bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 09 Mar 2007 16:55:06 From: Just A User Subject: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about regular road riding? Ken   Date: 26 Mar 2007 21:35:13 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <NXENh.17669$Jl.7811@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net >, "Claire Petersky" <cpetersky@mouse-potato.com > writes: >> Seattle rates a recent (early 2000's) 0.7% modal share of >> bicycle working trips, > > The 2000 U.S. Census found 1.8 percent of adults in Seattle commute by > bicycle. Well anyway, it's good to know that Seattle cycle-commuters aren't giving up in droves because of any MHL. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 25 Mar 2007 16:27:54 From: John Kane Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 19, 11:13 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > In article <1174353415.219227.41...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> writes: > > >> > You shouldn't even joke about what you were > >> > joking about at the end of your post. Only > >> > a miserable fuckhead would say such things. > > >> > Robert > > >> GFY > > > Like an earthworm? ;-) > > Why are cyclists so often our own worst enemies? " > > Anyways, wrt to Robert's alleged dearth of transportational > cycling in Seattle, according to John Pucher's & Ralph > Buehler's paper: "Why Canadians cycle more than Americans: > A comparative analysis of bicycling trends and policies", > Seattle rates a recent (early 2000's) 0.7% modal share of > bicycle working trips, which is well above that of many > southeastern states, a large number of which rate aroung 0.1%. That's an interesting paper you quote. However were you as surprised as I was to learn that Nunavut had become a province? I really must listen to the CBC more. "the northernmost province of Nunavut" pg 270. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada     Date: 26 Mar 2007 01:01:33 From: Claire Petersky Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling > Seattle rates a recent (early 2000's) 0.7% modal share of > bicycle working trips, The 2000 U.S. Census found 1.8 percent of adults in Seattle commute by bicycle. The rate is 2.2 percent in Tucson, 1.9 percent in San Francisco, .5 percent in Chicago. -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky       Date: 26 Mar 2007 01:03:52 From: Claire Petersky Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Probably only of interest to Seattle locals: Ten percent of the state's bike commuters live in the 17 census tracts just north of the Fremont bridge. -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky   Date: 20 Mar 2007 07:39:23 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 20, 2:08 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > In article <1174365397.944441.31...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > frkry...@gmail.com writes: > > > Thompson and Rivara (and another Thompson) authored the 1989 paper > > that famously claimed that helmets prevent 85% of head injuries. > > That's become the most common claim of helmet effectiveness - > > specifically because it's the highest ever made, I think. It's a lot > > like the diet ads "Lose 150 pounds in one month!" or other such > > nonsense. > > > Largely as a result of that claim, entire populations of countries > > have been forced to wear helmets each time they ride. Yet no > > jurisdiction has ever seen anything close to that "85%" benefit. In > > fact, on a per-remaining-rider basis, things generally get worse than > > before the big increase in helmet use. > > I'm not terribly thrilled about exaggerated claims of the > efficacy of bicycle helmets, myself. In fact I suspect > they may well make things worse for riders by lulling car > drivers into more careless attitudes around helmeted riders. That's certainly possible. We once had a post here quoting a driver saying exactly that. And a recent paper in Acccident Analysis & Prevention claims to have measured the effect. > I nevertheless question the guessing that increased > helmet use and MHLs results in decreased ridership. I'm surprised you characterize it as a "guess"! First, it's been measured repeatedly: Install a helmet law, watch cycling drop immediately. The cause-effect relationship has been confirmed by follow-up telephone surveys. Naysayers have claimed that increased MV traffic might be the cause, or greater popularity of skateboards (!) or other wild excuses. But traffic or other purported distractions change gradually. They don't occur the exact time a MHL is introduced, the exact time a 30% drop occurs. Second, it seems irrational to pretend a MHL would not produce _some_ decrease. Obviously, there are people who choose not to wear a bike helmet, for whatever reason (expense, personal appearance, discomfort, inconvenience, whatever). Some of those people dislike helmets more than they love bicycling. They'll cycle far less, or not at all, if forced to wear the foam beanie. Granted? Do you really think there would be an equal number of people who will say "Gee, I never rode my bike much before. But now have to buy a helmet. That makes riding a lot more fun! I'll ride more!" I can't see that happening. That's aside from the negative publicity that accompanies every helmet crusade, the statements like "800 cyclists are killed every year! You MUST wear a helmet!!!" and "Up to 75% of cycling deaths involve a head injury!!!!" I see those statements as disincentives to cycling. Certainly, they're going to scare some people away! Incidentally, most of this stuff is explained in scientific detail at www.cyclehelmets.org. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 20 Mar 2007 00:45:07 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <td5ote.tkj.ln@bud.garden.local >, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes: > Seattle suffers immensely from car traffic congestion. > I mean, just look at this: > http://www.answers.com/topic/traffic-congestion-map I forgot to note: Vancouver BC does not have any expressways running through it. We do have some feeder routes to the Trans-Canada Highway, but cyclists as well as pedestrians have pushbuttons to stop the traffic so we can get across them safely (as long as drivers don't run their red lights.) Vancouver BC and Seattle WA are pretty much twin cities, and we share much culture between us, including MHLs. But we also have differences. Vancouver is fairly cycling successful. Frankly, I think Seattle is, too, but is under-recognized. Anyways, Vancouver BC and Seattle are similar in having MHLs and the same weather systems, and all kinds of similar conditions. Except for being stuck with expressways. If Seattlites don't want to ride as much as Vancouverites, there's something else going on besides helmet requirements. In Vancouver, you can at least get around at all (except for the omnipresent street work.) And if you look broke and are helmetless, the cops don't bug ya. Usually. