholist wrote:
> > >
> > > > I keep reading in the papers about childhood obesity and it's certainly
> > > > evident all around. I've never seen so many fat, unfit kids.
> > > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > Bob C.
> > > Here in New Zealand this has become a big problem. 40% of our kids are
> > > now fat, compared to about 1% when I was at school (over 40 years ago)
> > > In 1994 it became mandatory for all bicyclists to wear helmets, and the
> > > police have been quite ferocious in enforcing this law. The result has
> > > been quite disastrous -- overall bicycling has deccreased by about 34%;
> > > among children by about 70%, yet the reduction in serious head injuries
> > > has been only 19%. In other words, the rate of head injuries per cyclist
> > > has INCREASED by about 20% since the (supposedly protective) law came in.
> > > But are they going to admit they were wrong and repeal it? Not likely --
> >
> > This is a particular problem amongst preteen and teen girls.
> > It's hard to find hair styles that won't be affected by helmet
> > ridges. Especially if girls are riding to school with just styled,
> > and still slightly damp, hair. For some reason, by high school
> > bikes are no longer considered cool at all, for girls or boys. I
> > don't know why, and have to wonder if helmets have something
> > to do with it.
>
> That's interesting. A friend of mine who works in a bike shop says he sees
> lots of young boys (teens) and young adults coming in and buying bikes,
> but almost no girls! The guys are often into BMX and downhill. But he says
> girls don't even buy road bikes! I suppose the helmet factor is there, but
> the downhillers and BMXers all buy helmets.

Could be the type of shop, too...

I occasionally ride with my community college's downhill club, and there
is a fair contingent of women (nearly half of the participants, I'd
say). But for competitive BMXers, non-competitive BMX trick riders, and
most MTB freeriders, I'd say the sports are overwhelmingly male.
Basically, these are all adrenalin sports, and most girls aren't that
interested (I suspect that sports-friendly Vancouver, with its strong
emphasis on freeride MTBing, encourages more female participation).

The helmets are basically a cultural thing: all the cool kids wear one
(along with body armor, to prevent them from bleeding more than once a
day), so everybody wears one. Falls are so common in this type of riding
that the need for a helmet is pretty much self-evident.

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

[Peter Keller]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 01:04:03 -0800, Ryan Cousineau wrote:

> In article >,
> (Marlene Blanshay) wrote:
>
>> In article >, "Cathy Kearns"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > "Peter Keller" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:26:43 -0500, psycholist wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I keep reading in the papers about childhood obesity and it's certainly
>> > > > evident all around. I've never seen so many fat, unfit kids.
>> > > >
>> > > <snip>
>> > > > Bob C.
>> > > Here in New Zealand this has become a big problem. 40% of our kids are
>> > > now fat, compared to about 1% when I was at school (over 40 years ago)
>> > > In 1994 it became mandatory for all bicyclists to wear helmets, and the
>> > > police have been quite ferocious in enforcing this law. The result has
>> > > been quite disastrous -- overall bicycling has deccreased by about 34%;
>> > > among children by about 70%, yet the reduction in serious head injuries
>> > > has been only 19%. In other words, the rate of head injuries per cyclist
>> > > has INCREASED by about 20% since the (supposedly protective) law came in.
>> > > But are they going to admit they were wrong and repeal it? Not likely --
>> >
>> > This is a particular problem amongst preteen and teen girls.
>> > It's hard to find hair styles that won't be affected by helmet
>> > ridges. Especially if girls are riding to school with just styled,
>> > and still slightly damp, hair. For some reason, by high school
>> > bikes are no longer considered cool at all, for girls or boys. I
>> > don't know why, and have to wonder if helmets have something
>> > to do with it.
>>
>> That's interesting. A friend of mine who works in a bike shop says he sees
>> lots of young boys (teens) and young adults coming in and buying bikes,
>> but almost no girls! The guys are often into BMX and downhill. But he says
>> girls don't even buy road bikes! I suppose the helmet factor is there, but
>> the downhillers and BMXers all buy helmets.
>
> Could be the type of shop, too...
>
> I occasionally ride with my community college's downhill club, and there
> is a fair contingent of women (nearly half of the participants, I'd
> say). But for competitive BMXers, non-competitive BMX trick riders, and
> most MTB freeriders, I'd say the sports are overwhelmingly male.
> Basically, these are all adrenalin sports, and most girls aren't that
> interested (I suspect that sports-friendly Vancouver, with its strong
> emphasis on freeride MTBing, encourages more female participation).
>
> The helmets are basically a cultural thing: all the cool kids wear one
> (along with body armor, to prevent them from bleeding more than once a
> day), so everybody wears one. Falls are so common in this type of riding
> that the need for a helmet is pretty much self-evident.

I agree for this kind of riding that helmets and other protective gear are
pretty self-evident in that they give pretty good protection aganst bumps,
scrapes and bruises However:
1) Helmets can't normally protect against the sort of impact which can
cause death, and
2) Compelling people to wear them sends all the wrong messages about how
dangerous bicycling is, leading to the observed big reductions in
participation.
Commuting and touring-type bicycling (for basic transport and fitness) is
actually very safe. The decision to wear helmets and other protective
gear should be a personal one, and not mandated by law. Those who
choose to wear protection must also realise that by doing so they do not
become bullet-proof.


--
This message is certified Virus Free as no Microsoft products
were used in its preparation or propagation

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 01:31:26 -0500, "Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com>
wrote:

>It probably does register with them, but to actually do something about it
>... something effective ... would cost MONEY.

I still can't understand why, when face with three choices - do
nothing, spend money, or introduce legislation which has failed
everywhere it's been tried - the third option is still favoured by so
many.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 15:17:54 +1300, Peter Keller >
wrote:

>The safety handwringers are too much swayed by heart-rending anecdote; "If
>I wasn't wearing my helmet I would be dead!" etc. This is not scientific
>or truthful at all!

Absolutely. I know people who have had precisely the type of crash
where liddites attribute their survival solely to their plastic hat,
and who have survived despite using nothign stronger than a Mk. 1
skull, which is standard issue at no cost.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 06:00:08 GMT, Dane Jackson >
wrote:

>Are you overweight? Take this simple medical test to find out:
>Stand with your arms hanging by your sides and your feet slightly
>apart. Now look out the window. If you see the United States of America,
>then you are overweight, because everybody here is. That's why your
>arms are hanging by your sides at a 45-degree angle.

Heh! Just read Fat Land.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

[Russ Price]

Dane Jackson > wrote:
> 3. Cut down on the fast food
> 4. Stop chugging down sugar-water. I doubt it surprises anyone that kids
> consume twice as much soda as milk.

Amen to that. In the spring of 2000, my weight was about 245 lbs. and
rising. I figured that I better do something. By using those two
suggestions above, and cutting out between-meal snacks as well, I
brought my weight down to about 170 after a year. No trendy diet plans,
no magic pills, just stay away from liquid sugar and eat less. Getting
back into cycling has helped me keep it in the 170-180 range ever since.

When I bought a recumbent back in '01, I was thinking in the back of my
mind, "I'm spending $1000 on a BIKE?!" Now, I realize it was the best
$1000 I've ever spent. Considering what some people spend on their
cars, it's dirt cheap, and a lot better for me.

--
Russ --kill the wabbit to despam
"Now that the British military has foresworn the use of depleted
uranium, their army is looking at ways of propelling Dutch bicycles at
enemy tanks." -Steve in SC

[frkrygow]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

> In article >,
> (Marlene Blanshay) wrote:
>
>>
>>That's interesting. A friend of mine who works in a bike shop says he sees
>>lots of young boys (teens) and young adults coming in and buying bikes,
>>but almost no girls! The guys are often into BMX and downhill. But he says
>>girls don't even buy road bikes! I suppose the helmet factor is there, but
>>the downhillers and BMXers all buy helmets.
>
>
> Could be the type of shop, too...
>
> I occasionally ride with my community college's downhill club, and there
> is a fair contingent of women (nearly half of the participants, I'd
> say). But for competitive BMXers, non-competitive BMX trick riders, and
> most MTB freeriders, I'd say the sports are overwhelmingly male.
> Basically, these are all adrenalin sports, and most girls aren't that
> interested (I suspect that sports-friendly Vancouver, with its strong
> emphasis on freeride MTBing, encourages more female participation).
>
> The helmets are basically a cultural thing: all the cool kids wear one
> (along with body armor, to prevent them from bleeding more than once a
> day), so everybody wears one. Falls are so common in this type of riding
> that the need for a helmet is pretty much self-evident.

I see nothing wrong with promoting helmets for competitive BMX and for
freeriding. Falls in those activities are inevitable and frequent.
Also, the falls' head impacts are likely to be within the range that a
helmet would likely help.

OTOH, the idea that one should never ride a bike anywhere without
wearing a helmet is just silly. Ordinary cycling is nothing like BMX,
which _should_ be easy to see!

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

[Timothy Baldwin]

In message >, "Q."
<LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> <> wrote:


> Pretty soon nobody will be able to ride a bicycle on the road. These
> helmet
> laws are only the first nail in the coffin. It seems utterly ridiculous
> today, but just think about all the other things that have been outlawed
> or severely restricted which people never thought would happen.

Looks like a plan for increasing oil corporation profits.

--
Member AFFS, WYLUG, SWP (UK), ANL, Leeds SA, Leeds Anti-war coalition
OpenPGP key fingerprint: D0A6 F403 9745 CED4 6B3B 94CC 8D74 8FC9 9F7F CFE4
No to software patents! No to DRM/EUCD - hands off our computers!

[Timothy Baldwin]

In message >, Cathy Kearns
> wrote:


> I live in an older town where schools are still in the midst of
> neighborhoods and many kids ride their bikes or walk to
> school. (You haven't felt heaven until you can sit in your
> jammies with your coffee while both kids wander off to
> school on their own.) However, there still is a startling
> number of parents that will drive their kid to school no
> matter how close they live or how safe the road is for
> biking/walking.

Even when walking is quicker. When I attended primary School in the 1980s
(in an English village) my mother walked us to school along an almost
traffic free route (apart from the road past the school). One family of
neighbours who are the same walking distance away from the school travelled
by car and took longer over the journey, and often had to walk a fifth of
the distance to get to their car! The journey was about 400m on foot and
600m by road involving joining and leaving a busy road via junctions with a
restricted view.


--
Member AFFS, WYLUG, SWP (UK), ANL, Leeds SA, Leeds Anti-war coalition
OpenPGP key fingerprint: D0A6 F403 9745 CED4 6B3B 94CC 8D74 8FC9 9F7F CFE4
No to software patents! No to DRM/EUCD - hands off our computers!

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 23:35:13 +0000, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > "Cathy Kearns" > wrote in message
> > m...
> >>
> >> I live in an older town where schools are still in the midst of
> >> neighborhoods and many kids ride their bikes or walk to
> >> school. (You haven't felt heaven until you can sit in your
> >> jammies with your coffee while both kids wander off to
> >> school on their own.)
> >
> > So do I. And kids USED to ride their bikes to school here. They had
> > both sides of a long walkway leading to the school entrance lined
> > competely with bike racks and they were overfilled with bikes all over
> > the ground and leaning against the buildings.
> >
> > Then they passed the helmet laws and the principals of the schools
> > announced that anyone that came to school on a bike without a helmet
> > would be in trouble. So now instead of kids who might get in an
> > accident once in 20 years, we have not a single bike ride to school.
> > Overnight the bikes disappeared. The law was timed to come into effect
> > over the Christmas break and the first day in January (around 1992?)
> > instead of a thousand bikes there were a dozen. Then there were none.
> > Then they removed the bike stands. And now there is a 30 minute
> > traffic jam out in front of the schools each morning and afternoon.
> >
> > The fact that there was only a microscopic chance of a kid being
> > injurred without a helmet and the fact that now the leading causes of
> > death are becoming weight related doesn't seem to register with those
> > in power whose only means of expressing something is to pass laws
> > against it.
>
> And the stupid thing is, places which have introduced helmet laws have
> seeen the percentage of head injuries dropping less than the percentage
> reduction in cycling! In other words, the chances of an individual
> cyclist getting a head injury have actually INCREASED!

No, it does not mean that! All it means is that the people who ride
less (and therefore are less likely to get an injury in any given year)
have stopped completely, leaving the stats skewed by the more dedicated
cyclists who get more injuries per year simply because they're on the
bike more.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
> Marlene Blanshay > wrote:
> >
> > It really is discouraging. Canada is not as bad as the US in terms of
> > obese kids but we're getting there. And teens- I see slack, pasty
> > teenagers with their fat love handles pouring out of their jeans. Okay,
> > not everyone has to be a size 5 but what about HEALTH? Imagine how they'll
> > be at 50 if they are already so out of shape!
>
> Well, it's not always irreversible. I spent most of my life (from about
> 10 - 26 ) either overweight or obese. Only in the last two years did I
> get on the bike and become fit.
>
> It's strange meeting people I haven't seen for years.
>
> I met up with my friend Julie in Vegas this year. We were both attending
> a conference there, so we met up at the airport. I spotted her coming
> through the crowd, wandered over and waited for her out of the lane of
> foot traffic. She stopped a couple feet away from me and started
> scanning the crowd. She looked me in the face a couple times and just
> kept looking around for me. I realized after a little bit she didn't
> recognize me. I've known her for about a decade so it was a little
> wierd...
>
> A lot of things would help most of these kids:
>
> 1. Throw out the television [0]
> 2. Go out into the big blue room. Yes it has a distinct lack of ethernet
> ports, but you won't actually burst into flame from that bright light
> in the sky. [1]
> 3. Cut down on the fast food
> 4. Stop chugging down sugar-water. I doubt it surprises anyone that kids
> consume twice as much soda as milk.

