A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #761  
Old January 15th 06, 07:34 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,rec.bicycles.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark


Sorni wrote:

I wear/ use what seems to me to be
appropriate clothes/gear/equipment for that activity.


Your choice is your own, at least in most areas. (Some are not allowed
to choose.)

But how do you decide what "seems to be appropriate"?

Understand, up to 1975 in America, everybody thought no hat, or perhaps
a cotton cap with a brim, seemed appropriate for cycling. There was no
epidemic of serious head injuries that told anyone different. There
were no newspaper or magazine articles about the head injury danger of
cycling.

Then, with the Bell Biker came the articles explaining why you might
need such a thing. I recall Buycycling magazine justifying helmet
wearing by printing an article about a rider who fell and was
concussed. My friends and I were extremely skeptical. In all our
countless miles as children and adults, we'd never heard of such a
thing - and the rider was merely dazed, in any case.

It took energetic funding by Snell, and heavy promotion by Safe Kids,
The Harborview Institute and others to invent and publicize a
connection between cycling and head injury. Now, after 15 years of
work, they've made the connection "seem appropriate."

If it were not for their heavy advertising, it would "seem to be
appropriate" to call a foam hat ludicrous. It still seems that way for
the vast majority of the world's cyclists - those who haven't been
attacked with the propaganda, or who have enough experience to resist.


In defense of the people who buy the propaganda, this line of thought
is certainly not unique to cycling helmets. It's now being heavily
promoted that the ground under a jungle gym must be covered with rubber
- as if kids never climb trees. Now every surface a toddler may ever
touch must be padded with rubber and sanitized. Now cars come with
headlights that the drivers are incapable of turning off. Paper cups
of coffee have hazard warnings printed on the sides. Scissors and
knives come in boxes that say "Caution! Contents may be sharp!" and
so on.

One day, we may find it's illegal to cycle without a GPS, in case we
get lost, take a break in a coffeee shop to get out bearings, and
fatally scald ourselves.

- Frank Krygowski

Ads
  #762  
Old January 15th 06, 10:15 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,rec.bicycles.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark

The Wogster wrote:

I am against MHL's but I actually have a helmet, and use it when riding,
for a couple of reasons, one is that most people know what a bicycle
helmet is, and figure if your wearing one, your probably on a bicycle,
they can often see your head, even when the bicycle itself is not visible.


Interestingly I've come to the conclusion that a helmet is
counter-productive in your objectives. When I stopped wearing a helmet
a couple of years ago it was very noticeable that cars gave me more room
and more attention. I've come to the conclusion its because they
identify me as a person and a vulnerable one instead of a helmet and
protected

Try it yourself - its very difficult to identify or recognise someone
cycling with a helmet. You try to recognise them by their clothing and
helmet. If they are helmetless you can see their head and identify them
by their face which makes them human.


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
  #764  
Old January 15th 06, 11:05 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,rec.bicycles.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark

In uk.rec.cycling Sorni wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:


I'll just say this: I consider /perceived/ risk of failure, and equip
myself accordingly. For example, I wear a seatbelt every time I drive, even
though the chance that I'll "need" it is miniscule. I've had homeowner's
insurance for 15 years; never submitted a claim. Ridden my road bike over
10K miles; haven't fallen once (yet).


But IF I'm going 45 mph down a steep hill and IF I flat or hit a hole or
sandy patch, I want to have a helmet on my head when it hits the pavement
(hard, glancing, sliding, whatever).


You're quite right, it's a question of perceived risk. The reason I
wouldn't wear a cycle helmet going downhill at 45mph is because my
perception is that if I fell off at that speed and hit my head on the
road I'd be more at risk of the helmet giving me a rotational injury
than it saving me from some other injury. I might wear some other kind
of helmet, but IMHO cycle helmets in those circs are worse than
nothing. Unlike some other kinds of helmet, that problem has not been
considered seriously in their design. I'm not against helmets per se,
I just think the current crop of cycle helmets are a con, a marketing
scam.

--
Chris Malcolm +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[
http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

  #765  
Old January 16th 06, 03:18 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark


"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

"The Wogster" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
The real question is, should we legislate against stupidity? Let me
explain, manditory seatbelt use, for motor vehicle operators is a good
idea, it keeps the operator at the controls as long as possible, allowing
them to possibly take evasive action to prevent further injury and
property damage. Laws against drunk or stoned driving, also a good idea,
as those people often injure innocent bystanders, and damage the property
of others.

Both of these laws are designed to protect others, the fact that the
operator often gains some benefit is a side issue. However legislating
seatbelt use for others in a vehicle, other then the operator, is simply
legislating against stupidity. I consider bicycle helmets in the same
category, mandatory helmet laws, are only legislating against someone's
own foolish behavior.


Newsgroups modified.

I am very much in favor of the government protecting us from our own
stupidity. Any other view is a libertarian one and is quite callous as
well as being wrongheaded.

We are living in very complex societies and amidst technological phenomena
that none of us have much understanding of. We need laws to protect us
from our own stupidity, or better, ignorance. I am not about to embark on
learning everything that it would be necessary for me to know for my own
safety. I prefer that the government do it for me - and so does everyone
else whether they realize it or not.

