Interesting cycling article

http://jralong.com/2019/11/20/bike-h...ws-are-stupid/

Lots there, some of which seemed off to me, but thoughtful
at any rate.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 5:34:17 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
http://jralong.com/2019/11/20/bike-h...ws-are-stupid/

Lots there, some of which seemed off to me, but thoughtful
at any rate.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Locally there was a series of lights that were all timed so that if you went through one you have a clear path through all four of them. They changed the damn things and the other day I rode right through a red light. I forgot that and almost did it again yesterday seeing it at the last second and managing to stop and not block any traffic.

Pulling out of my driveway yesterday to go to the store some 13 year old kid was riding full bore down the sidewalk and I almost hit him. Since there are several cars in the way I don't know how I can do any different than creep out like I normally do. I guess its legal for 13 year olds to ride on the sidewalk but they really should ride in a vehicular manner since they are old enough to learn the proper manner. This one apparently was racing two or three others that were out in the street also on the wrong side of the road and blocked from sight by parked cars. I would sure hate to hurt some kid for being a kid but streets are growing more and more dangerous and the schools should at least provide a modicum of instruction. After all, it would only be one day out of a school year.

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 07:34:01 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

http://jralong.com/2019/11/20/bike-h...ws-are-stupid/

Lots there, some of which seemed off to me, but thoughtful
at any rate.

One of the things I dislike is arbitrary laws that say "Thou Must Do
This". I've always thought that penalizing the evil doer for his
actions was preferable. For example, "failure to wear a helmet will
result in cancellation of any and all medical insurance".

Go ahead and ignore the helmet if you wish, just don't expect others
to pay your medical costs.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 26/11/19 11:15 am, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 07:34:01 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

http://jralong.com/2019/11/20/bike-h...ws-are-stupid/

Lots there, some of which seemed off to me, but thoughtful
at any rate.

One of the things I dislike is arbitrary laws that say "Thou Must Do
This". I've always thought that penalizing the evil doer for his
actions was preferable. For example, "failure to wear a helmet will
result in cancellation of any and all medical insurance".

Go ahead and ignore the helmet if you wish, just don't expect others
to pay your medical costs.

It was shown that driving helmets in the form of soft shell bicycle
helmets, have the potential to save many people from head injuries and
many $.

https://www.monash.edu/muarc/archive/our-publications/reports/atsb160

(For the Australian car fleet about the year 1997.)

"The total benefits associated with headwear in the form of a soft shell
bicycle helmet were estimated to be $380 million (assuming a fully
airbag equipped fleet), or $476 per car ($626 for cars without airbags)."

Pedestrians also generally suffer head injuries when a car is driven in
to them. Their head smashes the windscreen, typically. Though I
haven't seen a similar analysis of the potential savings of pedestrian
helmets, I do know that many times more pedestrians are killed each year
than cyclists - yet they walk around helmet free.

What's more, pedestrians expect others to pay their medical costs.

Similarly smokers, sloths and those addicted to sugar and fatty foods.

Just where do you draw the line on self harm and public health support?

I mean, I have no weight issues. No known health problems. I rarely
(many years between) visit a doctor or hospital, and I have private
health insurance.

Can I ride a bike without wearing a helmet without being helmet shamed
and suffering ridicule?

--
JS

On 11/25/2019 7:15 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 07:34:01 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

http://jralong.com/2019/11/20/bike-h...ws-are-stupid/

Lots there, some of which seemed off to me, but thoughtful
at any rate.

One of the things I dislike is arbitrary laws that say "Thou Must Do
This". I've always thought that penalizing the evil doer for his
actions was preferable. For example, "failure to wear a helmet will
result in cancellation of any and all medical insurance".

Go ahead and ignore the helmet if you wish, just don't expect others
to pay your medical costs.

That's a foolishly common remark about bike helmets. It assumes that
bicycling is an important source of serious brain injuries, that
individual bicyclists are under great risk of serious brain injuries,
and that helmets remove a very large amount of that risk. None of those
are true.

If those with no helmets and brain injuries should be denied insurance
coverage, shouldn't that apply first to those who suffer the greatest
number of such injuries, therefore imposing the most cost on the
insurance companies? Seems logical to me.

So, John, your assignment, should you wish to accept it: Give us a
ranked list of the activities that cause significant brain injuries. I
think you'll find that bicycling is far, far down on the list. (It
doesn't even appear on most lists I've seen.)