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 20 Mar 2007 00:19:09 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <1174368740.356185.119770@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com >, r15757@aol.com writes: > Tom Keats wrote: > >> Why are cyclists so often our own worst enemies? >> >> Anyways, wrt to Robert's alleged dearth of transportational >> cycling in Seattle, according to John Pucher's & Ralph >> Buehler's paper: "Why Canadians cycle more than Americans: >> A comparative analysis of bicycling trends and policies", >> Seattle rates a recent (early 2000's) 0.7% modal share of >> bicycle working trips, which is well above that of many >> southeastern states, a large number of which rate aroung 0.1%. >> >> Are all those southeastern states & cities so fraught with >> MHLs as to discourage cycling to an even greater extent >> than Seattle? > > Seattle is like a cycling utopia > compared to the majority of the SE US. Seattle suffers immensely from car traffic congestion. I mean, just look at this: http://www.answers.com/topic/traffic-congestion-map Seattle /could/ be a Bicycle Utopia, if only they could just get rid of their Car Hades. I submit Seattle's cycling ridership would be increased more by increased accessibility, than by repealment of their MHL. I think Seattle is just a hard place to ride around in, unless you really know your way around. I retain the rest of your post unedited, for contextual and honesty purposes (unlike certain propagandist idea-logs.) cheers, Tom > Totally different worlds. Compared to almost > everywhere in the US for that matter. > That .7% is surprisingly low -- I would've > guessed at least twice that, closer to > other top US cycling cities. > > Robert > -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 19 Mar 2007 23:56:00 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <1174368740.356185.119770@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com >, r15757@aol.com writes: > Tom Keats wrote: > >> Why are cyclists so often our own worst enemies? >> >> Anyways, wrt to Robert's alleged dearth of transportational >> cycling in Seattle, according to John Pucher's & Ralph >> Buehler's paper: "Why Canadians cycle more than Americans: >> A comparative analysis of bicycling trends and policies", >> Seattle rates a recent (early 2000's) 0.7% modal share of >> bicycle working trips, which is well above that of many >> southeastern states, a large number of which rate aroung 0.1%. >> >> Are all those southeastern states & cities so fraught with >> MHLs as to discourage cycling to an even greater extent >> than Seattle? > > Seattle is like a cycling utopia > compared to the majority of the SE US. > Totally different worlds. Compared to almost > everywhere in the US for that matter. > That .7% is surprisingly low -- I would've > guessed at least twice that, closer to > other top US cycling cities. -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 19 Mar 2007 23:50:13 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <1174369456.248572.76540@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >, r15757@aol.com writes: > Tom Keats wrote: > >> Why are cyclists so often our own worst enemies? > > How could one cyclist say to another "see you > at harborview (i might even get to see neurosurg > do a crani on you!)" if they had ever had any > real experience with such horror as that? I (semi-)recall my first & last serious incident. It was like being born with some understanding of the English language. There were a number of fades in-&-out of consciousness. Going through the MRI with that ka-CHUNK! ka-CHUNK! noise getting closer and closer felt like I was gonna be lopped up into sausages or something. I think that time I just fainted from the freakiness of the experience. I also recall being rushed down the hospital corridors on a gurney and coming-to enough to look up at the ceiling lights rushing by, reminding me of PF's "The Wall", of which I made mention. The first time I woke up, there was a cop asking me a bunch of questions to which I answered: "I can't remember. Where's my bike?" I made careful note that he replied that it was safely stowed in the impound lot, ready for claiming and pick-up. I'm still riding that hit-head-on frame, but I had to swap out the fork. Eleven stitches and a sleepless night later, I retrieved my stalwart steed. It all happened during a late January night, coming home from the GF's place. Wee hours, rain turning to snow, me noticing the wiring had somehow popped out of my headlight just before everything went blank. I must've lain in a puddle for a long while before I got scooped up by the ERT (even though I was practically right in front of their ambulance/fire hall.) When the hospital let me go in the morning, they gave me back a doggy-bag of my swampy, bilaterally dissected clothing, including my reflective vest. Some custodian with a German accent and a highly reproachful tone begrudgingly gave me a pair of pants to go home in. I later turned those navy blue gabardines into a pair of cycling cutoffs, but eventually wore holes in the ass end of them. I was involved in a head-on collision with a car, I was dutifully wearing a helmet, and I got torpedo-launched over the handlebar, into a windshield. As I admittedly vaguely recall it, I was waiting for a break to cross a certain, local, problematic intersection, and got rammed-into by a corner-cutting, left-turning driver while I was dutifully leaving space to my right for upcoming right-turners. In retrospect, the street I was on was really too narrow to do that. Apparently I got that windshield real good. Getting clobbered sucks, and nobody should have to endure it. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 20 Mar 2007 17:08:40 From: Mike Latondresse Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote in news:ln3ote.5jj.ln@bud.garden.local: > I (semi-)recall my first & last serious incident. Was ICBC good to you??   Date: 19 Mar 2007 22:44:16 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Tom Keats wrote: > Why are cyclists so often our own worst enemies? How could one cyclist say to another "see you at harborview (i might even get to see neurosurg do a crani on you!)" if they had ever had any real experience with such horror as that?   