|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:10:06 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
Helmet laws do nothing to stop people from riding like idiots. They do! They do! I just think this is an absurd way to go about public safety. I'm no more against helmets than seatbelts and airbags...but address the cause--why are bikes & riders hitting the pavement--not the symptom--purple owies. I've lived in places in the world where people are much more bike savvy than in the US and Canada and follow the rules of the road better--they don't seem to wear a lot of helmets, though they're catching on for kids, but they don't seem to fall down as much either. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:26:31 GMT, Chris Phillipo
wrote: When I see soemone without a helmet I an urked by it but when I see soemone riding towards me on the wrong side of the road I can only think that Darwinism sure takes a long time to kick in. When I see someone else riding without a helmet I think :Good, one less to be counted as a stealth vote for compulsion. The only reason we don't have a id law now is that wearing rates are so low it would be unenforceable. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Chris Phillipo wrote:
When I see soemone without a helmet I an urked [sic] by it... Why on earth? When I see someone riding without a helmet, I think "Cool - there's someone riding!" Your post indicates the anti-bicyclist mindset of the helmet promoters. You must actually feel that riding a bicycle does more harm than good! -- Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com. Substitute cc dot ysu dot edu] |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Chris Phillipo wrote
In article , says... I'm saying that he constantly posts statistics that claim helmet use is detrimental to the health of the people because it deters them from riding, I counter that in Nova Scotia helmet use is not enforced so where exactly is this deterrent for riders? Chris, these two statements don't oppose and contradict each other. Come again? Take a deep breath. Just because a law is not enforced, doesn't mean there aren't people who obey it. The existence of the law (whether or not it is enforced) _is_ a deterrent. Austin |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
AustinMN wrote:
Chris Phillipo wrote In article , says... I'm saying that he constantly posts statistics that claim helmet use is detrimental to the health of the people because it deters them from riding, I counter that in Nova Scotia helmet use is not enforced so where exactly is this deterrent for riders? Chris, these two statements don't oppose and contradict each other. Come again? Take a deep breath. Just because a law is not enforced, doesn't mean there aren't people who obey it. The existence of the law (whether or not it is enforced) _is_ a deterrent. More to the point, just because a law is not enforced - or, more likely, not _usually_ enforced - doesn't mean that there are people who are put off by the _possibility_ of enforcement. Those who think a MHL has no effect on cycling are being very unrealistic. -- Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com. Substitute cc dot ysu dot edu] |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Frank Krygowski wrote:
AustinMN wrote: Chris Phillipo wrote In article , says... I'm saying that he constantly posts statistics that claim helmet use is detrimental to the health of the people because it deters them from riding, I counter that in Nova Scotia helmet use is not enforced so where exactly is this deterrent for riders? Chris, these two statements don't oppose and contradict each other. Come again? Take a deep breath. Just because a law is not enforced, doesn't mean there aren't people who obey it. The existence of the law (whether or not it is enforced) _is_ a deterrent. More to the point, just because a law is not enforced - or, more likely, not _usually_ enforced - doesn't mean that there are people who are put off by the _possibility_ of enforcement. To go even further, the mere existence of a law purported to be for "safety" purposes, even if it is *guaranteed* to be unenforced, can potentially be a deterrent, since it spreads the idea, sometimes unconsciously, that the activity is dangerous. -- Benjamin Lewis Evelyn the dog, having undergone further modification, pondered the significance of short-person behavior in pedal-depressed panchromatic resonance and other highly ambient domains... "Arf", she said. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Does cycling without a helmet really need to be be criminal?
Who are you hurting beside yourself if you choose not to wear a helmet? What is the crime? I think children should wear helmets, but adults should make their own choice. I rode on the back of a motorcycle without a helmet. The laws were not enforced back then, but I am glad my son wears one when he goes out on his motorcycle. It was a choice. Stupid or not, it was our choice not to wear helmets. My son must have one on or he will be pulled over. I am glad its not a choice for him. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Chris Phillipo wrote:
Are you listening? I said ridership is UP not DOWN. His study is flawed in it's collection methods. IIRC, ridership is finally "up" in some other jurisdictions that instituted helmet laws. But wait! It's "up" compared to what it was 10 years ago, when the laws were introduced. Does that mean the effect of MHLs is to increase riding? Hardly! The immediate effect of MHLs has been to reduce riding significantly. Enforced MHLs have been shown to reduce riding by about 30%, and even more among certain age groups. Given enough time, other changes _may_ lead to a recovery. For example, population growth may eventually allow one to say "there are now more riders than before" - but that doesn't mean there are more riders than there _would_ have been! I'm curious how someone can believe a MHL increases ridership. In fact, I'm curious how someone can believe it's neutral. Certainly, there will be _some_ people who will say "If I'm forced to wear a helmet, I'm not riding." Certainly there will be those who say "Damn, if it's so dangerous they require a helmet, I don't want to do it at all!" Where do you find people who say "Oh, I'm not allowed to ride without a helmet, eh? Great! That makes me want to take up cycling!" -- Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com. Substitute cc dot ysu dot edu] |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Maggie wrote:
Does cycling without a helmet really need to be be criminal? Who are you hurting beside yourself if you choose not to wear a helmet? What is the crime? I think children should wear helmets, but adults should make their own choice. I think parents should be allowed to make the choice for their children. My kids are grown, but they _certainly_ did a lot of riding without bike helmets. In fact, I assume _all_ of us did. A parent is allowed to let his kid climb a tree without a helmet. He's allowed to let his kid play pickup baseball without a helmet. He's allowed to let his kid ride his pony without a helmet. In each of these, and many other situations, the choice is reasonably left up to the parent. What in the world is so dangerous about cycling that justifies overpowering parental judgement? -- Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com. Substitute cc dot ysu dot edu] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | Social Issues | 1716 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
Another doctor questions helmet research | JFJones | General | 80 | August 16th 04 10:44 AM |
First Helmet : jury is out. | Walter Mitty | General | 125 | June 26th 04 02:00 AM |
Fule face helmet - review | Mikefule | Unicycling | 8 | January 14th 04 05:56 PM |