From what I've seen of the kids in my neighborhood and what I've read,
this is the biggest single culprit; even worse than TV.


.....

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

[David Kerber]

In article <X7WJb.730268$HS4.5469219@attbi_s01>,
says...
> Dane Jackson > wrote:
> > 3. Cut down on the fast food
> > 4. Stop chugging down sugar-water. I doubt it surprises anyone that kids
> > consume twice as much soda as milk.
>
> Amen to that. In the spring of 2000, my weight was about 245 lbs. and
> rising. I figured that I better do something. By using those two
> suggestions above, and cutting out between-meal snacks as well, I

My dad dropped about 50 lbs changing nothing in his diet or activities
except for switching to diet soda for the 6 cans per day he drinks. He
still has other problems from the soda (tooth damage being a major one),
but it's good for his weight.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

[Q.]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote

> I still can't understand why, when face with three choices - do
> nothing, spend money, or introduce legislation which has failed
> everywhere it's been tried - the third option is still favoured by so
> many.

IMHO ...

1) Do nothing ... well, too many liberals are in power now in the US and in
a few other places. These liberals believe you should have the freedom to
do what you want, as long as it's mandatory. They can't leave well enough
alone, they must micromanage our everyday lives. Besides, someone might ask
during the elections what the heck they've been doing. They have to make up
something along the way.

2) Spend money ... usually the last resort. Bill Clinton spent 8 years in
the white house and didn't spend any real money fighting terrorism even
though the attacks were escalating. All he cared about was his little girly
girls. He sure helped the democrats pass a lot of laws though ... gun
"control", seat belt laws etc. I guess WE must be the dangerous ones.

3) Introduce legislation which has failed everywhere it's been tried ...
reality hardly ever has anything to do with what the general public
perceives. All they know is what's spoon fed to them by way of the 10
second sound bite on the evening news. Also, see #1 (c:

What is really scary are all the back room deals that go on that we don't
know about. I've had some experience in state level politics and I've seen
many things decided this way. Oh sure, our "leaders" will pretend to listen
to the will of the people, but often money talks, and truth takes a back
seat to whatever tales they can "spin". It wouldn't surprise me one bit if
the oil companies and SUV manufacturers were the ones behind helmet "safety"
campaigns.

C.Q.C.

[Q.]

"Russ Price" > wrote in message
news:X7WJb.730268$HS4.5469219@attbi_s01...
> Dane Jackson > wrote:
> > 3. Cut down on the fast food
> > 4. Stop chugging down sugar-water. I doubt it surprises anyone that
kids
> > consume twice as much soda as milk.
>
> Amen to that. In the spring of 2000, my weight was about 245 lbs. and
> rising. I figured that I better do something. By using those two
> suggestions above, and cutting out between-meal snacks as well, I
> brought my weight down to about 170 after a year. No trendy diet plans,
> no magic pills, just stay away from liquid sugar and eat less. Getting
> back into cycling has helped me keep it in the 170-180 range ever since.

I did pretty good simply cutting out fast foods, and other crap foods from
my diet. I'll still eat a burger, but a real one that I make myself.

C.Q.C.

[frkrygow]

David Kerber wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>
>>
>>And the stupid thing is, places which have introduced helmet laws have
>>seeen the percentage of head injuries dropping less than the percentage
>>reduction in cycling! In other words, the chances of an individual
>>cyclist getting a head injury have actually INCREASED!
>
>
> No, it does not mean that! All it means is that the people who ride
> less (and therefore are less likely to get an injury in any given year)
> have stopped completely, leaving the stats skewed by the more dedicated
> cyclists who get more injuries per year simply because they're on the
> bike more.

Not necessarily. It seems to be well verified that the safety of an
individual cyclist rises when there are more cyclists on the road, and
decreases when there are fewer cyclists. If a MHL decreases cycling by
a measureable amount, this effect could easily overpower the minimal
protective effect of that thin foam cap.

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/SteppingStones.htm
has some info on this.


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

[Marlene Blanshay]

In article >, "Q."
<LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Russ Price" > wrote in message
> news:X7WJb.730268$HS4.5469219@attbi_s01...
> > Dane Jackson > wrote:
> > > 3. Cut down on the fast food
> > > 4. Stop chugging down sugar-water. I doubt it surprises anyone that
> kids
> > > consume twice as much soda as milk.
> >
> > Amen to that. In the spring of 2000, my weight was about 245 lbs. and
> > rising. I figured that I better do something. By using those two
> > suggestions above, and cutting out between-meal snacks as well, I
> > brought my weight down to about 170 after a year. No trendy diet plans,
> > no magic pills, just stay away from liquid sugar and eat less. Getting
> > back into cycling has helped me keep it in the 170-180 range ever since.
>
> I did pretty good simply cutting out fast foods, and other crap foods from
> my diet. I'll still eat a burger, but a real one that I make myself.
>
> C.Q.C.

For most people I know, it's cutting down on carbs- not eliminating them
but reducing them. Especially in the winter! It really does make a big
difference. I don't have a weight problem, but with reducing carbs I
managed to only gain about 2 lbs last winter.

As for milk, it's got plenty of fat and it's not THAT healthy- yes, it has
calcium and vitamin D. But frankly, I have to admit, I find the idea of
drinking milk with EVERYTHING to be just a bit... eewy. Like with steak or
hamburgers? IN that case, I think soda is better. I only drink diet sodas,
I find it too sweet. Or geez, even WATER!

[frkrygow]

Q. wrote:

> It wouldn't surprise me one bit if
> the oil companies and SUV manufacturers were the ones behind helmet "safety"
> campaigns.

I think it's much more straightforward. I think the helmet
manufacturers are ultimately behind it.

To be sure, the manufacturers won't lobby directly. That would be too
transparent. But I'll bet that Snell does find ways of donating money,
and Snell is supported by the helmet manufacturers. I'll also bet that
organizations like Safe Kids get funds from helmet companies, and they
are big advocates of MHLs.

I'm sure it's all done with a clear conscience. That is, the helmet
companies can donate money for "education," and who could fault that?
The money goes to produce pamphlets and videos that "educate" only about
wearing hats. The nice ladies running Safe Kids chapters, and those
running the national organization, are sincerely happy to use this money
to "educate" and to lobby with great sincerity.

And if the lobbying makes it illegal to ride a bike without a helmet,
why that's great! That will save almost every life lost... because
didn't a real doctor do a study that proved they were 85% effective?
"It's so simple!" as one of the nice ladies once said to me! Riding on
the proper side of the road? Using lights at night? Stopping and
yielding when appropriate? That's so much more complicated!

(Oh, you mean that wasn't really 85%, but it was "up to 85%"? And it's
never been seen outside that one small study? And they were talking
about injuries like cuts to the ear, not things like hospitalizations
and fatalities? Oh, well, that's just details.)

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

[Kamus of Kadizhar]

Q. wrote:

> Dang, I being quoted now! Coolness ...
>

Hey, some time ago I came across one of my usenet snippets in someone
else's sig. I'm just returning the favor.

Besides, I'm getting old, and I ride a decent bike. I'm still working
on the 'eat right' part - unless buffalo wings and beer qualify as a
post-ride training diet. :-)

-Kamus

--
o__ | If you're old, eat right and ride a decent bike.
,>/'_ | Q.
(_)\(_) | Usenet posting`

[Kamus of Kadizhar]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Cathy Kearns" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>I live in an older town where schools are still in the midst of
>>neighborhoods and many kids ride their bikes or walk to
>>school. (You haven't felt heaven until you can sit in your
>>jammies with your coffee while both kids wander off to
>>school on their own.)
>
>
> So do I. And kids USED to ride their bikes to school here. They had
> both sides of a long walkway leading to the school entrance lined
> competely with bike racks and they were overfilled with bikes all over
> the ground and leaning against the buildings.
>
> Then they passed the helmet laws and the principals of the schools
> announced that anyone that came to school on a bike without a helmet
> would be in trouble. So now instead of kids who might get in an
> accident once in 20 years, we have not a single bike ride to school.
>

I doubt that it's the helmet laws alone.... I see it all the time - I
plan and develop communities, and I fight an uphill battle against
developers, staff (both city and county) planners, school districts etc.
all the time.

Basically, all of our communities, even the so-called walking
communities, are planned around car access. *Everything else* is
secondary.

We must have oceans of parking; Wal-Mart wants twice as much parking as
they need because they want vast stretches of open asphalt even during
the Christmas rush. Shopping malls are designed for car access, often
to the complete exclusion of pedestrians (how many malls do you know
where it's easier to drive from one end to the other rather than walk?)

I've even seen places where bike racks are forbidden under assorted
ordinances.

We must have 2 or three car parking spaces for every house or apartment.
We must have drive-up windows at every establishment. We must have
stacking space for a hundred cars at every school. Some of these
requirements are written into laws, so there's no getting around them.

Bike and pedestrian access is not required by law; often it is
discouraged. Our streets are designed for high-speed vehicular traffic,
even in residential areas. On street parking is discouraged or even
forbidded outright.

Zoning excludes schools, churches, and stores from residential areas,
instead concentrating them in mega-malls that lie miles from where
people live.

Traffic planners concentrate traffic in ever-wider "arterial roads"
instead of encouraging a network of smaller, slower, more pedestrian
friendly roads. Heck, I can show you places where a store is within a
stone's throw from your house, but because of poor urban planning, there
is no way to get there except to drive for a mile or two along one of
those congested "arterials".

So, the problem of fat kids has to do with lots of things - not just
helmet laws. Until we actively promote a life style that encourages
physical activity as part of the fabric of our lives, and until we build
communities that allow that lifestyle, we will continue to get fatter,
lazier, and more drug-addicted.... (Isn't there a drug now for fat kids?)

--
o__ | If you're old, eat right and ride a decent bike.
,>/'_ | Q.
(_)\(_) | Usenet posting`

[Kamus of Kadizhar]

Dane Jackson wrote:

> 3. Cut down on the fast food

The last time we went to Burger King, we fed our entire family (2
adults, 2 kids) on one large size Chicken Whopper Meal, an order of
fries, and a soda. That's two sodas, two orders of fries, and one
chicken burger for those not familiar with the Burger King "Meal" menu.
That meal is not the largest BK offers; there is also the "King" size,
which must be truly gargantuan...

Figure the "regular" size soda is about three or four "cups" of soda,
and go on from there.

--
o__ | If you're old, eat right and ride a decent bike.
,>/'_ | Q.
(_)\(_) | Usenet posting`

[W K]

"Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> wrote in message
...

> I did pretty good simply cutting out fast foods, and other crap foods from
> my diet. I'll still eat a burger, but a real one that I make myself.

Much as that is sensible, you could probably cut back calories and even lose
weight without giving anything up, just eating less of them.

[Matt O'Toole]

W K wrote:

> "Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I did pretty good simply cutting out fast foods, and other crap
>> foods from my diet. I'll still eat a burger, but a real one that I
>> make myself.
>
> Much as that is sensible, you could probably cut back calories and
> even lose weight without giving anything up, just eating less of them.

Of course!

Did anyone see that Dateline NBC show last night, where they put a bunch of
people through a weight loss program before their 25th high school reunion? I
was shocked -- first of all, these people were only a few years older than me,
and they were all a mess. Second, the amount of food some of them ate was
obscene. It's no wonder they were all fat. One guy ate six cheeseburgers for
lunch every day!

Portion sizes at most American restaurants are ridiculous. I and my friends and
family have gotten into the habit of splitting entrees, or just ordering
appetizers. A salad at Cheesecake Factory could easily feed three people!

Matt O.

[Marlene Blanshay]

In article >, "Matt O'Toole"
> wrote:

> W K wrote:
>
> > "Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> I did pretty good simply cutting out fast foods, and other crap
> >> foods from my diet. I'll still eat a burger, but a real one that I
> >> make myself.
> >
> > Much as that is sensible, you could probably cut back calories and
> > even lose weight without giving anything up, just eating less of them.
>
> Of course!
>
> Did anyone see that Dateline NBC show last night, where they put a bunch of
> people through a weight loss program before their 25th high school reunion? I
> was shocked -- first of all, these people were only a few years older than me,
> and they were all a mess. Second, the amount of food some of them ate was
> obscene. It's no wonder they were all fat. One guy ate six cheeseburgers for
> lunch every day!
>

That's just gross. ANd then they sue because they're fat. I can't
understand why a grown man can't just learn how to cook. Or even lean
cuisine- how hard is it to microwave?

I can't beleive how some people look, it's just horrible. Sometimes I see
people my age who look just terrible, out of shape, sloppy- and I began
noticing this around 30. It's like they just give up and figure they may
as well be middle aged. I don't know whether to feel better or worse when
I see that. ANd then, we see cyclists who are in their late 50s and have
the physiques of 25 year olds- you can't tell how old they are until they
take off their helmets and you see their gray hair! I really believe it's
the fountain of youth. Imagine being 45 and saying, "I'm going out for a
bike ride. WHEE!"