You have not thought through the implications of your statement above. You
can be either for or against helmets, but it is pointless to be against
laws regulating their use once it has been established that helmets
protect us from our own stupidity. Everyone is stupid, only on different
subjects.

I have heard this Canadian complaint too many times about there being too
many laws. Must be a Canadian thing. We Americans like lots and lots of
laws, the more the merrier until they start conflicting with one another.
Hey, why do you think we have so many lawyers in this country?

The one thing that used to amaze me is that in communist countries you had
very few lawyers. Good or bad? You tell me!

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota



There remains controversy over whether or not helmets 1. Prevent injury, 2.
Discourage cycling (because of mandatory helmet laws).

You can take whatever position you want about helmets but you can't easily
make the controversy go away.

Regarding laws to protect us from ourselves:

We have always been a fiercely independent people who don't like being told
what to do. We tolerate restricting personal liberty when we feel it is for
a good cause, however. It is one thing to say that we should all be allowed
to do whatever we want but in the same breath you must realize that when
things turn out badly, the libertarian may end up being cared for by the
society and thus a burden.

Should tobacco be outlawed? Should eating or drinking to excess? On the
other hand, should drugs be legalized?

I'm not looking for specific answers to the above questions. They merely
serve to point out that the discussion about personal freedom vs. legal
restriction of personal liberty is a complex one.

We have a lot of lawyers because the pay is good. When there are so many
that they must compete by lowering their rates, or if we achieve meaningful
tort reform, then the number of new lawyers will drop. People will always go
where the money is. I can almost guarantee you that most lawyers are not
there because they "love the law", some are, but not most.

Jeff


  #766  
Old January 16th 06, 04:44 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark


"Jeff Grippe" wrote in message
...

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

[...]
I have heard this Canadian complaint too many times about there being too
many laws. Must be a Canadian thing. We Americans like lots and lots of
laws, the more the merrier until they start conflicting with one another.
Hey, why do you think we have so many lawyers in this country?

The one thing that used to amaze me is that in communist countries you
had very few lawyers. Good or bad? You tell me!


There remains controversy over whether or not helmets 1. Prevent injury,
2. Discourage cycling (because of mandatory helmet laws).

You can take whatever position you want about helmets but you can't easily
make the controversy go away.


If there are laws on the books mandating helmets, then we should obey those
laws. The fact that the laws got on to the books in the first place
prejudices me in favor of them. I do not want to have to decide for myself
whether helmets are good or bad. I want someone else who is expert in the
subject to decide for me.

Regarding laws to protect us from ourselves:

We have always been a fiercely independent people who don't like being
told what to do. We tolerate restricting personal liberty when we feel it
is for a good cause, however. It is one thing to say that we should all be
allowed to do whatever we want but in the same breath you must realize
that when things turn out badly, the libertarian may end up being cared
for by the society and thus a burden.

Should tobacco be outlawed? Should eating or drinking to excess? On the
other hand, should drugs be legalized?

I'm not looking for specific answers to the above questions. They merely
serve to point out that the discussion about personal freedom vs. legal
restriction of personal liberty is a complex one.


We Americans are no longer fiercely independent. You are talking about our
forefathers. Today we have grown lazy and dependent and we want the
government to do as much as possible for us. We really are no different than
the Europeans in that respect.

We have a lot of lawyers because the pay is good. When there are so many
that they must compete by lowering their rates, or if we achieve
meaningful tort reform, then the number of new lawyers will drop. People
will always go where the money is. I can almost guarantee you that most
lawyers are not there because they "love the law", some are, but not most.


The question that needs to be answered is why American society has so many
lawyers in comparison to other societies which are not oriented in the same
way as ours. Communist societies for instance have very few lawyers, but
lots and lots of bureaucrats. Does this not tell us something significant
about the differences between the two types of societies.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota


  #767  
Old January 31st 06, 01:31 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,rec.bicycles.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark

In message . com, peter
wrote:

But it's the advocates of MHLs that are citing all the truly junk
science case control studies like the ones by Thompson/Rivara. These
use self-selected population samples and erroniously base their
conclusions on the *assumption* that the only explanation for different
injuries between the groups is their choice of head covering.


From my observations helmet wearers are also more likely to:
Wear hi-visibility clothing.
Have 2 independent brakes.
Use lights.
Not ride on the pavement.
Cycle in a safe manner.

I meet a boy once at night who admitted to removing the lights, and since
his rear wheel was bent, the rear brakes as well. He wasn't wearing a
helmet. Other examples are using dim LED lights or a handheld torch on a
unlit road.

I've never seen such reckless cyclists wearing helmets.



--
Member AFFS, WYLUG, SWP (UK), UAF, RESPECT, StWC
OpenPGP key fingerprint: D0A6 F403 9745 CED4 6B3B 94CC 8D74 8FC9 9F7F CFE4
No to software patents! Victory to the iraqi resistance!
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gobsmacked wafflycat UK 63 January 4th 06 07:50 PM
water bottles,helmets Mark General 191 July 17th 05 04:05 PM
Rec.Bicycles Frequently Asked Questions Posting Part 1/5 Mike Iglesias General 4 October 29th 04 07:11 AM
Five cyclists cleared Marty Wallace Australia 2 July 3rd 04 11:15 PM
MP wants cyclists banned-Morn. Pen. rickster Australia 10 June 1st 04 01:22 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.