Date: 19 Mar 2007 22:32:20 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Tom Keats wrote: > Why are cyclists so often our own worst enemies? > > Anyways, wrt to Robert's alleged dearth of transportational > cycling in Seattle, according to John Pucher's & Ralph > Buehler's paper: "Why Canadians cycle more than Americans: > A comparative analysis of bicycling trends and policies", > Seattle rates a recent (early 2000's) 0.7% modal share of > bicycle working trips, which is well above that of many > southeastern states, a large number of which rate aroung 0.1%. > > Are all those southeastern states & cities so fraught with > MHLs as to discourage cycling to an even greater extent > than Seattle? Seattle is like a cycling utopia compared to the majority of the SE US. Totally different worlds. Compared to almost everywhere in the US for that matter. That .7% is surprisingly low -- I would've guessed at least twice that, closer to other top US cycling cities. Robert   Date: 19 Mar 2007 22:08:18 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <1174365397.944441.31040@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com >, frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > Thompson and Rivara (and another Thompson) authored the 1989 paper > that famously claimed that helmets prevent 85% of head injuries. > That's become the most common claim of helmet effectiveness - > specifically because it's the highest ever made, I think. It's a lot > like the diet ads "Lose 150 pounds in one month!" or other such > nonsense. > > Largely as a result of that claim, entire populations of countries > have been forced to wear helmets each time they ride. Yet no > jurisdiction has ever seen anything close to that "85%" benefit. In > fact, on a per-remaining-rider basis, things generally get worse than > before the big increase in helmet use. I'm not terribly thrilled about exaggerated claims of the efficacy of bicycle helmets, myself. In fact I suspect they may well make things worse for riders by lulling car drivers into more careless attitudes around helmeted riders. I'm already on record here for opining that insistence of helmet use comes largely from car drivers who don't want to undergo the hassle of driving more carefully[*]. I nevertheless question the guessing that increased helmet use and MHLs results in decreased ridership. I can make guesses, too. I'll go so far as to guess that intraversable expressways and other scarily busy roadways (especially within cities) do a heckuva lot more to discourage ridership than does helmet usage and MHLs. cheers, Tom [*] A local cycling character recently proposed a sticker that says: "I wear a helmet so you can drive like a [expletive deleted] idiot." -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 20 Mar 2007 08:41:26 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Mon, 19 2007 22:08:18 -0800, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > >I nevertheless question the guessing that increased >helmet use and MHLs results in decreased ridership. > It's not "guessing"; it's been measured.   Date: 19 Mar 2007 21:36:37 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 19, 6:52 pm, "greggery peccary" <dinkylittleoff...@bigswifty.com > wrote: > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > Ah, Harborview. The prime helmet promoting and helmet mandating > > medical organization in the world. The ones that produced the > > laughable study that promised that helmets would prevent 85% of all > > head injuries (um, counting cut ears and scratched chins) - and are > > trying to squelch the fact that helmets haven't made any detectable > > difference. > > > If you really do get to see neurosurgeons at work, please start > > counting the number of patients that are there from bike crashes, vs. > > the number from other causes. Report back on what you find. > > > We know that nationally, about 99% of severe brain injuries have > > nothing at all to do with bicycling. I'm curious if Seattle is some > > sort of Twilight Zone Black Hole of Bicycling, with incredible head > > injury danger, and if that accounts for the weird attitudes of > > Thompson, Rivara, "greggery peccary" and the rest of Harborview. > > > Do report back, won't you? > > who is Thompson, Rivara? Thompson and Rivara (and another Thompson) authored the 1989 paper that famously claimed that helmets prevent 85% of head injuries. That's become the most common claim of helmet effectiveness - specifically because it's the highest ever made, I think. It's a lot like the diet ads "Lose 150 pounds in one month!" or other such nonsense. Largely as a result of that claim, entire populations of countries have been forced to wear helmets each time they ride. Yet no jurisdiction has ever seen anything close to that "85%" benefit. In fact, on a per-remaining-rider basis, things generally get worse than before the big increase in helmet use. How can this be? Briefly, Thompson & Rivara compared very, very different groups among the 200-odd people in their study. The mostly poor minority kids riding alone on city streets, being hit by cars, falling on hard surfaces, who didn't wear helmets were compared with the mostly middle class kids riding with their parents on bike paths who fell on soft surfaces while they wore helmets - and T&R "proved" that the great differences in injury were because of the helmets. Other researchers examined their data set and used the same techniques to "prove" that the helmets also reduced serious leg injuries by 75%. In other words, the injury differences were caused by a lot more than just helmets. In addition, T&R defined "head injury" as any cut, scratch, scrape, bruise or worse above the neck. Yes, they literally called scratched ears "Head Injuries." Of course, there is no official definition of "head injury," so they weren't technically lying. But when others extrapolated to claim helmets would prevent 85% of fatalities, they never publicly objected. The most charitable thing to say about T&R and The Harborview Institute (which they now call themselves and their colleagues) is that their missionary spirit is so strong that they feel it's not necessary to actually tell the truth. BTW, if you're going to make claims for helmet effectiveness, you really should study up on the issue a bit. Not everybody can understand the fine points, but you may be able to. Try starting with http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1131 - Frank Krygowski   Date: 19 Mar 2007 19:13:28 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <1174353415.219227.41290@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >, "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > writes: >> > You shouldn't even joke about what you were >> > joking about at the end of your post. Only >> > a miserable fuckhead would say such things. >> >> > Robert >> >> GFY > > Like an earthworm? ;-) Why are cyclists so often our own worst enemies? Anyways, wrt to Robert's alleged dearth of transportational cycling in Seattle, according to John Pucher's & Ralph Buehler's paper: "Why Canadians cycle more than Americans: A comparative analysis of bicycling trends and policies", Seattle rates a recent (early 2000's) 0.7% modal share of bicycle working trips, which is well above that of many southeastern states, a large number of which rate aroung 0.1%. Are all those southeastern states & cities so fraught with MHLs as to discourage cycling to an even greater extent than Seattle? cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 19 Mar 2007 18:16:55 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 19, 4:54 pm, "greggery peccary" <dinkylittleoff...@bigswifty.com > wrote: > <r15...