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
> In article >, "Matt O'Toole"
> > wrote:
>
> > W K wrote:
> >
> > > "Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > >> I did pretty good simply cutting out fast foods, and other crap
> > >> foods from my diet. I'll still eat a burger, but a real one that I
> > >> make myself.
> > >
> > > Much as that is sensible, you could probably cut back calories and
> > > even lose weight without giving anything up, just eating less of them.
> >
> > Of course!
> >
> > Did anyone see that Dateline NBC show last night, where they put a bunch of
> > people through a weight loss program before their 25th high school reunion? I
> > was shocked -- first of all, these people were only a few years older than me,
> > and they were all a mess. Second, the amount of food some of them ate was
> > obscene. It's no wonder they were all fat. One guy ate six cheeseburgers for
> > lunch every day!
> >
>
> That's just gross. ANd then they sue because they're fat. I can't
> understand why a grown man can't just learn how to cook. Or even lean
> cuisine- how hard is it to microwave?
>
> I can't beleive how some people look, it's just horrible. Sometimes I see
> people my age who look just terrible, out of shape, sloppy- and I began
> noticing this around 30. It's like they just give up and figure they may
> as well be middle aged. I don't know whether to feel better or worse when
> I see that. ANd then, we see cyclists who are in their late 50s and have
> the physiques of 25 year olds- you can't tell how old they are until they
> take off their helmets and you see their gray hair! I really believe it's
> the fountain of youth. Imagine being 45 and saying, "I'm going out for a
> bike ride. WHEE!"

I'm 43 and I say that as often as the weather and my schedule allows!
My hair doesn't show it yet, but when I let my beard grow, it has some
gray in it. I probably have a better physique now than I did at 25.
I weigh about the same (within 5 lb either way), but my legs are
certainly stronger.


--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

[Badger South]

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 18:26:26 GMT, (Marlene
Blanshay) wrote:

<snippage>
>I can't beleive how some people look, it's just horrible. Sometimes I see
>people my age who look just terrible, out of shape, sloppy- and I began
>noticing this around 30. It's like they just give up and figure they may
>as well be middle aged. I don't know whether to feel better or worse when
>I see that. ANd then, we see cyclists who are in their late 50s and have
>the physiques of 25 year olds- you can't tell how old they are until they
>take off their helmets and you see their gray hair! I really believe it's
>the fountain of youth. Imagine being 45 and saying, "I'm going out for a
>bike ride. WHEE!"

If I had it to do over again, I'd have kept riding at least 30-50
miles per week as 'base, base training, which is nothing, in addition
to my jogging "base training", and not given up riding for more focus
on weight training and jogging. There were times when I didn't feel I
could afford a good enough bike. (yeah, dumb, I know.) ;-)

But I was young and wanted to be 'big', thus the gym time. (turns out
even added muscle weight adds a metabolic price to be paid, although
it's much much better than fat. Plus, if you're eating more you may
risk passing more toxins through your body.)

Anyway, I'm not unhappy, b/c I'm getting back into biking, and my
jogging conditioning and training regimen are serving me well with
good habits. Besides that I'm working on a diet, and cutting my food
intake by maybe 1/3.

But yeah, biking has a great 'longevity factor', to coin a phrase;
IOW, it's easy to be a life-long practitioner, b/c it's not hard on
your body/joints, nor so necessarily strenuous that you can't do it
into your old age even if you have some physical problems.

I always had (I thought) a problem with motivation and getting out to
train every day, but I find it -no- problem to get a ride in every
day. There's just no staleness, or over use, and I'm a little amazed,
though not surprised.

Also pro/semi-pro tennis players - they are in super shape. Heart
rates in the mid 30s at age 45-50 if they keep playing.

-B
(ps, actually I'm probably lying about why I quit biking. I now recall
it was because of a couple minor motorcycle accidents and the
impression that it was now too dangerous to ride two-wheeled,
unarmored vehicles on the roads around here with the population that
has quadrupled since the 70s.)

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 16:52:56 -0500, David Kerber
> wrote:

>All it means is that the people who ride
>less (and therefore are less likely to get an injury in any given year)
>have stopped completely, leaving the stats skewed by the more dedicated
>cyclists who get more injuries per year simply because they're on the
>bike more.

I believe that more experienced riders are actually less likely to be
involved in a crash, due to better bike-handling and traffic skills.
Highest risk is teenagers (no surprise there). I am looking for the
reference.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 20:09:27 -0500, "Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com>
wrote:

>> I still can't understand why, when face with three choices - do
>> nothing, spend money, or introduce legislation which has failed
>> everywhere it's been tried - the third option is still favoured by so
>> many.

>1) Do nothing ... well, too many liberals are in power now in the US and in
>a few other places. These liberals believe you should have the freedom to
>do what you want, as long as it's mandatory.

Speaking as a liberal, cobblers. Most of the really ardent
anti-compulsion cyclists I know are left-of-centre politically - which
means communist by US standards ;-)

A fundamental problem is that the pro-compulsion agenda is driven by
doctors, who we have been taught to respect from an early age.
Doctors are no more likely to be liberal than anyone else. But they
are more likely to focus entirely on the outcome given crash and
ignore the wider issues like probability of the crash happeining in
the first place.

>2) Spend money ... usually the last resort. Bill Clinton spent 8 years in
>the white house and didn't spend any real money fighting terrorism even
>though the attacks were escalating.

And strangely managed not to have any followup attacks after WTC1,
whereas Bush's policies led to WTC2 within a few months. There's
gotta be a lesson there somewhere, if we could only find it...

>He sure helped the democrats pass a lot of laws though ... gun
>"control", seat belt laws etc. I guess WE must be the dangerous ones.

Seat belt laws are stupid, gun control is not. But gun control is a
smokescreen to obscure the real reasons behind the US's incredible
firearms homicide rate. After all, the Canadians seem not to shoot
themselves, and they've got just as many guns.

>3) Introduce legislation which has failed everywhere it's been tried ...
>reality hardly ever has anything to do with what the general public
>perceives. All they know is what's spoon fed to them by way of the 10
>second sound bite on the evening news. Also, see #1 (c:

Fox News: Fair and balanced[TM]. In a horse's ass ;-)

>What is really scary are all the back room deals that go on that we don't
>know about.

True enough.

>It wouldn't surprise me one bit if
>the oil companies and SUV manufacturers were the ones behind helmet "safety"
>campaigns.

Heh! I'm confident the SUV bandwaggon will keep rolling, with a
government run by oilmen you can see why there's a resistance to
anything which might result in people burning less oil.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 02:25:06 GMT, (Marlene
Blanshay) wrote:

>For most people I know, it's cutting down on carbs- not eliminating them
>but reducing them. Especially in the winter! It really does make a big
>difference. I don't have a weight problem, but with reducing carbs I
>managed to only gain about 2 lbs last winter.

If I reduce the carbs I bonk, big time. But I ride almost every day,
including all commuting.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

[Matt O'Toole]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 16:52:56 -0500, David Kerber
> > wrote:
>
>> All it means is that the people who ride
>> less (and therefore are less likely to get an injury in any given
>> year) have stopped completely, leaving the stats skewed by the more
>> dedicated cyclists who get more injuries per year simply because
>> they're on the bike more.
>
> I believe that more experienced riders are actually less likely to be
> involved in a crash, due to better bike-handling and traffic skills.
> Highest risk is teenagers (no surprise there). I am looking for the
> reference.

I agree with this. I know I'm a much safer rider than I was at 18. Experience
pays -- but what we have learned through experience can definately be passed on
to others, just as with advanced driver education. If we want to get kids on
bikes again, we have to start giving back. The question is how...

Matt O.

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 16:52:56 -0500, David Kerber
> > wrote:
>
> >All it means is that the people who ride
> >less (and therefore are less likely to get an injury in any given year)
> >have stopped completely, leaving the stats skewed by the more dedicated
> >cyclists who get more injuries per year simply because they're on the
> >bike more.
>
> I believe that more experienced riders are actually less likely to be
> involved in a crash, due to better bike-handling and traffic skills.
> Highest risk is teenagers (no surprise there). I am looking for the
> reference.

On a per-mile basis I'm sure you're correct, but on a per-year basis,
I'll bet the dedicated roadie who does 5k or 10k miles per year
averages more injuries per year than the kid who does 20 miles per
year going down the street to her friend's house.


--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

[Frank Krygowski]

David Kerber wrote:

> On a per-mile basis I'm sure you're correct, but on a per-year basis,
> I'll bet the dedicated roadie who does 5k or 10k miles per year
> averages more injuries per year than the kid who does 20 miles per
> year going down the street to her friend's house.

First, keep in mind we're talking about head injuries - a poorly defined
medical term, but at least everybody restricts it to injuries above the
neck.

I'm not at all convinced that your "dedicated roadie" averages more head
injuries per year than that kid. Almost all the riders I know have
averaged zero head injuries per year forever, whether or not they wear
helmets.

Contrary to the helmet hype, the most typical bike injury is a skinned
knee (showing up as "minor injury to the lower limbs" in hospital ER
data). Head injuries are not common. And nobody skins more knees than
little boys on bikes.

Of course, _these_ days each of those skinned knees is treated as a
near-fatality, so I almost hate to mention them.


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

[Rick Onanian]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 11:13:27 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
>On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 01:31:26 -0500, "Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>>It probably does register with them, but to actually do something about it
>>... something effective ... would cost MONEY.
>
>I still can't understand why, when face with three choices - do
>nothing, spend money, or introduce legislation which has failed
>everywhere it's been tried - the third option is still favoured by so
>many.

Because it's an easy way for politicians to add something to their
resume.

>Guy
--
Rick Onanian

[Dorre]

David Kerber > wrote:
: In article >,
: says...
:> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 16:52:56 -0500, David Kerber
:> > wrote:

:> >All it means is that the people who ride
:> >less (and therefore are less likely to get an injury in any given year)
:> >have stopped completely, leaving the stats skewed by the more dedicated
:> >cyclists who get more injuries per year simply because they're on the
:> >bike more.

Irrespective of the arguments below, if you compare numbers of
injuries with numbers counted in street surveys (at the same sites,
time of year and observation periods, including weekdays and weekends)
the results shouldn't be too badly skewed by infrequent riders dropping out.

Someone who rides every day is 365 times more likely to be counted
in such a survey than someone who rides once a year. Some of the
surveys were actually chosen to represent a random sample of the
roads so they could be considered a valid representation of the amount
of cycling.

As was pointed out, injuries didn't fall by as much as would
have been expected by the fall in numbers of cyclists, suggesting
that the injury rate increased compared to what it would have been
without the law.

We now understand this as the effect of Safety in Numbers. A
research paper was published as the Editor's Choice in the
September 2003 issue of Injury Prevention. See review (and some
stats on Australia's helmet laws )
http://agbu.une.edu.au/~drobinso/SN_RV.pdf

Dorre

:> I believe that more experienced riders are actually less likely to be
:> involved in a crash, due to better bike-handling and traffic skills.
:> Highest risk is teenagers (no surprise there). I am looking for the
:> reference.

: On a per-mile basis I'm sure you're correct, but on a per-year basis,
: I'll bet the dedicated roadie who does 5k or 10k miles per year
: averages more injuries per year than the kid who does 20 miles per
: year going down the street to her friend's house.


: --
: Dave Kerber
: Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

: REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:47:14 -0500, David Kerber
> wrote:

>On a per-mile basis I'm sure you're correct, but on a per-year basis,
>I'll bet the dedicated roadie who does 5k or 10k miles per year
>averages more injuries per year than the kid who does 20 miles per
>year going down the street to her friend's house.

What Frank said. Excluding those who ride next to nothing, an
experienced rider doing four or five times the mileage of an
inexperienced rider is less likely to have a crash, AIUI.

The average member of the UK's Cyclists' Touring Club will crash about
once every 3,500 years. Not exactly a big risk. Which is probably
why a regular cyclist lives a decade longer than average, according to
the British Medical Association :-)

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

[Dane Jackson]

Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 06:00:08 GMT, Dane Jackson >
> wrote:

>>Are you overweight? Take this simple medical test to find out:
>>Stand with your arms hanging by your sides and your feet slightly
>>apart. Now look out the window. If you see the United States of America,
>>then you are overweight, because everybody here is. That's why your
>>arms are hanging by your sides at a 45-degree angle.

> Heh! Just read Fat Land.

I haven't gotten around to that one yet, though my wife seemed to quite
like it. Though it's especially topical for me given that my brother
and father are both type II, and I've (until recently) always been very
overweight.

Right now for non-fiction I'm reading "Vampires, burial, and death :
folklore and reality". For those days when I need to know precisely
how many joules one needs to cremate human remains...

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
It typically takes 25-30 gallons of petrol/diesel to fully-consume an
average-sized body under ideal conditions. That I am conversant with
this level of detail should serve as an indication of why the wise man
does not ask me questions about MS-Windows. --Tanuki the Raccoon-dog

[Pete]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote

> And strangely managed not to have any followup attacks after WTC1,
> whereas Bush's policies led to WTC2 within a few months. There's
> gotta be a lesson there somewhere, if we could only find it...

How so? What policy did Bush implement or change WRT Al
Quaeda/Taliban/Afghanistan led to them go ahead with it?
Not to get seriously OT, but that had been in the planning for *years*.
While Clinton was president. It would have happened no matter who was
president.

