#21
|
|||
|
|||
Tue, 09 Nov 2004 18:54:03 -0500,
, Chris B. wrote: I think if helmet laws are effective at keeping people off bicycles we'll only see more of them enacted. Yes, we will, absolutely. See, sometimes cynics can be right. We've shown that helmets don't reduce injuries. They're ignoring the data which shows that cycling adds more years to a person's life than cycling related injuries or inactivity reduces it. Obviously these laws aren't "for our own good". Just as the CAA strongly supports "bike" paths that would force cyclists off the road. That and helmets are the nearly sole emphasis of 'cycling advocates', politicians (certainly here in Ontario - particularly Toronto) and a surprisingly large number of self-loathing cyclists. Beware of the creeping Green nazis. They're scarier than the Raging Grannies and Critical Mass together. -- zk |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Maggie wrote:
What this newbie gets from all the accidents I am reading about is the following.....Stay in the park so you don't get killed or get hat hair from wearing a helmet. Not to be flip about all this, but all the accident stories make me feel as if riding a bike in traffic is not worth it. I am too old to die this young. I made it to age 50.....I'd like to keep going. Maggie, don't think that. Try reading http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/SteppingStones.htm to get an unbiased look at the safety level of cycling. Or if you prefer a woman's view, you could visit http://www.ucolick.org/~de/AltTrans/roadsafety.html That Bicycling Life site has lots of info on how to ride safely, both in traffic and elsewhere. Look in the "Safety Skills" section. You might also read "Street Smarts" at http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/ I'd say as long as you learn what to do, and gradually increase your skill and confidence level, you'll have no trouble. At least, that's how it happened for me. Don't let the fearmongers scare you away from this beautiful activity. -- --------------------+ Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu] |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Very witty comeback to the Doc. Can I steal it if I ever get in
incredibly good shape and end up in the ER??? http://hometown.aol.com/lbuset/ I wish I could claim credit for wittiness. I didn't realize what I'd said until after it came out. Then I thought to myself, "that was amazingly witty for someone lying here mangled, in shock, who hasn't yet had any pain killing drugs." I hope you won't find occassion to use it, but if you do, I hope you can. Bob C. I hope (in my dreams) I find occasion to use it, because then I would be in the ER in INCREDIBLY GOOD SHAPE. Do you know what that means to someone my age. I forget what incredibly good shape feels like. I forget what just plain ole "good shape" feels like....forget the INCREDIBLY part. I am shooting for.....Wow, she is in pretty good shape for a woman her age. ;-) I am also shooting for....getting out of bed in the morning and feeling like I am 25 again. I think I might be able to manage the PRETTY GOOD SHAPE FOR HER AGE part....but not feeling 25 again. Oh well, that's life. I may be older but I'll never be wiser. http://hometown.aol.com/lbuset/ |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 05:57:08 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
wrote: I honestly believe that a properly shaped Styrofoam surround is capable of protecting what is within it. T Against what? The foam in a helmet is roughly equivalent to that in which a computer comes packed. If you dropped your computer in its packaging, you'd expect it to be OK. If you hit it with a truck, you'd be stunned if it wasn't flattened. 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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message ... On 9 Nov 2004 05:08:54 -0800, (Maggie) wrote: If you want dangerous, try riding a motorcycle :-) Not JUST stirring for the sake of it but.......... does that imply you are infavour of compusion for motorcycle helmets? pk |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:04:25 +0000 (UTC), "PK"
wrote: If you want dangerous, try riding a motorcycle :-) Not JUST stirring for the sake of it but.......... does that imply you are infavour of compusion for motorcycle helmets? I don't really have an opinion. There is some evidence to suggest that head injury risk goes down when motorcycle helmet laws are repealed, and the death rate in British motorcyclists certainly rose relative to all other road users when the law was introduced, so the risk compensation thesis looks on solid ground to me, but I haven't studied it in anything like enough detail to have more than a gut feel about it. 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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 05:57:08 GMT, "Leo Lichtman" wrote: I honestly believe that a properly shaped Styrofoam surround is capable of protecting what is within it. T Against what? The foam in a helmet is roughly equivalent to that in which a computer comes packed. If you dropped your computer in its packaging, you'd expect it to be OK. If you hit it with a truck, you'd be stunned if it wasn't flattened. Actually, the last computer I bout had somewhere on the order of 20-50 times as much foam as a helmet. Id' still expect the computer to be done if hit by a truck (or car or motorcycle or if dropped from 6 feet at 25 MPH). Austin -- I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please! There are no X characters in my address |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
PK wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message ... On 9 Nov 2004 05:08:54 -0800, (Maggie) wrote: If you want dangerous, try riding a motorcycle :-) Not JUST stirring for the sake of it but.......... does that imply you are infavour of compusion for motorcycle helmets? FWIW, I've looked at the data for motorcycling. From what I've seen, the average risk of fatality, or serious injury, or serious head injury are all much worse for motorcycling than either bicycling, walking near traffic or riding in a car. But no, I don't think motorcycle helmets should be compulsory. Not unless you also forbid being overweight, eating the "wrong" food, not exercising, drinking at home, smoking, and other "naughty" behavior that affects a person's life and health. Radical that I am, I also believe a person should be allowed to climb trees, climb rock walls, clean their gutters by standing on their roof, kayak without a license, jog at night, fly ultralight aircraft, and lots of other things that certain people might think dangerous. In contrast to these things, preventing cycling without a helmet is even less justifiable. Because in contrast to these things, cycling has significant _positive_ benefits, both to the participant and to society. It makes no sense to impose that restriction and thus discourage such a beneficial activity. -- Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com. Substitute cc dot ysu dot edu] |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Frank Krygowski" wrote FWIW, I've looked at the data for motorcycling. From what I've seen, the average risk of fatality, or serious injury, or serious head injury are all much worse for motorcycling than either bicycling, walking near traffic or riding in a car. Part of the problem with motorcycles is the new guy syndrome. Anyone can go buy a vastly overpowered crotchrocket. I'd be surprised if a LOT of those injuries/fatalities weren't in the first year or so of ridership. Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
published helmet research - not troll | patrick | Racing | 1790 | November 8th 04 03:16 AM |
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 |
Fule face helmet - review | Mikefule | Unicycling | 8 | January 14th 04 05:56 PM |