@aol.com> wrote in message > > news:1174252485.564712.160980@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > greggery peccary wrote: > > >> i get so tired of this bullshit. > > > Yeah me too. > > >> you hipsters > > > Yeah like it's hard to be grunge when > > yer wearin a helmet, dig? > > > Groovy, hep-cat. > > > You shouldn't even joke about what you were > > joking about at the end of your post. Only > > a miserable fuckhead would say such things. > > > Robert > > GFY Like an earthworm? ;-)   Date: 19 Mar 2007 05:37:26 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Warning! WMB* was Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 18, 10:36 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On 18, 3:32 pm, "Ozark Bicycle" > > > > > > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > > *Weapon of Mass Boredom, launched on an innocent populace by the > > notorious Frank Krygowski, who never tires of hearing himself hold > > forth again and again and again about the same old tired bullshit. > > > On 18, 9:57 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On 17, 7:37 pm, "greggery peccary" > > > > <dinkylittleoff...@bigswifty.com> wrote: > > > > > 2. i wear mine because it saved my life...twice. > > > > WOW! > > > > Given the fact that there are about > > > ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz.... > > > (He must be using sleeping gas these days! ;-> ) > > For some, thinking is boring..... ......so that's why you just regurgitate the same tired old bullshit again and again and again, Franky?   Date: 18 Mar 2007 21:36:07 From: Subject: Re: Warning! WMB* was Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 18, 3:32 pm, "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: > *Weapon of Mass Boredom, launched on an innocent populace by the > notorious Frank Krygowski, who never tires of hearing himself hold > forth again and again and again about the same old tired bullshit. > > On 18, 9:57 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On 17, 7:37 pm, "greggery peccary" > > > <dinkylittleoff...@bigswifty.com> wrote: > > > > 2. i wear mine because it saved my life...twice. > > > WOW! > > > Given the fact that there are about > > ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz.... > > (He must be using sleeping gas these days! ;-> ) For some, thinking is boring, and math is incomprehensible. They won't be able to learn. But fortunately, not everyone is like that. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 19 Mar 2007 10:48:08 From: Subject: Re: Warning! WMB* was Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 18 2007 21:36:07 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >For some, thinking is boring, and math is incomprehensible. They >won't be able to learn. > For some, math is impossible - even _with_ a calculator.   Date: 18 Mar 2007 14:14:45 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling greggery peccary wrote: > i get so tired of this bullshit. Yeah me too. > you hipsters Yeah like it's hard to be grunge when yer wearin a helmet, dig? Groovy, hep-cat. You shouldn't even joke about what you were joking about at the end of your post. Only a miserable fuckhead would say such things. Robert     Date: 28 Mar 2007 00:58:15 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <ugei031sukihb80e479spd4rm3q0l3oq93@4ax.com >, jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > On 27 2007 07:42:59 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > >>On 27, 2:35 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >>> >>> ...there are so many >>> other things to take into consideration. For example, >>> how many of those places you tout as having more riders/ >>> less MHL also have <gasp> cycling infrastructure? >>> >>> Maybe it's not /always/ or /simply/ about helmets? >> >>I'm not aware of anyone saying it's "/always/ or /simply/ about >>helmets". >> >>Certainly, other influences exist. Certainly, you'd expect more >>cycling in certain places than in others, due to climate, terrain, >>local culture, density of development, infrastructure differences, >>etc. Any of those could tend to encourage or discourage cycling. And >>any of them would have _some_ individuals bucking the trend - say, >>using their bike despite lots of disincentives, or not using their >>bike in ideal situations. >> >>The question is, what are the effects of helmet promotion and helmet >>laws? Do they tend to encourage or discourage cycling? >> >>- Frank Krygowski > > > Aw, c'mon, Frank. > > Send an easy one over, won't you? > > If there is a _single_ instance of MHLs encouraging cycling it is yet > to make an appearance on this newsgroup, or on any of the rational > helmet websites. Nobody's talking about MHLs encouraging cycling, just doubt about your extrapolations from your favourite numbers as to how much you purport they discourage cycling. And I'm here to say that cycling lives on -- not heroically, but with an undeterred and humble will-to-survive, even in MHL zones. What the heck -- cheers and good ride to everybody, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca       Date: 28 Mar 2007 16:52:21 From: Bill Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Tom Keats wrote: > Nobody's talking about MHLs encouraging cycling, just > doubt about your extrapolations from your favourite numbers > as to how much you purport they discourage cycling. > > And I'm here to say that cycling lives on -- not heroically, but > with an undeterred and humble will-to-survive, even in MHL zones. > > > What the heck -- cheers and good ride to everybody, > Tom Ah, what the heck. Have you heard this one? It made the news some years back (decades) so I am vague on the details. One very protective mother had a little girl who she always had wear a helmet when riding, hence her head was safe. One day the girl was in a fluffy mood and didn't pay attention going out the door of the house and down the 2 (only 2) concrete steps. She tripped and fell, hitting her head on the edge of the lower step and was killed, just walking out of the house to catch the school bus. MHL's for kids anytime they go out of the protective house??? Chew on it. Accidents happen. I'm just sitting on the fence watching you guys. Bill Baka     Date: 19 Mar 2007 15:54:11 From: greggery peccary Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling <r15757@aol.com > wrote in message news:1174252485.564712.160980@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > greggery peccary wrote: > >> i get so tired of this bullshit. > > Yeah me too. > >> you hipsters > > Yeah like it's hard to be grunge when > yer wearin a helmet, dig? > > Groovy, hep-cat. > > You shouldn't even joke about what you were > joking about at the end of your post. Only > a miserable fuckhead would say such things. > > Robert > GFY   Date: 18 Mar 2007 12:32:12 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Warning! WMB* was Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling *Weapon of Mass Boredom, launched on an innocent populace by the notorious Frank Krygowski, who never tires of hearing himself hold forth again and again and again about the same old tired bullshit. On 18, 9:57 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On 17, 7:37 pm, "greggery peccary" > > <dinkylittleoff...@bigswifty.com> wrote: > > > 2. i wear mine because it saved my life...twice. > > WOW! > > Given the fact that there are about ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz.... (He must be using sleeping gas these days! ;- > )   Date: 18 Mar 2007 08:57:57 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 17, 7:37 pm, "greggery peccary" <dinkylittleoff...