They don't dislike "Bush" They dislike Americans in general.
Bush/Gore/Dean/Clinton/Carter/Reagan/Whomever...all the same.

Actually, I take that back. They don't dislike Americans. They use
'Americans' as an excuse to whip the rabble into action, so as to remain in
power.

The 'Great Satan' is the same, no matter who is in power.

>
> >He sure helped the democrats pass a lot of laws though ... gun
> >"control", seat belt laws etc. I guess WE must be the dangerous ones.
>
> Seat belt laws are stupid, gun control is not. But gun control is a
> smokescreen to obscure the real reasons behind the US's incredible
> firearms homicide rate. After all, the Canadians seem not to shoot
> themselves, and they've got just as many guns.

So then the real thing is trigger finger control. Grow more responsible
people, and you'll have far fewer problems.
Gun control is merely a bandaid on a sucking chest wound.

Pete

[Rick Onanian]

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 04:44:02 -0500, Kamus of Kadizhar
> wrote:
>Besides, I'm getting old, and I ride a decent bike. I'm still working
>on the 'eat right' part - unless buffalo wings and beer qualify as a
>post-ride training diet. :-)

Just use better words. You're recovering with high-protein low-fat
chicken and a low-sugar natural carbohydrate beverage.

>-Kamus
--
Rick Onanian

[Pete]

"Marlene Blanshay" > wrote
>
> I can't beleive how some people look, it's just horrible. Sometimes I see
> people my age who look just terrible, out of shape, sloppy- and I began
> noticing this around 30. It's like they just give up and figure they may
> as well be middle aged. I don't know whether to feel better or worse when
> I see that.

My 30th HS reunion is later this year. I've seen a few pictures, and these
guys look OLD!

Pete

[Claire Petersky]

"Dane Jackson" > wrote in message
...

> A lot of things would help most of these kids:

Not on your list, but I would add: having a parent that bicycles. My dad
rode around quite a bit when I was younger. Unfortunately, our times when we
were both into cycling and living in the same state were rather limited, so
we've never done much riding together. But how many of us were influenced by
an adult (probably a dad), who showed us how to ride, who showed us how to
adjust the brakes, who took us out on our first Big Ride?


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com

Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm

Books just wanna be FREE! See what I mean at:
http://bookcrossing.com/friend/Cpetersky
My bookshelf: http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Cpetersky

"To forgive is to set the prisoner free and then discover the prisoner
was you."

[David Kerber]

In article >, says...
> David Kerber wrote:
>
> > On a per-mile basis I'm sure you're correct, but on a per-year basis,
> > I'll bet the dedicated roadie who does 5k or 10k miles per year
> > averages more injuries per year than the kid who does 20 miles per
> > year going down the street to her friend's house.
>
> First, keep in mind we're talking about head injuries - a poorly defined
> medical term, but at least everybody restricts it to injuries above the
> neck.

Yes, I'm only referring to head injuries even though I failed to say so.
The main cause in a dedicated rodie would be a car turning or pulling
out in front of them while they are going fast. We've probably all had
close encounters like that even if we never actually made contact.


> I'm not at all convinced that your "dedicated roadie" averages more head
> injuries per year than that kid. Almost all the riders I know have
> averaged zero head injuries per year forever, whether or not they wear
> helmets.

Ok, then put 1000 roadies at 5k miles per year up against 1000 kids at
20 miles per year. I still think the group of roadies will have more
head injuries than the group of kids.

>
> Contrary to the helmet hype, the most typical bike injury is a skinned
> knee (showing up as "minor injury to the lower limbs" in hospital ER
> data). Head injuries are not common. And nobody skins more knees than
> little boys on bikes.

Very true; that's why we need a large sample size.


> Of course, _these_ days each of those skinned knees is treated as a
> near-fatality, so I almost hate to mention them.

Especially if there is *anybody* else involved, whether they were the
cause or not.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

[Mike Kruger]

"Kamus of Kadizhar" > wrote in message
...
> Dane Jackson wrote:
>
> > 3. Cut down on the fast food
>
> The last time we went to Burger King, we fed our entire family (2
> adults, 2 kids) on one large size Chicken Whopper Meal, an order of
> fries, and a soda. That's two sodas, two orders of fries, and one
> chicken burger for those not familiar with the Burger King "Meal" menu.
> That meal is not the largest BK offers; there is also the "King" size,
> which must be truly gargantuan...
>
> Figure the "regular" size soda is about three or four "cups" of soda,
> and go on from there.
>
The King meal is practically enough for the day.
Chicken Whopper: 580 calories
King fries: 600 calories
King Coke: 430 calories, for a grand total of 1610 calories.

Substitute a Double Whopper (980) for the chicken whopper and get 2010
calories.

Source: BK website.

[Jem Berkes]

> I keep reading in the papers about childhood obesity and it's
> certainly evident all around. I've never seen so many fat, unfit
> kids.
>
> We've really had a nice spell of weather since Christmas and I've been
> on the bike a lot. I've almost been hit a few times by young kids on
> little motorized scooters. Apparently, they replaced bicycles under
> the tree this year. They're everywhere. "Can't have little junior
> having to expend any energy ... that wouldn't do. But I wonder why
> he's getting so fat?"

Back in junior high I definitely was a pudgy kid, not very fit... in high
school when I discovered the joys of running and biking it really turned my
physical situation around. I am, without a doubt, in better shape now than
any of the old school 'jocks' I still keep in touch with.

I'm still a young guy so this isn't that long ago. Maybe there's a bit of a
Canadian difference here, but back in highschool I had lots of friends that
became big cycling enthusiasts. We couldn't drive cars but the bicycle gave
us mobility to go anywhere in town we wanted, any time. There were bragging
rights associated with doing semi-stupid stuff on bike trails, jumps, etc.
We go biking in the middle of the night, for kicks. Biking was very cool.

So it kind of surprises me that this status of biking could have changed so
quickly? This is like 7 years ago for me. And I might add that a lot of my
friends that were really into biking were well off; they can definitely
afford cards, their parents drive SUVs, and all that.

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:47:14 -0500, David Kerber
> > wrote:
>
> >On a per-mile basis I'm sure you're correct, but on a per-year basis,
> >I'll bet the dedicated roadie who does 5k or 10k miles per year
> >averages more injuries per year than the kid who does 20 miles per
> >year going down the street to her friend's house.
>
> What Frank said. Excluding those who ride next to nothing, an
> experienced rider doing four or five times the mileage of an
> inexperienced rider is less likely to have a crash, AIUI.

Could be, but I'm talking about mileage differences of 25 to 50, not 4
or 5.


> The average member of the UK's Cyclists' Touring Club will crash about
> once every 3,500 years. Not exactly a big risk. Which is probably
> why a regular cyclist lives a decade longer than average, according to
> the British Medical Association :-)

I question the 3500 year number itself, but I don't doubt the overall
conclusions at all.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 18:20:49 -0600, Kevan Smith
> wrote:

>There is no "they." There is only an us and various degrees of lack of
>understanding that there is only an us.

That's what they'd like you to think...

[Michel Gagnon]

> says...
> >
> > And the stupid thing is, places which have introduced helmet laws have
> > seeen the percentage of head injuries dropping less than the percentage
> > reduction in cycling! In other words, the chances of an individual
> > cyclist getting a head injury have actually INCREASED!
>
David Kerber > replied...
> No, it does not mean that! All it means is that the people who ride
> less (and therefore are less likely to get an injury in any given year)
> have stopped completely, leaving the stats skewed by the more dedicated
> cyclists who get more injuries per year simply because they're on the
> bike more.


One should also notice that the last 10 (15?) years have seen a shift
from casual riding on the street (to play, relax, visit friends, go to
school...), to riding on trails and riding stunts (aka "extreme
biking"). Riding on trails may be more dangerous than riding on roads
(depending on the nature of the trails, obstacles, trees...) and doing
stunts is definitely more dangerous. Yet all these people end up in
the hospital as "cyclists".

Michel

[frkrygow]

Kamus of Kadizhar wrote:

> I doubt that it's the helmet laws alone.... I see it all the time - I
> plan and develop communities, and I fight an uphill battle against
> developers, staff (both city and county) planners, school districts etc.
> all the time.
>
> Basically, all of our communities, even the so-called walking
> communities, are planned around car access. *Everything else* is
> secondary.

It's certainly not the helmet laws _alone_. But we can't pretend the
helmet laws do not have an effect. There have been too many examples of
step changes (always decreases) in cycling counts upon implementation of
helmet laws. And in at least some cases, there were subsequent
telephone surveys in which respondents said the helmet laws were the
reasons they rode less.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

[Tom Sherman]

Zippy the Pinhead wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 18:20:49 -0600, Kevan Smith
> > wrote:
>
>
>>There is no "they." There is only an us and various degrees of lack of
>>understanding that there is only an us.
>
>
> That's what they'd like you to think...

We: cyclists.
Them: non-cyclists.

Pretty simple. ;)

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

[Tom Sherman]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> ... Fox News: Fair and balanced[TM]. In a horse's ass ;-)....

It is "Faux News". Please learn how to spell. ;)

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

[R15757]

Just zis Guy wrote:

<snip><< The average member of the UK's Cyclists' Touring Club will crash about
once every 3,500 years. >><snip>

John Forester claims that members of the UK Cyclists' Touring Club crash
seriously about once every 15,000-20,000 miles. The same riders average,
according to Forester's own polling, 2,000 miles per year. [1] One big wreck in
seven-to-ten years is an impressively low rate, but not superhuman. That's
several injuries over a lifetime of riding. The BTC riders' accident rate is
far lower than that of the LAW/LAB according to Forester. It would be
interesting but not scientifically significant to track some of the same
British riders after a move to the States.

Anyway, all attempts to get scientific about bike wrecks end in failure. There
are too many unknowns.

Robert

[1] John Forester. Bicycle Transportation: A Handbook for Cycling
Transportation Engineers (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1994), p. 41.

[Zoot Katz]

Mon, 05 Jan 2004 22:11:37 -0500, >,
"frkrygow" > wrote:

>And in at least some cases, there were subsequent
>telephone surveys in which respondents said the helmet laws were the
>reasons they rode less.

Depending on the phrasing of survey question, it was possibly those
fat kids looking for an easy ready-made excuse to not ride.
--
zk

[Peter Keller]

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 20:20:36 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 20:09:27 -0500, "Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> I still can't understand why, when face with three choices - do
>>> nothing, spend money, or introduce legislation which has failed
>>> everywhere it's been tried - the third option is still favoured by so
>>> many.
>
>>1) Do nothing ... well, too many liberals are in power now in the US and in
>>a few other places. These liberals believe you should have the freedom to
>>do what you want, as long as it's mandatory.
>
> Speaking as a liberal, cobblers. Most of the really ardent
> anti-compulsion cyclists I know are left-of-centre politically - which
> means communist by US standards ;-)
>
> A fundamental problem is that the pro-compulsion agenda is driven by
> doctors, who we have been taught to respect from an early age.
> Doctors are no more likely to be liberal than anyone else. But they
> are more likely to focus entirely on the outcome given crash and
> ignore the wider issues like probability of the crash happeining in
> the first place.
>
Not all doctors! I am one of at least three doctors in this city
(Wellington, New Zealand) who are trying to get some truth and honesty
into the debate!
Unfortunately I made the mistake of doing some research and looking up
some statistics. My conclusion: compulsory helmet laws do FAR more harm
than good. It cannot be good that children are "spooked" from a very
healthy relatively safe activity by a handful of vocal arm-wringing
do-gooder hypocritical emotional anecdote-spewing spoilsport
overprotective ninnies who haven't a clue about what they are talking
about, and whose only expewrience of bicycling was giving it up as soon as
possible because it was a little too much like hard work!

>snip<
--
This message is certified Virus Free as no Microsoft products
were used in its preparation or propagation

[Peter Keller]

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 22:11:37 -0500, frkrygow wrote:

> Kamus of Kadizhar wrote:
>
>> I doubt that it's the helmet laws alone.... I see it all the time - I
>> plan and develop communities, and I fight an uphill battle against
>> developers, staff (both city and county) planners, school districts etc.
>> all the time.
>>
>> Basically, all of our communities, even the so-called walking
>> communities, are planned around car access. *Everything else* is
>> secondary.
>
> It's certainly not the helmet laws _alone_. But we can't pretend the
> helmet laws do not have an effect. There have been too many examples of
> step changes (always decreases) in cycling counts upon implementation of
> helmet laws. And in at least some cases, there were subsequent
> telephone surveys in which respondents said the helmet laws were the
> reasons they rode less.

It has been suggested that helmet manufacturers have lobbied for
compulsory helmet larws. If so, they were short-sighted and stupid! In
some cases (Nova Scotia) the reduction of bicyclists after the
introduction of the law was so great that the numbers of HELMETTED
bicyclists also went down. So much for these greedy companies trying to
make a killing by selling more useless helmets at wildly inflated prices
-- They would have sold more helmets and made more money by normal
advertising extolling helmets' virtues, without advocating compulsion to
wear them!

--
This message is certified Virus Free as no Microsoft products
were used in its preparation or propagation

[W K]

"David Kerber" > wrote in message
...

> Yes, I'm only referring to head injuries even though I failed to say so.
> The main cause in a dedicated rodie would be a car turning or pulling
> out in front of them while they are going fast. We've probably all had
> close encounters like that even if we never actually made contact.