As one clue, bicyclists comprise only about 0.6% of U.S. brain injury
fatalities. Pedestrians are far more. Pedestrians are also far more per
mile traveled.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 12:05:29 +1100, James
wrote:

On 26/11/19 11:15 am, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 07:34:01 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

http://jralong.com/2019/11/20/bike-h...ws-are-stupid/

Lots there, some of which seemed off to me, but thoughtful
at any rate.

One of the things I dislike is arbitrary laws that say "Thou Must Do
This". I've always thought that penalizing the evil doer for his
actions was preferable. For example, "failure to wear a helmet will
result in cancellation of any and all medical insurance".

Go ahead and ignore the helmet if you wish, just don't expect others
to pay your medical costs.

It was shown that driving helmets in the form of soft shell bicycle
helmets, have the potential to save many people from head injuries and
many $.

https://www.monash.edu/muarc/archive/our-publications/reports/atsb160

(For the Australian car fleet about the year 1997.)

"The total benefits associated with headwear in the form of a soft shell
bicycle helmet were estimated to be $380 million (assuming a fully
airbag equipped fleet), or $476 per car ($626 for cars without airbags)."

Pedestrians also generally suffer head injuries when a car is driven in
to them. Their head smashes the windscreen, typically. Though I
haven't seen a similar analysis of the potential savings of pedestrian
helmets, I do know that many times more pedestrians are killed each year
than cyclists - yet they walk around helmet free.

What's more, pedestrians expect others to pay their medical costs.

Similarly smokers, sloths and those addicted to sugar and fatty foods.

Just where do you draw the line on self harm and public health support?

I mean, I have no weight issues. No known health problems. I rarely
(many years between) visit a doctor or hospital, and I have private
health insurance.

Can I ride a bike without wearing a helmet without being helmet shamed
and suffering ridicule?

As you mention, people do a great many things that can endanger
themselves.

One example, the majority of the USian tourists I see are overweight
yet any doctor will tell you that being overweight endangers your
heart and likely some other bits and pieces.
And, I'm sure that far more people die of heart problems than die of
bicycle head injuries. I just read a news article that said that 4 out
of 5 teenagers do not get sufficient exercise to remain healthy.

The U.S. Air Force, back in the late 1960's or early 1970's initiated
a physical fitness program that, I believe, is still in effect, that
monitored your weight and physical strength, It was called the 5BX
program and involved being weighed at certain intervals and having a
physical test twice (I think) a year.

But of course the military is a totalitarian society and when the Man
said jump you only asked "how high" and I doubt that any
democratically elected politician would care to sponsor a law to
control the population's weight :-)

So we make laws regarding bicyclists, as they are a tiny percentage of
the electorate and ignore the bulk of the population. Which, of
course, allows a politician to appear to be a caring person while at
the same time not endangering his chances of reelection.

But perhaps I am a cynic :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 22:18:28 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/25/2019 7:15 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 07:34:01 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

http://jralong.com/2019/11/20/bike-h...ws-are-stupid/

Lots there, some of which seemed off to me, but thoughtful
at any rate.

One of the things I dislike is arbitrary laws that say "Thou Must Do
This". I've always thought that penalizing the evil doer for his
actions was preferable. For example, "failure to wear a helmet will
result in cancellation of any and all medical insurance".

Go ahead and ignore the helmet if you wish, just don't expect others
to pay your medical costs.

That's a foolishly common remark about bike helmets. It assumes that
bicycling is an important source of serious brain injuries, that
individual bicyclists are under great risk of serious brain injuries,
and that helmets remove a very large amount of that risk. None of those
are true.

If those with no helmets and brain injuries should be denied insurance
coverage, shouldn't that apply first to those who suffer the greatest
number of such injuries, therefore imposing the most cost on the
insurance companies? Seems logical to me.

So, John, your assignment, should you wish to accept it: Give us a
ranked list of the activities that cause significant brain injuries. I
think you'll find that bicycling is far, far down on the list. (It
doesn't even appear on most lists I've seen.)

As one clue, bicyclists comprise only about 0.6% of U.S. brain injury
fatalities. Pedestrians are far more. Pedestrians are also far more per
mile traveled.

Ah Frank, you leap into the fray before you think about the statement.

The bicycle helmet story was just that, an example of how I think laws
should be enforced. I could have written "climb all the mountains you
want to but if you fall off you get to pay your own medical bills".
Or, don't wear a safety belt if you don't want but when your head goes
through the windshield don't expect us to pay.
--
cheers,

John B.