@bigswifty.com > wrote: > > 2. i wear mine because it saved my life...twice. WOW! Given the fact that there are about 15 million miles of cycling per bike fatality, you're a statistical anomaly of the strangest kind, and/ or you're an _extremely_ dangerous rider! If it's the former, perhaps you'd better invest all your money in the lottery. If it's the latter, you'd better improve something besides your hat style! (IOW, the fact you bumped your styrofoam does not mean your life was saved.) (And now I'll wait for the innumerate chorus saying "You weren't there! It COULD have been two miracles!!!" Despite the several- billion-to-one odds.) > > i get so tired of this bullshit. i got my gore tex pants for $20 at the rei > garage, half of what you hipsters pay for a fucking pair of jeans and i stay > dry! as for 'shiny', ya i like to be seen. good luck if you're not. see you > at harborview (i might even get to see neurosurg do a crani on you!) Ah, Harborview. The prime helmet promoting and helmet mandating medical organization in the world. The ones that produced the laughable study that promised that helmets would prevent 85% of all head injuries (um, counting cut ears and scratched chins) - and are trying to squelch the fact that helmets haven't made any detectable difference. If you really do get to see neurosurgeons at work, please start counting the number of patients that are there from bike crashes, vs. the number from other causes. Report back on what you find. We know that nationally, about 99% of severe brain injuries have nothing at all to do with bicycling. I'm curious if Seattle is some sort of Twilight Zone Black Hole of Bicycling, with incredible head injury danger, and if that accounts for the weird attitudes of Thompson, Rivara, "greggery peccary" and the rest of Harborview. Do report back, won't you?     Date: 19 Mar 2007 15:52:54 From: greggery peccary Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1174233476.986728.259020@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On 17, 7:37 pm, "greggery peccary" > <dinkylittleoff...@bigswifty.com> wrote: >> >> 2. i wear mine because it saved my life...twice. > > WOW! > > Given the fact that there are about 15 million miles of cycling per > bike fatality, you're a statistical anomaly of the strangest kind, and/ > or you're an _extremely_ dangerous rider! > > If it's the former, perhaps you'd better invest all your money in the > lottery. If it's the latter, you'd better improve something besides > your hat style! > > (IOW, the fact you bumped your styrofoam does not mean your life was > saved.) > > (And now I'll wait for the innumerate chorus saying "You weren't > there! It COULD have been two miracles!!!" Despite the several- > billion-to-one odds.) > >> >> i get so tired of this bullshit. i got my gore tex pants for $20 at the >> rei >> garage, half of what you hipsters pay for a fucking pair of jeans and i >> stay >> dry! as for 'shiny', ya i like to be seen. good luck if you're not. see >> you >> at harborview (i might even get to see neurosurg do a crani on you!) > > Ah, Harborview. The prime helmet promoting and helmet mandating > medical organization in the world. The ones that produced the > laughable study that promised that helmets would prevent 85% of all > head injuries (um, counting cut ears and scratched chins) - and are > trying to squelch the fact that helmets haven't made any detectable > difference. > > If you really do get to see neurosurgeons at work, please start > counting the number of patients that are there from bike crashes, vs. > the number from other causes. Report back on what you find. > > We know that nationally, about 99% of severe brain injuries have > nothing at all to do with bicycling. I'm curious if Seattle is some > sort of Twilight Zone Black Hole of Bicycling, with incredible head > injury danger, and if that accounts for the weird attitudes of > Thompson, Rivara, "greggery peccary" and the rest of Harborview. > > Do report back, won't you? > who is Thompson, Rivara?       Date: 19 Mar 2007 23:42:12 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Mon, 19 2007 15:52:54 -0700, "greggery peccary" <dinkylittleoffice@bigswifty.com > wrote: >> We know that nationally, about 99% of severe brain injuries have >> nothing at all to do with bicycling. I'm curious if Seattle is some >> sort of Twilight Zone Black Hole of Bicycling, with incredible head >> injury danger, and if that accounts for the weird attitudes of >> Thompson, Rivara, "greggery peccary" and the rest of Harborview. >> >> Do report back, won't you? >> > >who is Thompson, Rivara? > Thompson, Riviera, and Thompson were the authors of the junk science paper that has become the lynchpin of the pro-helmet zealots; despite numerous major incapacitating flaws, their statistic of helmets preventing 85% of head injuries has become gospel to the true believers, quoted by police departments, politicians, cycle equipment salesdroids, etcetera. If you don't know about TRT, you _really_ don't know much about cycle helmets - better hie off to www.cyclehelmets.org and, um, "report back".   Date: 17 Mar 2007 19:20:33 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <1174162492.028226.137750@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >, r15757@aol.com writes: >> I think some more perspective is called-for. In fact, >> desperately wanting. The helmet issue distracts from >> other, more important concerns too much. > > Tom I share much of your frustration with > the endless helmet 'debate' and the debaters. > But I think the helmet issue and the MHL > issue are separate. I believe MHLs do > have a significant detrimental effect on > cycling where they are implemented. The decision to ride or not is generally binary. You either go, or you don't. Those who will ride, will ride. Many of those who won't, will cough up all kinds of excuses -- "My cyclocomputer battery is dead." "The dog ate my toeclip straps." "I'm having a Preparation H moment." It's so convenient for a casual, lyric cyclist to attribute "having" to wear a helmet to their non-desire to ride. But if it's not helmets, it'll be something else. Personally, if somebody just plain doesn't feel like riding, that's fine with me. I'll respect their wishes. They don't need to grasp for excuses. > Seattle has relatively nice roads, nice > bicycle infrastructure, and considerate > drivers; but it has relatively > little casual transportational cycling. Vancouver has odius roads, under-developed & poorly implemented bicycle infrastructure, pig-ignorant drivers, and tons of transportational (and other) cycling. ~And~ a comprehensive, province-wide MHL. IIRC, Vancouver has the second-highest (after Victoria BC) per capita cycling modal share in Canada. Go figure. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 18 Mar 2007 11:47:01 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Sat, 17 2007 19:20:33 -0800, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >In article <1174162492.028226.137750@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > r15757@aol.com writes: > > >Vancouver has odius roads, under-developed & >poorly implemented bicycle infrastructure, >pig-ignorant drivers, and tons of transportational >(and other) cycling. ~And~ a comprehensive, >province-wide MHL. > >IIRC, Vancouver has the second-highest (after >Victoria BC) per capita cycling modal share >in Canada. Go figure. > A single data point tells us nothing. Do you have a figures that show a) any change in cycling following the MHL? b) any change in the rate of head injury following the MHL? If not, we will have to continue to rely on those figures from other situations, which tell us that MHL's reduce cycling and do nothing to (or possibly increase) head injury rates.   Date: 17 Mar 2007 18:50:46 From: Alan Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Check out www.cycleoregon.com . Alan   Date: 17 Mar 2007 13:14:52 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Tom Keats wrote: > Speaking of efforts, it seems to me it wouldn't hurt to > turn away from the hat issue a little, and maybe think > about how such things as bad chip-seal pavement and > poor rumble strip implementations and a whole bunch of > other things that more immediately and directly affect > ridership, discourage cycling significantly. Now, /those/ > are things to stop a rider in his/her tracks -- much more > than the question of whether or not to wear a helmet before > mounting up and setting foot to pedal. > > Having to wear a helmet, or even having the choice of > wearing a helmet, doesn't stop anybody nearly as much > as unnecessarily, arbitrarily uglified roads that one > can't even ride a bike /on/ because they have such > horrible surfaces. > > I think some more perspective is called-for. In fact, > desperately wanting. The helmet issue distracts from > other, more important concerns too much. Tom I share much of your frustration with the endless helmet 'debate' and the debaters. But I think the helmet issue and the MHL issue are separate. I believe MHLs do have a significant detrimental effect on cycling where they are implemented. Seattle has relatively nice roads, nice bicycle infrastructure, and considerate drivers; but it has relatively little casual transportational cycling. Robert     Date: 17 Mar 2007 13:23:46 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling r15757@aol.com wrote: > Tom Keats wrote: > >> Speaking of efforts, it seems to me it wouldn't hurt to >> turn away from the hat issue a little, and maybe think >> about how such things as bad chip-seal pavement and >> poor rumble strip implementations and a whole bunch of >> other things that more immediately and directly affect >> ridership, discourage cycling significantly. Now, /those/ >> are things to stop a rider in his/her tracks -- much more >> than the question of whether or not to wear a helmet before >> mounting up and setting foot to pedal. >> >> Having to wear a helmet, or even having the choice of >> wearing a helmet, doesn't stop anybody nearly as much >> as unnecessarily, arbitrarily uglified roads that one >> can't even ride a bike /on/ because they have such >> horrible surfaces. >> >> I think some more perspective is called-for. In fact, >> desperately wanting. The helmet issue distracts from >> other, more important concerns too much. > > Tom I share much of your frustration with > the endless helmet 'debate' and the debaters. > But I think the helmet issue and the MHL > issue are separate. I believe MHLs do > have a significant detrimental effect on > cycling where they are implemented. > Seattle has relatively nice roads, nice > bicycle infrastructure, and considerate > drivers; but it has relatively > little casual transportational cycling. Probably due more to climate (wet, cold, hot) than an MHL.       Date: 17 Mar 2007 20:36:09 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Sat, 17 2007 13:23:46 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote: >r15757@aol.com wrote: >> Tom Keats wrote: >> >>> Speaking of efforts, it seems to me it wouldn't hurt to >>> turn away from the hat issue a little, and maybe think >>> about how such things as bad chip-seal pavement and >>> poor rumble strip implementations and a whole bunch of >>> other things that more immediately and directly affect >>> ridership, discourage cycling significantly. Now, /those/ >>> are things to stop a rider in his/her tracks -- much more >>> than the question of whether or not to wear a helmet before >>> mounting up and setting foot to pedal. >>> >>> Having to wear a helmet, or even having the choice of >>> wearing a helmet, doesn't stop anybody nearly as much >>> as unnecessarily, arbitrarily uglified roads that one >>> can't even ride a bike /on/ because they have such >>> horrible surfaces. >>> >>> I think some more perspective is called-for. In fact, >>> desperately wanting. The helmet issue distracts from >>> other, more important concerns too much. >> >> Tom I share much of your frustration with >> the endless helmet 'debate' and the debaters. >> But I think the helmet issue and the MHL >> issue are separate. I believe MHLs do >> have a significant detrimental effect on >> cycling where they are implemented. >> Seattle has relatively nice roads, nice >> bicycle infrastructure, and considerate >> drivers; but it has relatively >> little casual transportational cycling. > >Probably due more to climate (wet, cold, hot) than an MHL. > How do you explain documented, stepwise reductions in cycling following the passage of an MHL?   Date: 17 Mar 2007 06:16:54 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 15, 4:21 pm, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com lied: > On Thu, 15 2007 20:55:39 GMT, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >On 15 2007 10:55:33 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" > ><bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > > >>On 15, 10:29 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >>> On 15 2007 08:50:06 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" > > >>> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > >>> >On 15, 8:32 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >>> >> On 15 2007 06:59:18 -0700, r15...@aol.com wrote: > > >>> >> >jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > > >>> >> >> The MHL is California is not an issue for you? > > >>> >> >Listen, stop trying to equate MHLs for adults with > >>> >> >MHLs for kids. Nobody's buying it. > > >>> >> An MHL is an MHL - there may be exceptions for some, but for the > >>> >> others (more than 10 million in California) it is still the law. > > >>> >> And the politicians know that the best way to get a bad law passed is > >>> >> to make it apply first to those who cannot vote; when they are cowed, > >>> >> then it is easier to include the rest. > > >>> >Gee, it doesn't seem to work that way with motorcycle MHLs; despite > >>> >virtually all states having a "child/minor" motorcycle MHL (ages/ > >>> >details vary by state), *universal* motorcycle MHLs have been on a > >>> >steady *decrease*, from a high of 47 states in 1975 to 20 as of 2001: > > >>> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/ynjet > > >>> >(see the graph on the right, about a third of the way down) > > >>> >How do ya 'splain that, Chicken Little? ;-) > > >>> Motorcyclists are effective in their oposition to MHL's. > > >>BINGO!!! The first rational post from "jtaylor" in......forever. > > >What have YOU done to oppose MHL's - or are you instead in favour of > >them? > > Sorry, all; I forgot... A line made famous by "Scooter" Libby, another notorious, proven liar > > "Ozark" is on record as being in favour of an MHL. > That is a lie. Another in a long line of lies, half-truths and distortions from the infamous "jtaylor".     