Not really, I'm not a dedicated roadie, so I don't go at top speed in town
or near hazzards, and certainly do not push my luck trying to corner as fast
as possible.

[Kamus of Kadizhar]

Marlene Blanshay wrote:
> Imagine being 45 and saying, "I'm going out for a
> bike ride. WHEE!"

Imagine? I do it as often as I can. Nothing like going out with a bunch
of young riders and leaving them in the dust :-)

Those days don't come too often anymore, but occasianally I do get those
days when everything falls into place and I can dust those 20-something
Marines who show up for our rides....

My role models now are those guys (and gals) who are too old (or perhaps
too wise) to ride an upright, so they get a trike. Ever saw a real
racing trike in action? Good lord, they're fast, and most of those
riding them are *old*. I saw a woman who had to be in her 70s, just
hauling *ss on one of those.

That's my goal. To get chased down when I'm 60 because I'm pushing the
pace too fast :-)

-Kamus

--
o__ | If you're old, eat right and ride a decent bike.
,>/'_ | Q.
(_)\(_) | Usenet posting`

[Q.]

"Kamus of Kadizhar" > wrote in message
...
> Q. wrote:
>
> > Dang, I being quoted now! Coolness ...
> >
>
> Hey, some time ago I came across one of my usenet snippets in someone
> else's sig. I'm just returning the favor.

When I saw that I did a google search for it ... I had kinda forgot what I
wrote. I came up with a page where that same post was partially quoted on a
Denmark page. I still haven't translated it ... they're only slightly less
scary than the Germans (c:

Thanks! I love quotes, and collect quotes .... it's nice to be quoted.

> Besides, I'm getting old, and I ride a decent bike. I'm still working
> on the 'eat right' part - unless buffalo wings and beer qualify as a
> post-ride training diet. :-)

See, I call that a "caveman" diet. I heard that someplace and it made
sense. Only eat what our ancestors have been eating for thousands of years.
Beer counts, that's been around for a while ... read "The Botany of Desire:
A Plant's Eye View of the World" sometime, great book. It gives me a good
excuse to go hunting all winter too (Archery season is 4 months here). Wild
game is much better than store bought meat, and pretty much forces you to
learn to cook it yourself. I'm honestly working towards owning a nice piece
of land and cutting all meat out of my diet, except that which I harvest
myself. My girlfriend is Hindi and a life long vegetarian, so we agreed on
that compromise if we get married. If I eat a nasty fast food burger she
wont even kiss me for hours. If that's not incentive I don't know what is
....

BTW, I used to think being a vegetarian was a bit lame but now that I date a
30 year old woman with a body in better shape than most of the girls I dated
in high school I'm starting to find a new appreciation for it (c:

C.Q.C.
Still kinda young, still don't eat quite that well, and still hasn't owned
any bike better than half way decent.

>-Kamus
>
> --
> o__ | If you're old, eat right and ride a decent bike.
> ,>/'_ | Q.
> (_)\(_) | Usenet posting`
>

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
>
> "David Kerber" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Yes, I'm only referring to head injuries even though I failed to say so.
> > The main cause in a dedicated rodie would be a car turning or pulling
> > out in front of them while they are going fast. We've probably all had
> > close encounters like that even if we never actually made contact.
>
> Not really, I'm not a dedicated roadie, so I don't go at top speed in town
> or near hazzards, and certainly do not push my luck trying to corner as fast
> as possible.

I slow down in those situations, too, but I've still had cars turn
left in front of me while I was doing about 15 mph on a highway. I
had to slam on the brakes, but managed to avoid contact. I think the
biggest problem is that cars tend to misjudge cyclists' speed,
subconsciously thinking that everybody on a bike is only going 5 mph.


--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

[Eric S. Sande]

>Seat belt laws are stupid, gun control is not. But gun control is a
>smokescreen to obscure the real reasons behind the US's incredible
>firearms homicide rate. After all, the Canadians seem not to shoot
>themselves, and they've got just as many guns.

I'm not so sure about that, Guy. Seat belt laws are good, I wouldn't
even think about getting into a motor vehicle without strapping in.

That's a public education campaign that worked.

The problem with gun control is that, well, a lot of gun owners
aren't socially responsible or properly trained.

Somewhat like cycling.

But I'm not hand wringing here, I can see the stats and the facts.

On balance, could we save more lives with firearms instruction than
seatbelt laws? Probably not.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 06 Jan 2004 07:29:32 GMT, (R15757) wrote:

><snip><< The average member of the UK's Cyclists' Touring Club will crash about
>once every 3,500 years. >><snip>

OK, that's "experience serious injury." Sorry, should have checked
the source first.

>Anyway, all attempts to get scientific about bike wrecks end in failure. There
>are too many unknowns.

Too true.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:02:10 +1300, Peter Keller >
wrote:

>Unfortunately I made the mistake of doing some research and looking up
>some statistics. My conclusion: compulsory helmet laws do FAR more harm
>than good.

Smart man. I plotted the % of cyclist injuries which are head
injuries for a period encompassing the introduction of the law in NZ.
Looking at the figures it is impossible to even guess which year saw
helmet use increase from about 43% to over 95%. Funny, that. I guess
you've got better data than me, though - is your Reply-To mail valid?
I could do with a bit of detail specifically to do with children, if
you don't mind, because one of our MPs has been bamboozled by the
Liddites into bringing a bill to introduce mandatory helmet wearing
for children. It will fail, as it doesn't have Government support,
but there needs to be some careful lobbying to ensure that it doesn't
get resurrected.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 12:57:52 -0500, "Eric S. Sande" >
wrote:

>>Seat belt laws are stupid, gun control is not. But gun control is a
>>smokescreen to obscure the real reasons behind the US's incredible
>>firearms homicide rate. After all, the Canadians seem not to shoot
>>themselves, and they've got just as many guns.

>I'm not so sure about that, Guy. Seat belt laws are good, I wouldn't
>even think about getting into a motor vehicle without strapping in.

Neither would I, *but* in the UK the initial trial of the compulsory
seat belt law resulted in the largest recorded year-on-year rise in
pedestrian, cyclist and rear-seat passenger fatalities, and no
measurable change in driver fatality rates. This was known at the
time the law was made permanent but the report was buried by the
sponsoring department until after the relevant debates.

>The problem with gun control is that, well, a lot of gun owners
>aren't socially responsible or properly trained.

Quite. I learned to shoot when I was still at school, and I grew up
in a house which had a rifle stored in it (unusual in the UK! My
father held a commission in the RAF reserves and was a shooting
instructor).

I enjoy shooting as a sport, but an assault rifle is a pointless
weapon to use for target or game shooting, and I have never had any
desire to carry a gun in public or even hold one off-range. Not since
I outgrew the initial surge of testosterone, anyway. The whole
business of penis extensions - vehicular or firearms - baffles me.

>On balance, could we save more lives with firearms instruction than
>seatbelt laws? Probably not.

You think? We could certainly save more laws with driver education
than either, though.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 01:00:19 -0800, Zoot Katz >
wrote:

>>And in at least some cases, there were subsequent
>>telephone surveys in which respondents said the helmet laws were the
>>reasons they rode less.
>
>Depending on the phrasing of survey question, it was possibly those
>fat kids looking for an easy ready-made excuse to not ride.

Like they need an excuse.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:09:08 +1300, Peter Keller >
wrote:

>It has been suggested that helmet manufacturers have lobbied for
>compulsory helmet larws.

I've not seen evidence of that, I have to say. The campaigns are
mainly led by handwringers inspired by trauma doctors who have not
considered the overall picture. Shroud-waving is prominent.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

[Dorre]

Zoot Katz > wrote:
: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 22:11:37 -0500, >,
: "frkrygow" > wrote:

:>And in at least some cases, there were subsequent
:>telephone surveys in which respondents said the helmet laws were the
:>reasons they rode less.

: Depending on the phrasing of survey question, it was possibly those
: fat kids looking for an easy ready-made excuse to not ride.

Wearing a helmet in the heat is not much fun. I live in one of
the cooler areas, but felt more comforable breaking the law today
than ending up hot and sweaty when I arrived at work.

Kids are bound to t be put off cycling by helmets when it's hot,
if adults are. And all this for a law that made no difference
whatsoever to head injury rates, despite massive increases in helmet
wearing.

Helmets are not the only factor, but they certainly have an
effect.

Dorre

[W K]

"Eric S. Sande" > wrote in message
...

> The problem with gun control is that, well, a lot of gun owners
> aren't socially responsible or properly trained.

Even if its not a lot, 1 in 10,000 thats far far too many.

[Matt O'Toole]

Eric S. Sande wrote:

> The problem with gun control is that, well, a lot of gun owners
> aren't socially responsible or properly trained.

OK Eric, we'll get you an appointment with the Crips, so you can give them a
training session. But frankly, I think society is better served by having
another excuse to arrest the *******s.

Matt O.

[Tom Sherman]

Eric S. Sande wrote:

>>Seat belt laws are stupid, gun control is not. But gun control is a
>>smokescreen to obscure the real reasons behind the US's incredible
>>firearms homicide rate. After all, the Canadians seem not to shoot
>>themselves, and they've got just as many guns.
>
>
> I'm not so sure about that, Guy. Seat belt laws are good, I wouldn't
> even think about getting into a motor vehicle without strapping in.
>
> That's a public education campaign that worked.
>
> The problem with gun control is that, well, a lot of gun owners
> aren't socially responsible or properly trained.
>
> Somewhat like cycling.
>
> But I'm not hand wringing here, I can see the stats and the facts.
>
> On balance, could we save more lives with firearms instruction than
> seatbelt laws? Probably not.

The two are not at all comparable.

Irresponsible use of a firearm endangers not only the wielder of the
firearm, but anyone within a considerable distance of that person.

Not wearing a seat belt has no probable consequences beyond greater
injury to the party not wearing a seat belt if a collision occurs.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

[Kamus of Kadizhar]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Neither would I, *but* in the UK the initial trial of the compulsory
> seat belt law resulted in the largest recorded year-on-year rise in
> pedestrian, cyclist and rear-seat passenger fatalities, and no
> measurable change in driver fatality rates. This was known at the
> time the law was made permanent but the report was buried by the
> sponsoring department until after the relevant debates.

ISTR a discussion somewhere that perturbing any system will result in
wild swings - thus when you begin innoculation against a disease, often
the first visible result is a sharp spike in its incidence. Something
to do with chaos theory - any mathematicians around?

OTOH, lots of the helmet laws don't really make sense. For example,
helmets are mandatory for kids under 16. OK, so we have parents riding
with kids; parents have no helmets, kids do. What's the message here?

I've seen people refuse to ride if they had to wear a helmet because of
"fashion" concerns....

OTOH, I believe in helmets - they save lots of nasty recovery time, and
scalp injuries *hurt*.

So, around my house, the rules are simple. No helmet, no ride.
Anything with wheels. Scooters, bikes, skates, whatever. And it
applies to all of us. (I do get some strange looks when I'm on a
child's scooter with a helmet, but I can't expect my kids to wear them
if I don't....) My kids don't even think about it. And yes, we have
all slapped our helmets on the concrete (except for the 3 year old, and
his time is coming....)

-Kamus

--
o__ | If you're old, eat right and ride a decent bike.
,>/'_ | Q.
(_)\(_) | Usenet posting`

[frkrygow]

Kamus of Kadizhar wrote:
>
> ISTR a discussion somewhere that perturbing any system will result in
> wild swings - thus when you begin innoculation against a disease, often
> the first visible result is a sharp spike in its incidence. Something
> to do with chaos theory - any mathematicians around?

Maybe David Johnson will chime in. I'm merely an engineer - but AFAIK,
"perturbing any system will result in wild swings" is in general, false.
Counterexamples abound.

> So, around my house, the rules are simple. No helmet, no ride. Anything
> with wheels. Scooters, bikes, skates, whatever. And it applies to all
> of us.

Times are strange! I noticed in the Sharper Image 2002 Christmas
catalog (IIRC) that every ridiculously priced set of wheels they sold
came with a sanctimonious (or lawyer-satisfying) "Warning! Always wear
a helmet when riding!" This was for bicycles, scooters, electric
skateboards, tiny circus-clown bikes with 8" wheels, motorized pedalcars
for the overweight kiddies, etc.

The only type of wheeled vehicle which is exempt from this paranoia is
the one which causes by FAR the greatest number of serious head
injuries, and fully 50% of the head injuries fatalities in America: the
private automobile. Go figure.

> (I do get some strange looks when I'm on a child's scooter with
> a helmet, but I can't expect my kids to wear them if I don't....) My
> kids don't even think about it. And yes, we have all slapped our
> helmets on the concrete (except for the 3 year old, and his time is
> coming....)

Yep. All normal kids have always bumped their heads on the ground while
growing up. This has been true for the last 100,000 years at least!


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

[frkrygow]

Zoot Katz wrote:

> Mon, 05 Jan 2004 22:11:37 -0500, >,
> "frkrygow" > wrote:
>
>
>>And in at least some cases, there were subsequent
>>telephone surveys in which respondents said the helmet laws were the
>>reasons they rode less.
>
>
> Depending on the phrasing of survey question, it was possibly those
> fat kids looking for an easy ready-made excuse to not ride.

Except that the surveys were done after the sudden drop in riding
occurred. If a fat kid rides before the MHL, then gives it up
immediately when the MHL is in effect, it's unlikely that mere laziness
was the root cause.

And it doesn't matter anyway. Whatever the minute details of the
personal motivation, the net effect was the same: institute MHL, watch
sudden drop in cycling.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

[frkrygow]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:09:08 +1300, Peter Keller >
> wrote:
>
>
>>It has been suggested that helmet manufacturers have lobbied for
>>compulsory helmet larws.
>
>
> I've not seen evidence of that, I have to say. The campaigns are
> mainly led by handwringers inspired by trauma doctors who have not
> considered the overall picture. Shroud-waving is prominent.

Again, I think that an investigative reporter tracking the money would
find the American handwringer society Safe Kids getting money from
helmet manufacturers through _some_ path. It may be "washed" by going
through an intermediary organization, but I doubt that's even necessary.


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

[Peter Keller]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:58:21 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:02:10 +1300, Peter Keller >
> wrote:
>
>>Unfortunately I made the mistake of doing some research and looking up
>>some statistics. My conclusion: compulsory helmet laws do FAR more harm
>>than good.
>
> Smart man. I plotted the % of cyclist injuries which are head
> injuries for a period encompassing the introduction of the law in NZ.
> Looking at the figures it is impossible to even guess which year saw
> helmet use increase from about 43% to over 95%. Funny, that. I guess
> you've got better data than me, though - is your Reply-To mail valid?
> I could do with a bit of detail specifically to do with children, if
> you don't mind, because one of our MPs has been bamboozled by the
> Liddites into bringing a bill to introduce mandatory helmet wearing
> for children. It will fail, as it doesn't have Government support,
> but there needs to be some careful lobbying to ensure that it doesn't
> get resurrected.
>
> Guy
> ===
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

Yes, my reply-to is valid But, please, if you write to me, make the
subject stand out (eg BICYCLE) in capital letters so that it doesn't get
thrown out with the spam!
I am not sure of exact figures, but since the law was introduced in NZ
serious head-injuries and deaths have reduced by about 19% and bicycling
participation (numbers and participation) have reduced by about 34% (our
Land Transport Safety authority; http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/ ) The numbers
are hard to dig out; obviously the LTSA does not wish it to be generally
known that the head-injury rate per bicyclist has gone UP if anything!
The numbers of child bicyclists has gone down by over 70% -- from an
unscientific count of the average numbers of bicycles in school bicycle
sheds. So a whole generation is being lost.

--
This message is certified Virus Free as no Microsoft products
were used in its preparation or propagation

[Q.]

"Eric S. Sande" > wrote in message
...
> >Seat belt laws are stupid, gun control is not. But gun control is a
> >smokescreen to obscure the real reasons behind the US's incredible
> >firearms homicide rate. After all, the Canadians seem not to shoot
> >themselves, and they've got just as many guns.

Yes, much of it is a smokescreen. Real solutions are very hard to
understand and take years to impliment. It's easy for a polititian to point
the finger at a gun, or a bicycle helmet and say "That's the solution, that
tangible inatimate object!" It's hard for peopel to grasp that the reason
someone gets hurt has to do with many factors, not just one *thing*.

<snip>
> The problem with gun control is that, well, a lot of gun owners
> aren't socially responsible or properly trained.
>
> Somewhat like cycling.
>
> But I'm not hand wringing here, I can see the stats and the facts.
>
> On balance, could we save more lives with firearms instruction than
> seatbelt laws? Probably not.

Many of the people I know are legal gun owners, including myself. You
probably know many of them as well, unfortunately in the current climate
being a gun owner is not something you let too many people know.

However the majority of *legal* gun owners are socially responsible people
and are properly trained (you have to be around here to get a license). If
you so much as got busted for a joint in the 60's you are banned for life
from getting a handgun license.

The problems in this world stem from the very few people who are *not*
socially responsible, and the majority are made to pay the price for them
.... whether they be gun owners or cyclists or what have you. You don't have
to be smart to live in this society, you just can't be stupid ... and it's
the stupid minority that make themselves a big nuisance.

It's amazing that we all get along as well as we do. Think about all the
millions of non violent social interactions that take place every day.
Lethal violence, whether man made or by accident is certainly rare relative
to all those interactions. We're not really that scared to go out and ride
a bike but many peoples perceptions are not based on actual experience but
based on media mind control.

If you really want to do something about the social problems we all have ...
fat kids included (c: ... outlaw television. I'm happy to say I've given up
making television shows and spend much more time reading good books and
doing stuff than watching that dribble.

Besides, the resolution outside is just incredible!

C.Q.C.

[Q.]

"Matt O'Toole" > wrote in message
...
> Eric S. Sande wrote:
>
> > The problem with gun control is that, well, a lot of gun owners
> > aren't socially responsible or properly trained.
>
> OK Eric, we'll get you an appointment with the Crips, so you can give them
a
> training session. But frankly, I think society is better served by having
> another excuse to arrest the *******s.

Another excuse? Existing laws aren't enforced as it is. I got no problem
with gun control if they start with the bad guys ... instead of with me.
How many Crips you think could get a legal gun license right now, this day?

The laws that are passed and enforced these days are mostly to raise money,
and to harass people in order to extort more money. We have a local cop
here who pulls over everyone he doesn't like for "marked lane violations".
It's an excuse to "arrest the *******s" even if the guy has to make up a
reason. Frankly, I don't see how that serves society at all. It obviously
doesn't, or at least not that well, since the main problems don't go away.

OKay, so we have a problem ... people on bikes get hurt. How do we take
care of it? Pass a helmet law that only responsible dedicated cyclists will
follow and scare away casual cyclists? Sure, just forget about making
people ride with the flow of traffic, or use a headlight at night, or cars
riding in the bike lane and passing too close. Let's ignore all the other
ineffective and unenforced laws and ignore all the idiots on the bottom of
the scale and simply pass another law. Let's not even think about improving
traffic conditions.

I almost hit some dufus on a bike the other night. I was riding around a
corner on a nice wide street without any other cars around, on the correct
side of the road and had 2 headlights and a back light plus full reflectors.
This other guy was riding a DUIbrid towards me going the wrong way without a
front reflector or light ... and a dark bike with dark clothes to boot. I
had to come to a stop, and waggle my handlebars back and forth before he
noticed me. If things stay the way they are, that guy will be riding the
wrong way for years to come ... pass a thousand laws and it still wont make
a difference.

How about starting at the bottom for a change, and enforce laws that already
exist?

You know, I can tell you with 100% certainty when a helmet will not affect
your chances of being injured one way or the other ... just make sure
cyclists stay on their bikes and don't get hit. That's all. If you can
figure out how that could be accomplished, then helmets will be redundant.

C.Q.C.

[W K]

"Kamus of Kadizhar" > wrote in message
...

> OTOH, lots of the helmet laws don't really make sense. For example,
> helmets are mandatory for kids under 16. OK, so we have parents riding
> with kids; parents have no helmets, kids do. What's the message here?

Adults are allowed to do things kids are not. They have to learn to live
with it.
What about driving? let your kids do that too?
Drinking? using a chainsaw?

> So, around my house, the rules are simple. No helmet, no ride.
> Anything with wheels.

Ladders? Standing on chairs? furniture with casters?

[Kamus of Kadizhar]

frkrygow wrote:
> Kamus of Kadizhar wrote:
>
>>
>> ISTR a discussion somewhere that perturbing any system will result in
>> wild swings - thus when you begin innoculation against a disease,
>> often the first visible result is a sharp spike in its incidence.
>> Something to do with chaos theory - any mathematicians around?
>
>
> Maybe David Johnson will chime in. I'm merely an engineer - but AFAIK,
> "perturbing any system will result in wild swings" is in general, false.
> Counterexamples abound.

True. I should have been more specific. Any chaotic system - such as
nearly every real-world system in which people are involved. I know the
innoculation example is true - I think it was in England and smallpox.
When the innoculations started (in the 50s?) there was an immediate
increase in smallpox. The public howled. The guy in charge stuck to
his guns, and ultimately was proven right. I just wonder if the same is
true of helmet laws (or any such law.) Chaos theory is pretty
fascinating, in that it turns many of our "common sense" assumptions on
their heads.

> Yep. All normal kids have always bumped their heads on the ground while
> growing up. This has been true for the last 100,000 years at least!

Yup. And that's why we wear helmets. I know that if I get whacked by a
68 Buick moving at 70 MPH I'm pretty much dead, no matter what I wear.
But for the majority of bumps helmets either do no harm, or help to
prevent painful and occasionally (temporarily) disfiguring injuries.
Heck, if my house rules prevent one trip to the emergency room it's
worth it. I know on one occasion it's worked: my then-5 year old took a
header off an embankment and landed pretty much on her head. No harm
done, but the helmet was trashed.



--
o__ | If you're old, eat right and ride a decent bike.
,>/'_ | Q.
(_)\(_) | Usenet posting`

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> > Neither would I, *but* in the UK the initial trial of the compulsory
> > seat belt law resulted in the largest recorded year-on-year rise in
> > pedestrian, cyclist and rear-seat passenger fatalities, and no
> > measurable change in driver fatality rates. This was known at the
> > time the law was made permanent but the report was buried by the
> > sponsoring department until after the relevant debates.
>
> ISTR a discussion somewhere that perturbing any system will result in
> wild swings - thus when you begin innoculation against a disease, often
> the first visible result is a sharp spike in its incidence. Something
> to do with chaos theory - any mathematicians around?
>
> OTOH, lots of the helmet laws don't really make sense. For example,
> helmets are mandatory for kids under 16. OK, so we have parents riding
> with kids; parents have no helmets, kids do. What's the message here?
>
> I've seen people refuse to ride if they had to wear a helmet because of
> "fashion" concerns....
>
> OTOH, I believe in helmets - they save lots of nasty recovery time, and
> scalp injuries *hurt*.
>
> So, around my house, the rules are simple. No helmet, no ride.
> Anything with wheels. Scooters, bikes, skates, whatever. And it
> applies to all of us. (I do get some strange looks when I'm on a

That's the rule in our house, too. I don't ride the scooter, though!


--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

[Frank Krygowski]

Q. wrote:

> OKay, so we have a problem ... people on bikes get hurt.

I think we should not accept that statement - or rather, not accept it
as a statement of much significance.

People get hurt doing all sorts of things. For example, each year in
the USA, emergency room visits resulting from playing basketball
outnumber those from riding bikes. And I'd bet bicycling hours
outnumber basketball hours. But I've yet to hear the handwringers call
for laws regulating basketball.

Society needs to accept the fact that there will always be injuries and
health problems. And when evaluating them, the balance of detriments
and benefits needs to be used. That is, we shouldn't discourage a
beneficial activity to reduce a tiny number of serious injuries.

This applies not only to bikes, but to walking to school, playing on
playgrounds, running around the neighborhood, etc. (All of which have
been decried by those of the nanny mentality.)

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

[Dan Cosley]

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> People get hurt doing all sorts of things. For example, each year in
> the USA, emergency room visits resulting from playing basketball
> outnumber those from riding bikes. And I'd bet bicycling hours
> outnumber basketball hours. But I've yet to hear the handwringers call
> for laws regulating basketball.


Hard to say. Here are lists from

http://www.leisuretrends.com/local/fun_facts.asp

Apparently, this is a group that does leisure activities studies:

* The top ten recreational activities for women are walking,
aerobics, exercise, biking, jogging, basketball, lifting weights,
golf, swimming and tennis.

* The top ten for men are golf, basketball, walking, jogging,
biking, lifting weights, football, hiking, fishing and hunting.

I'm guessing these are in order of popularity, in which case
they'd probably be about equal.

-- Dan

--
Dan Cosley * http://www.cs.umn.edu/~cosley/)
GroupLens Research Lab, Univ of MN (http://movielens.umn.edu/ * 612.624.8372)
*** Just a foot soldier in the Army of Truth ***

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 21:42:30 -0500, Kamus of Kadizhar
> wrote:

>OTOH, I believe in helmets - they save lots of nasty recovery time, and
>scalp injuries *hurt*.

Any hat works just as well, from personal experience.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:29:09 -0500, "frkrygow"
> wrote:

>the American handwringer society Safe Kids

I can just picture them driving to meetings in their SUVs...

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

[Rick Onanian]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:41:14 GMT, "Matt O'Toole" >
wrote:
>Eric S. Sande wrote:
>> The problem with gun control is that, well, a lot of gun owners
>> aren't socially responsible or properly trained.
>
>OK Eric, we'll get you an appointment with the Crips, so you can give them a
>training session. But frankly, I think society is better served by having
>another excuse to arrest the *******s.

That problem is caused by urban society in dense cities; and those
are criminals with no respect for the law. How do you expect that
making laws about guns will stop them, let alone protect the
innocent law-abiding people?

You really want to stop them, arm and train every law-abiding
citizen. The gangs will disappear soon after.

>Matt O.
--
Rick Onanian

[Garrison Hilliard]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:29:09 -0500, "frkrygow"
> wrote:
>
>>the American handwringer society Safe Kids
>
>I can just picture them driving to meetings in their SUVs...

And forcing off the road as many cyclists as they can!

[Matt O'Toole]

Rick Onanian wrote:

> That problem is caused by urban society in dense cities; and those
> are criminals with no respect for the law.