Date: 17 Mar 2007 15:51:23 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 17 2007 06:16:54 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: >> >> "Ozark" is on record as being in favour of an MHL. >> > >That is a lie. Another in a long line of lies, half-truths and >distortions from the infamous "jtaylor". Are you denying that you called for an MHL in my jurisdiction? Remember, your posts have been archived by Google Groups...   Date: 17 Mar 2007 01:00:25 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <1174070709.520878.196900@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >, frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > It's trivial if you don't care that MHLs discourage cycling > significantly. > > It's trivial if you don't care that the promotion of helmets has, for > many years, displaced more important, and more effective, safety > efforts. Speaking of efforts, it seems to me it wouldn't hurt to turn away from the hat issue a little, and maybe think about how such things as bad chip-seal pavement and poor rumble strip implementations and a whole bunch of other things that more immediately and directly affect ridership, discourage cycling significantly. Now, /those/ are things to stop a rider in his/her tracks -- much more than the question of whether or not to wear a helmet before mounting up and setting foot to pedal. Having to wear a helmet, or even having the choice of wearing a helmet, doesn't stop anybody nearly as much as unnecessarily, arbitrarily uglified roads that one can't even ride a bike /on/ because they have such horrible surfaces. I think some more perspective is called-for. In fact, desperately wanting. The helmet issue distracts from other, more important concerns too much. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 17 Mar 2007 12:04:17 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Sat, 17 2007 01:00:25 -0800, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >In article <1174070709.520878.196900@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > >> It's trivial if you don't care that MHLs discourage cycling >> significantly. >> >> It's trivial if you don't care that the promotion of helmets has, for >> many years, displaced more important, and more effective, safety >> efforts. > >Speaking of efforts, it seems to me it wouldn't hurt to >turn away from the hat issue a little, and maybe think >about how such things as bad chip-seal pavement and >poor rumble strip implementations and a whole bunch of >other things that more immediately and directly affect >ridership, discourage cycling significantly. Now, /those/ >are things to stop a rider in his/her tracks -- much more >than the question of whether or not to wear a helmet before >mounting up and setting foot to pedal. > >Having to wear a helmet, or even having the choice of >wearing a helmet, doesn't stop anybody nearly as much >as unnecessarily, arbitrarily uglified roads that one >can't even ride a bike /on/ because they have such >horrible surfaces. > Do you have stats to back this up? There are population studies that show drops in cycling exceeding 50% when MHL's are passed; and because they affect everyone within their jurisdiction, it is probable that they have a greater effect than some road repairs outside a few people's houses. Not that we should not campaign for a cyclist-friendly culture, but dismissing the helmet issue is a BAD idea - it seems to be the major way that governments attempt to persuade voters that they are in favour of cycling. As long as we have people in the cycling community who do not know the facts about helmet use and the effects of MHL's, we will be saddled with them, and our numbers will fall, and we will get an even more cycle-unfriendly culture. Just look at the factoid in the press release about the auto-shifting bike recently introduced - 161 millions adult Americans have not ridden a cycle since they were children. How many million of these _were_ children when the MHL's started being passed?   Date: 16 Mar 2007 18:34:35 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 16, 12:45 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On 15, 5:59 pm, "di" <di9...@cox.net> wrote: > > > I've never seen > > anyone so obsessed in something so trivial. > > It's trivial if you've already bought all the propaganda, and > consequently you're too afraid to ever bike without a funny hat. > > It's trivial if you don't mind cycling being misrepresented as a > terribly hazardous activity, an "extreme sport." > > It's trivial if you don't have kids who may give up cycling because of > the helmet laws. > > It's trivial if you never bike at all, so the issue affects only other > people. > > It's trivial if you don't care that MHLs discourage cycling > significantly. > > It's trivial if you don't care that the promotion of helmets has, for > many years, displaced more important, and more effective, safety > efforts. > > In othe words, it's "trivial" if it doesn't affect you, and/or if you > don't really care about cycling. > > But if that's the case, you probably should avoid this discussion. > The exception would be the person who doesn't think it's important, > but is curious enough to learn about the issue. > > - Frank Krygowski Lesson learned from reading the above: the somewhat trivial seems not at all trivial to the *really* trivial. ;-)   Date: 16 Mar 2007 16:49:30 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 16, 5:59 pm, "di" <di9...@cox.net > wrote: > > I think it's trivial to believe all this BS... Which? The BS that cycling is so dangerous? Or the BS that 3/4" inch of styrofoam will save countless serious head injuries? > and to keep posting the same stuff over and over for weeks. As always, reading any thread is voluntary. Read only what's interesting to you. > I could care less if helmets are mandatory or not, certainly not enough to be obsessed with it. You probably mean "I couldn't care less..." Which tells me that you _don't_ care about misrepresenting cycling, hyping ineffective "safety" measures, discouraging healthy transportation, reducing the number of cyclists, etc. And that's your choice. Put your energy into saving the skeets, or whatever. But if you really couldn't care less, it's pretty high-handed to wade in and tell people not to talk about the issue. Again, if you don't want to read, don't read. > How long does it take someone to express their opinion? It depends. There are people posting to this thread who have refused for years to learn the most basic facts. You may be among them. When they repeat the same disproven statements over and over, others