It has nothing to do with density. Tokyo has some of the highest density in the
world, yet one of the lowest crime rates. Detroit currently has the highest
crime rate in the US, but it's actually quite low in density -- there are people
farming the huge tracts of vacant land right in the middle of the city! The
problem is poverty, and lack of education and opportunity, which can exist
equally well in big cities or small towns. The highest crime rates in the US,
which change from year to year, are often in smaller cities like Holyoke, MA, or
Gary, IN. In Los Angeles, the highest crime areas are the ones with *lowest*
density. The infamous South Central LA is mostly single family houses on
generous lots. Some other high crime areas are practically rural, with large
lots, chicken coops, and the occasional scruffy goat among the pit bulls.

Matt O.

[David Reuteler]

Matt O'Toole > wrote:
: The problem is poverty, and lack of education and opportunity

it's not poverty, either. i felt a lot safer in bucharest, rumania than i
do in some larger and richer american cities.

poverty is a factor and so is density but i believe a lot of it is cultural.
put bluntly we americans are taught to solve our problems with a club.
--
david reuteler

[Tom Sherman]

Matt O'Toole wrote:

> It has nothing to do with density. Tokyo has some of the highest density in the
> world, yet one of the lowest crime rates. Detroit currently has the highest
> crime rate in the US, but it's actually quite low in density -- there are people
> farming the huge tracts of vacant land right in the middle of the city! The
> problem is poverty, and lack of education and opportunity, which can exist
> equally well in big cities or small towns. The highest crime rates in the US,
> which change from year to year, are often in smaller cities like Holyoke, MA, or
> Gary, IN....

Gary, Indiana is basically an extension of Chicago.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 23:55:14 -0600, Kevan Smith
> wrote:

>>> That's what they'd like you to think...
>>
>>We: cyclists.
>>Them: non-cyclists.
>
>We're all pedestrians sometime.

Yes, and nudists, too.

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 12:57:52 -0500, "Eric S. Sande" >
wrote:

>The problem with gun control is that, well, a lot of gun owners
>aren't socially responsible or properly trained.


Translation: In Eric's world, if you aren't a liberal, your education
is incomplete. If you're a gunowner, your evolution is incomplete.

[Zoot Katz]

Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:26:23 -0500, >,
"frkrygow" > wrote:

>And it doesn't matter anyway. Whatever the minute details of the
>personal motivation, the net effect was the same: institute MHL, watch
>sudden drop in cycling.

A few anecdotes:

It didn't stop me since I'd worn one long before the law. I've always
worn seat belts too and never been fat.

That Vancouver and Victoria are both subject to MHL, and they have
some of the highest percentages of cycling commuters as any city in
Canada or the US, denies that helmets, hills and rain are adequate
excuses for not riding. There's more bike shops here now than in 1995.
Plastic hats are even pretty good in the rain.

The bike safety courses presented in 3rd - 7th grades merely stress
fitting the helmet correctly. Greater attention is paid to bike
handling, visibility and traffic rules.
--
zk

[Eric S. Sande]

>>Eric S. Sande wrote:
>>>The problem with gun control is that, well, a lot of gun owners
>>>aren't socially responsible or properly trained.

>>OK Eric, we'll get you an appointment with the Crips, so you can give
>>them a training session. But frankly, I think society is better
>>served by having another excuse to arrest the *******s.

I guarantee after an eight hour course they'd be shooting each other
much more efficiently.

We had a high profile gang gun "battle" here recently, in broad
daylight on a city street in a middle class neighborhood.

Three shooters going after one person (on a bicycle no less).

The target got killed more by luck than skill, he bled to death
from the single shot out of many that hit him. A bus driver was
wounded in the crossfire.

We're talking multiple gunshots over several city blocks, it was a
completely inept performance.

A while ago when I was living at the old place there was a shootout
at the gas station. The shooters were no more than twenty feet apart
and fired every round they had at each other.

Neither one hit the other and a woman on the other side of the street
was grazed.

The typical gang action here is 9mm bang-bang ****, they just aren't
up to combat pistol standard.

The two successful murders that happened within the last five years
within a half a block from my front door were contact shots, both
of which occurred at the same club, a known gang hangout.

This is going on in the most heavily gun-controlled city in the US, by
far. As well as the most heavily policed city in the US--with the
highest per capita murder rate.

No 'burbs to smooth out the statistics, of course.

>That problem is caused by urban society in dense cities; and those
>are criminals with no respect for the law. How do you expect that
>making laws about guns will stop them, let alone protect the
>innocent law-abiding people?

>You really want to stop them, arm and train every law-abiding
>citizen. The gangs will disappear soon after.

Some of us are realizing that and trying to get a cultural change
going on. Homeland security begins at home, but frankly the LEOs
aren't interested in what happens on 14th Street NW or east of the
river.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------

[Eric S. Sande]

>>The problem with gun control is that, well, a lot of gun owners
>>aren't socially responsible or properly trained.

>Translation: In Eric's world, if you aren't a liberal, your education
>is incomplete. If you're a gunowner, your evolution is incomplete.

Nicely stated. But completely off target :-).

What the heck did I ever say that would lead you to believe that I
was a liberal?

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------

[TrekTramp]

Psycholist wrote:
> I keep reading in the papers about childhood obesity and it's certainly
> evident all around. I've never seen so many fat, unfit kids.
> We've really had a nice spell of weather since Christmas and I've been
> on the bike a lot. I've almost been hit a few times by young kids on
> little motorized scooters. Apparently, they replaced bicycles under
> the tree this year. They're everywhere. "Can't have little junior
> having to expend any energy ... that wouldn't do. But I wonder why
> he's getting so fat?"
> Well, the bright side is that, maybe we'll get scooter lanes someday and
> they'll allow bicycles on them, too.
> Bob C. ;) ;) "Egotism is the anesthetic, that dulls the pain of
> stupidity." Frank Leahy

Hi Everyone

Well, the way I see it, is if the parents would motivate the kiddies
we'd see a lot less obesity in our youth. Kids generally learn b
example. So, if a parents example is too eat at McChoke n' Puke fo
supper, then lounge in front of the tv or pc or game of choice, wh
wouldn't the kids do it

Friends in my age group..40's, think I'm nuts. I hear all the time.."Yo
have to much energy" "I wish I could be as athletic as you, I don't hav
time". What makes people think I have time?? lma

I WAS THE FAT KID!!!!!! At 11 I weighed 140lbs. By 21 I weighed
whopping 265. Then, as an adult, I realized..my mamma isn't cookin
anymore and I can eat what I want. Changed my lifestyle and los
the weight. Now I cycle 6 days a week and average 450km a week.
weigh 126lbs

My motivation.....is my daughter. I do not want her to ever endure th
ridicule of being fat and have taught her that being healthy doesn'
mean salad all day. Neither does it mean giving up the treats. It'
teaching moderation and a healthy approach to exercise

So, if it's so simple, why the obesity problem? Answer- PARENTS..get of
your keisters!!!

Just my 25cents ;-)~~~~~TrekTram



-

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 02:38:45 -0500, "Eric S. Sande" >
wrote:

>>>The problem with gun control is that, well, a lot of gun owners
>>>aren't socially responsible or properly trained.
>
>>Translation: In Eric's world, if you aren't a liberal, your education
>>is incomplete. If you're a gunowner, your evolution is incomplete.
>
>Nicely stated. But completely off target :-).
>
>What the heck did I ever say that would lead you to believe that I
>was a liberal?

I got the attibu-quotations all screwed up and damfino how that
happened. All this thinking has finally made me stupid.

--
To absurdity, and beyond.

[Wolfgang Strobl]

Kamus of Kadizhar >:

>So, around my house, the rules are simple. No helmet, no ride.

Really? What about walking stairs, around your house?


--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen

[Brent Hugh]

"frkrygow" > wrote in message >...
> David Kerber wrote:
> > No, it does not mean that! All it means is that the people who ride
> > less (and therefore are less likely to get an injury in any given year)
> > have stopped completely, leaving the stats skewed by the more dedicated
> > cyclists who get more injuries per year simply because they're on the
> > bike more.
>
> Not necessarily. It seems to be well verified that the safety of an
> individual cyclist rises when there are more cyclists on the road, and
> decreases when there are fewer cyclists. If a MHL decreases cycling by
> a measureable amount, this effect could easily overpower the minimal
> protective effect of that thin foam cap.
>
> http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/SteppingStones.htm
> has some info on this.

See also http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/205

Results: The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will
be struck by a motorist varies inversely with the amount of walking or
bicycling. This pattern is consistent across communities of varying
size, from specific intersections to cities and countries, and across
time periods.

Discussion: This result is unexpected. Since it is unlikely that the
people walking and bicycling become more cautious if their numbers are
larger, it indicates that the behavior of motorists controls the
likelihood of collisions with people walking and bicycling. It appears
that motorists adjust their behavior in the presence of people walking
and bicycling. There is an urgent need for further exploration of the
human factors controlling motorist behavior in the presence of people
walking and bicycling.

Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking
and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase
the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective
route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.

--Brent
bhugh [at] mwsc.edu
www.mobikefed.org

[Peter Keller]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:19:36 -0800, Brent Hugh wrote:

> "frkrygow" > wrote in message >...
>> David Kerber wrote:
>> > No, it does not mean that! All it means is that the people who ride
>> > less (and therefore are less likely to get an injury in any given year)
>> > have stopped completely, leaving the stats skewed by the more dedicated
>> > cyclists who get more injuries per year simply because they're on the
>> > bike more.
>>
>> Not necessarily. It seems to be well verified that the safety of an
>> individual cyclist rises when there are more cyclists on the road, and
>> decreases when there are fewer cyclists. If a MHL decreases cycling by
>> a measureable amount, this effect could easily overpower the minimal
>> protective effect of that thin foam cap.
>>
>> http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/SteppingStones.htm
>> has some info on this.
>
> See also http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/205
>
> Results: The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will
> be struck by a motorist varies inversely with the amount of walking or
> bicycling. This pattern is consistent across communities of varying
> size, from specific intersections to cities and countries, and across
> time periods.
>
> Discussion: This result is unexpected. Since it is unlikely that the
> people walking and bicycling become more cautious if their numbers are
> larger, it indicates that the behavior of motorists controls the
> likelihood of collisions with people walking and bicycling. It appears
> that motorists adjust their behavior in the presence of people walking
> and bicycling. There is an urgent need for further exploration of the
> human factors controlling motorist behavior in the presence of people
> walking and bicycling.
>
> Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking
> and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase
> the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective
> route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.
>
> --Brent
> bhugh [at] mwsc.edu
> www.mobikefed.org

I agree. Therefore we must make bicycling more appealing, by emphasizing
the positive aspects -- freedom, practicality, health, convenience, low
cost etc, and NOT by dwelling on its (inherently very low) dangers.
Danger to bicyclists is governed by motorised traffic's behaviour, and
helmets do nothing to mitigate the consequences of an argument with a
piece of motorised traffic.
Therefore, Mandatory Helmet Laws are all bad as they unreasonably
"Dangerise" bicycling, spooking people out of taking it up, without doing
anything to protect anything.
peter

--
This message is certified Virus Free as no Microsoft products
were used in its preparation or propagation

[Matt O'Toole]

Peter Keller wrote:

> we must make bicycling more appealing, by
> emphasizing the positive aspects -- freedom, practicality, health,
> convenience, low cost etc, and NOT by dwelling on its (inherently
> very low) dangers.

Absolutely.

> Danger to bicyclists is governed by motorised
> traffic's behaviour,

All the statistics I've seen suggest most accidents are the fault of the
cyclist -- wrong way riding through intersections, riding at night without
lights, etc. However -- if we eliminate these, the objective danger presented
by automobiles is very low indeed. And *that* is the point we need to make.

The statistics are on our side. Mindless, knee-jerk advocacy and hyperbole are
neither necessary nor helpful.

> and helmets do nothing to mitigate the
> consequences of an argument with a piece of motorised traffic.

No, helmets may still offer protection while hitting the pavement. They're a
good idea, but I ride without one occasionally too, like I've been doing since I
was 6 years old.

> Therefore, Mandatory Helmet Laws are all bad as they unreasonably
> "Dangerise" bicycling, spooking people out of taking it up, without
> doing anything to protect anything.

I agree with this. "Thrills and spills" marketing of bicycling doesn't help
either.

Matt O.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:36:47 GMT, "Matt O'Toole" >
wrote:

>All the statistics I've seen suggest most accidents are the fault of the
>cyclist -- wrong way riding through intersections, riding at night without
>lights, etc. However -- if we eliminate these, the objective danger presented
>by automobiles is very low indeed. And *that* is the point we need to make.

Not here, not hardly. Various studies give between 75% and 90% of
crashes ending in serious injury to a cyclist are the fault of a motor
vehicle driver. Your cyclists may vary.

>The statistics are on our side. Mindless, knee-jerk advocacy and hyperbole are
>neither necessary nor helpful.

Is the right answer :-)

>> and helmets do nothing to mitigate the
>> consequences of an argument with a piece of motorised traffic.

>No, helmets may still offer protection while hitting the pavement. They're a
>good idea, but I ride without one occasionally too, like I've been doing since I
>was 6 years old.

<http://www.chapmancentral.com/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Brain_Injury_Mechanisms>

Interesting research showing that the forces causing brain injuries -
specifically subdural haematoma and diffuse axonal injury - are not
mitigated by helmets.

This is the No. 1 lie in helmet compulsion campaigns: to take the
figure for injuries prevented by helmets, and extend it to suggest
that helmets woud prevent a similar number of deaths and disabling
brain injuries. A moment's thought shows that it is perfectly
plausible that the injuries saved are the least serious (cuts and
grazes) and quite possible that universal helmet use would save very
few lives indeed. And then there's the effect of compulsion on
bicycle usage...

>I agree with this. "Thrills and spills" marketing of bicycling doesn't help
>either.

Not sure. I think most people are capable of understanding the
difference between extreme offroading or BMX riding and ordinary
cycling. The problem is, the Liddites have given the impression that
it's ordinary cycling which is more dangerous!

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

[Rick Onanian]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:37:53 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
> wrote:
>Kamus of Kadizhar >:
>>So, around my house, the rules are simple. No helmet, no ride.
>
>Really? What about walking stairs, around your house?

That's not a ride. Besides, he's probably got a carpet.
--
Rick Onanian

[Wolfgang Strobl]

Rick Onanian >:

>On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:37:53 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
> wrote:
>>Kamus of Kadizhar >:
>>>So, around my house, the rules are simple. No helmet, no ride.
>>
>>Really? What about walking stairs, around your house?

>That's not a ride.

Sure. But why did you say that? Do yo believe that those who walk
deserve to have their brain splattered around the floor?

Please consider that the final velocity from a fall down a flight of
stairs could easily become thrice as high, in comparison to the speed
of contact during the course of a normal fall in a worst case scenario,
whether from a bike or from standing. Thats nine times the destructive
energy for the stairs! In addition, the sharp edge of a step is much
more dangerous than the flat asphalt where reasonable bicyclists
usually ride*).

Actually, even here in Germany, where everyday bicycling represents
about 10% of traffic, deaths from falls at home (mostly people
stumbling over loose carpets :-}) outnumber deaths from bicycle crashs
roughly by a factor of ten (~5500/pa vs. ~600/pa)


>Besides, he's probably got a carpet.

This obsession with padding never ceases to amaze my. Do you really
believe that all his rooms, including the stairs in and around his
house are padded with 3 cm of foam, like the padded room in a madhouse?

http://www.digitalwav.net/download.asp?filename=Fascinating.wav


*) yes, I recommend to keep a safe distance from curbs, too, and avoid
most "bicycle facilities" like the proverbial plague, for safety and
comfort.

--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

[Rick Onanian]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:55:49 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
> wrote:
>Rick Onanian >:
> wrote:
>>>Kamus of Kadizhar >:
>>>>So, around my house, the rules are simple. No helmet, no ride.
>>>Really? What about walking stairs, around your house?
>>That's not a ride.
>
>Sure. But why did you say that?

I said that because he said "no helmet, no ride", not "no helmet, no
movement". I'm not sure how walking is relevant to "no helmet, no
ride".

>Do yo believe that those who walk
>deserve to have their brain splattered around the floor?

Yes, I do; I fly when in my house.

>Please consider that the final velocity from a fall down a flight of
>stairs could easily become thrice as high, in comparison to the speed
>of contact during the course of a normal fall in a worst case scenario,
>whether from a bike or from standing. Thats nine times the destructive
>energy for the stairs! In addition, the sharp edge of a step is much
>more dangerous than the flat asphalt where reasonable bicyclists
>usually ride*).

The sharp edge of a step is made of wood (which is hanging
unsupported, and will break easily); the more common flat of a step
is wood straddling supports. The most likely place to whack a head
when falling down the stairs is a wall, which in common US
residential construction is made of a very weak "sheetrock" board
straddling wooden studs, or a floor, which is likely to be carpeted
with padding underneath the carpet.

Stair falls probably more commonly result in debilitating neck/spine
injuries that make the injured person wish that they had hit their
head on a fire hydrant and died.

>Actually, even here in Germany, where everyday bicycling represents
>about 10% of traffic, deaths from falls at home (mostly people
>stumbling over loose carpets :-}) outnumber deaths from bicycle crashs
>roughly by a factor of ten (~5500/pa vs. ~600/pa)

*sigh*. I did this with Frank Krygowski last year, why am I doing it
again? Bicycling may represent 10% of traffic, but walking around
the house represents 100% of non-handicapped people, and probably a
very large multiple of hours spent.

>>Besides, he's probably got a carpet.
>
>This obsession with padding never ceases to amaze my. Do you really
>believe that all his rooms, including the stairs in and around his
>house are padded with 3 cm of foam, like the padded room in a madhouse?

I'll bet nearly all his house is made out of materials that will
break and give when subjected to such forces.

>*) yes, I recommend to keep a safe distance from curbs, too, and avoid
>most "bicycle facilities" like the proverbial plague, for safety and
>comfort.

How far is a "safe" distance from curbs? How are German roads
designed that you can stay so far from curbs that it is very
unlikely in any given accident that your head will hit the sharp
edge of a curb?

In fact, you're probably better off (from a curb-head-impact
avoidance point of view) riding as close to the curb as you can.
This nearly guarantees that your head will land elsewhere, unless
your wheels slide out in a curve and your head goes straight down.

However, for comparing to what you find in a home, well, my home
doesn't include metal lamp posts, fire hydrants, automobiles, rocks,
and so on. In my home, the walls will break before my head is
seriously injured, and the floor is padded and made out of a
flexible, impact-absorbing material (wood). Street materials do not
give like wood.
--
Rick Onanian

[frkrygow]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> <http://www.chapmancentral.com/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Brain_Injury_Mechanisms>
>
> Interesting research showing that the forces causing brain injuries -
> specifically subdural haematoma and diffuse axonal injury - are not
> mitigated by helmets.

Guy - I'm having trouble with your link. All I get is a page trying to
sell me your domain name, or a bunch of smileys, etc.

Can you help?

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

[David Reuteler]

frkrygow > wrote:
: Guy - I'm having trouble with your link. All I get is a page trying to
: sell me your domain name, or a bunch of smileys, etc.

uh-oh. looks like Guy forget to pay his registrar and the esteemed (not)
Domain Deluxe of Hong Kong hijacked his domain name.

which is pretty rank.
--
david reuteler

[frkrygow]

Rick Onanian wrote:

> *sigh*. I did this with Frank Krygowski last year, why am I doing it
> again?

Obviously, because people who don't learn the material have to repeat
the course. Pay more attention this time. ;-)

> Bicycling may represent 10% of traffic, but walking around
> the house represents 100% of non-handicapped people, and probably a
> very large multiple of hours spent.

Possibly so. There are at least two ways to look at "solutions" to the
supposed head injury "problem": Do you want to put helmets on the
people whose individual risk, per hour, of serious head injury are the
greatest? Or would you prefer to save society the greatest _total_
cost, by putting helmets on the people who make up the greatest total
number of serious head injuries, even if their individual risk per hour
is lower?

The people falling in their homes are in the latter group. Those who
wring their hands about every head injury really need to pay attention
to those people. Falls in the home are the second biggest cause of
fatal head injuries. Those folks are right behind motor vehicle occupants.

The people riding bikes, however, don't seem to be in _either_ group.
That is, they're not even 1% of the total for fatal head injuries (we
have good data on those) and probably not for serious non-fatal head
injuries (the data isn't kept as well for those). Likewise, they don't
seem to be at unusual risk per hour - roughly, they're at the same risk
as a motorist, and they're at less risk than a city pedestrian, per hour.

IMHO, the correct way to look at the "solutions" is this: don't put
helmets on anyone. Let those who choose to, put them on themselves.

And stop lying about how dangerous bicycling is. (Not you, Rick - the
helmet promoters.)

> However, for comparing to what you find in a home, well, my home
> doesn't include metal lamp posts, fire hydrants, automobiles, rocks,
> and so on. In my home, the walls will break before my head is
> seriously injured, and the floor is padded and made out of a
> flexible, impact-absorbing material (wood). Street materials do not
> give like wood.

Remember - somehow, somehow, those soft, forgiving materials in and
around the typical American home cause roughly 40% of the head injury
fatalities in the USA. Odd, isn't it?

For review - so you don't have to repeat the class - the cushy,
protective inside of the American car causes roughly 50% of the head
injury fatalities in the USA. And bike crashes cause less than 1%.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

[Rick Onanian]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:39:54 -0500, "frkrygow"
> wrote:
>Rick Onanian wrote:
>> Bicycling may represent 10% of traffic, but walking around
>> the house represents 100% of non-handicapped people, and probably a
>> very large multiple of hours spent.
>
>Possibly so. There are at least two ways to look at "solutions" to the
>supposed head injury "problem": Do you want to put helmets on the
>people whose individual risk, per hour, of serious head injury are the
>greatest? Or would you prefer to save society the greatest _total_
>cost, by putting helmets on the people who make up the greatest total
>number of serious head injuries, even if their individual risk per hour
>is lower?

I'd prefer not to put helmets on anybody. Adults should decide for
themselves, and young children's decisions should be made by their
parents -- which is exactly what I was supporting with that. Kamus
said that his rule for his children was that they must wear a helmet
while riding; Wolfgang then asked "what about walking" and went on a
rant about injury percentages and described in detail why the inside
of a house is a deadly place for heads. I addressed his points.

When choosing for one's self, however, one must consider whichever
variables are important to one's self; risk of injury is a common
consideration, but was expressed by Wolfgang in a non-meaningful way
-- total percentages. Further, it's difficult to get a meaningful
comparison of risk between such dissimilar activities as walking
around the house and commuting or recreating on a bike. A more
meaningful comparison can be made between commuting on two different
types of transportation per mile, or recreating two different ways
per hour.

>The people falling in their homes are in the latter group. Those who
>wring their hands about every head injury really need to pay attention
>to those people. Falls in the home are the second biggest cause of
>fatal head injuries. Those folks are right behind motor vehicle occupants.

Those who wring their hands about every head injury need to stop
worrying about others and wear a helmet all the time themselves.

>IMHO, the correct way to look at the "solutions" is this: don't put
>helmets on anyone. Let those who choose to, put them on themselves.

Hey, have I ever disagreed with that? Have I ever even implied
anything else?

>> However, for comparing to what you find in a home, well, my home
>> doesn't include metal lamp posts, fire hydrants, automobiles, rocks,
<snip>
>Remember - somehow, somehow, those soft, forgiving materials in and
>around the typical American home cause roughly 40% of the head injury
>fatalities in the USA. Odd, isn't it?

Remember, I was responding directly to points such as "the sharp
edge of a step is much more dangerous than the flat asphalt". I
still maintain that your statistic does not provide a meaningful
comparison. Further, if you want to say in "and around" the home,
well, yards are filled with pavement, rocks, metal lamp posts, and
cars...

>For review - so you don't have to repeat the class - the cushy,
>protective inside of the American car causes roughly 50% of the head
>injury fatalities in the USA. And bike crashes cause less than 1%.

Strange, I thought it was the hard glass from side collisions that
causes head injuries, not the cushy protective parts. That's what I
remember from the last class. However, by your formula for
statistics, we're significantly safer if we commit suicide by the
"cut/pierce" method, which results in much less than 1% of ALL
fatalities, than we are riding a bike. So, if you're looking for a
safe way to while away the time and insist that total percentages
are a good way to gauge safety, you might try stabbing yourself in
the head with an icepick driven by a hammer (without a helmet),
rather than risk riding a bike.
--
Rick Onanian

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 14 Jan 2004 02:23:20 GMT, David Reuteler > wrote:

>uh-oh. looks like Guy forget to pay his registrar and the esteemed (not)
>Domain Deluxe of Hong Kong hijacked his domain name.

Worse. I asked my new ISP to effect the transfer, they botched it
(set up .co.uk instead of transferring .com although my instructions
were unambiguous) and by the time I found out it was too late.

chapmancentral.demon.co.uk finds me, www.chapmancentral.co.uk will do
soon (I finally agreed to accept that domain as part of a package of
compensation for the cockup and faxed instructions to the hostmaster
yesterday) and I am going to see if I can get the old domain back.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

[frkrygow]

Rick Onanian wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:39:54 -0500, "frkrygow"
> > wrote:
>
>>For review - so you don't have to repeat the class - the cushy,
>>protective inside of the American car causes roughly 50% of the head
>>injury fatalities in the USA. And bike crashes cause less than 1%.
>
>
> Strange, I thought it was the hard glass from side collisions that
> causes head injuries, not the cushy protective parts. That's what I
> remember from the last class.

The side window is part of it, of course, but it's certainly not all of
it. If you get a chance to see a slow motion replay of a test-dummy
crash, you may see (as I did) the dummy's head hitting the inside of the
roof, the A pillar, the B pillar, the steering wheel...

True, these objects aren't what I'd describe as "cushy." That was just
a parody of the many folks who have posted here, "But in a car, you're
protected by the car's body..."


> However, by your formula for
> statistics, we're significantly safer if we commit suicide by the
> "cut/pierce" method, which results in much less than 1% of ALL
> fatalities, than we are riding a bike. So, if you're looking for a
> safe way to while away the time and insist that total percentages
> are a good way to gauge safety, you might try stabbing yourself in
> the head with an icepick driven by a hammer (without a helmet),
> rather than risk riding a bike.

Obviously, we can all demonstrate reductions to the absurd. But
hopefully, we can get people at least thinking a _little_ critically.
That's better than the too-common parroting of "danger, danger!" that
the "safety" folks produce.


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]