will rebut. There's also a steady stream of newbies reading these threads, who have never read the information at, say, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/why-helmets (for an easy place to start) or www.cyclehelmets.org (for detailed science). > If you don't want to wear a helmet then don't, you are not going to be thrown in jail. No, but I certainly could be fined, and in fact I've run that risk. And again, I _do_ care about unjust laws created by corporate lobbying, designed to mandate sales of their commercial products. Personally, I think that's much worse than even Microsoft's predatory tactics. It's like something Halliburton would do. > As far as requiring a helmet, I think most people know it's an attempt to keep bloodsucking lawyers at bay. That's largely fiction. And to the degree it's true, it's only because people like you have swallowed the "Danger! Danger!" hype, hook line and sinker. Want to learn? Read the web pages cited. Don't want to learn? Fine, learning is voluntary. Stop reading. But don't tell others to stop discussions just because you're not interested! - Frank Krygowski   Date: 16 Mar 2007 11:45:09 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 15, 5:59 pm, "di" <di9...@cox.net > wrote: > I've never seen > anyone so obsessed in something so trivial. It's trivial if you've already bought all the propaganda, and consequently you're too afraid to ever bike without a funny hat. It's trivial if you don't mind cycling being misrepresented as a terribly hazardous activity, an "extreme sport." It's trivial if you don't have kids who may give up cycling because of the helmet laws. It's trivial if you never bike at all, so the issue affects only other people. It's trivial if you don't care that MHLs discourage cycling significantly. It's trivial if you don't care that the promotion of helmets has, for many years, displaced more important, and more effective, safety efforts. In othe words, it's "trivial" if it doesn't affect you, and/or if you don't really care about cycling. But if that's the case, you probably should avoid this discussion. The exception would be the person who doesn't think it's important, but is curious enough to learn about the issue. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 16 Mar 2007 16:59:29 From: di Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1174070709.520878.196900@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On 15, 5:59 pm, "di" <di9...@cox.net> wrote: >> I've never seen >> anyone so obsessed in something so trivial. > > It's trivial if you've already bought all the propaganda, and > consequently you're too afraid to ever bike without a funny hat. > > It's trivial if you don't mind cycling being misrepresented as a > terribly hazardous activity, an "extreme sport." > > It's trivial if you don't have kids who may give up cycling because of > the helmet laws. > > It's trivial if you never bike at all, so the issue affects only other > people. > > It's trivial if you don't care that MHLs discourage cycling > significantly. > > It's trivial if you don't care that the promotion of helmets has, for > many years, displaced more important, and more effective, safety > efforts. > > In othe words, it's "trivial" if it doesn't affect you, and/or if you > don't really care about cycling. > > But if that's the case, you probably should avoid this discussion. > The exception would be the person who doesn't think it's important, > but is curious enough to learn about the issue. > > - Frank Krygowski > I think it's trivial to believe all this BS, and to keep posting the same stuff over and over for weeks. I could care less if helmets are mandatory or not, certainly not enough to be obsessed with it. How long does it take someone to express their opinion? If you don't want to wear a helmet then don't, you are not going to be thrown in jail. As far as requiring a helmet, I think most people know it's an attempt to keep bloodsucking lawyers at bay.   Date: 16 Mar 2007 01:05:40 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <blhKh.399$B61.63@newsfe06.lga >, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com > writes: >> Yesterday, when it was dry, I saw a single earthworm on the pavement. This >> worm might have even been a survivor of getting flooded out the day before. >> But it was really dry, and even a bit windy, and the poor thing was drying >> out as it was writhing towards a damp earth that was really no where within >> its reach. I felt really sorry for this worm, too -- in some ways, worse >> about this single worm, than I did for all the others I had seen the day >> before. I thought about if I had flung it onto a wet lawn, if it would have >> even survived, as it was half-desicated already -- would that have only >> increased its suffering before death? But I didn't stop -- I just rolled on. >> > > They wouldn't have wanted you to fling them back on the lawns. They want to be fed to brook/rainbow trout, or even the opportune cutthroat or steelhead. Half of them do, anyways. cheers, Tom -- Red Wigglers, the Cadillac of worms. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 16 Mar 2007 00:01:08 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <1173973455.102710.37630@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >, r15757@aol.com writes: > On 15, 4:38 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > >> > Do most Seattle cyclists even realize that they have >> > been singled out as particularly dangerous and >> > unskilled, compared to others in the US? >> > Do they assume that such laws are >> > in place everywhere else? Don't they feel >> > ridiculous when they strap on a >> > helmet for a three-block cruise to the coffee >> > shop in the morning? Don't they resent it? >> >> > Relative to other cities of similar size, there >> > seems to be very little casual low-income >> > cycling going on in Seattle. Seems like the >> > vast majority of transportational cyclists there >> > are decked out in a few thousand dollars worth >> > of shiny new equipment. Probably a combo >> > of weather, terrain, and the MHL. >> >> That is so hurtful, and downright mean. > > Huh? In what way? I am legitimately puzzled > by this issue. Did my exasperation show > too much? Is there some way to bring > up this ridiculous MHL that would be acceptable > to y'all, or is it the law that must not be > spoken of? Am I not allowed to post my own > personal observations from cycling in > Seattle and around King County? Screw that noise. You're blaming Seattle cyclists for calling-down egregiously hostile cycling environments including MHLs, on everybody. Like, 99% of the Lower 48's cyclists are on one beam, and then there's Seattle, standing alone, to fuck things up for everybody. Yeah, sure. Y'know what? MHLs aren't even that big an issue! Better to weep & moan about rumble strips. > The 'downright mean' and nasty response was > Claire's, not mine. Claire didn't impugn your local cyclists' ideas or sensibilities. >> Why are fellow cyclists our own worst enemies? > > I don't know. Ask the Cascade cycling club. > Are there any other examples anywhere of a > cycling club/advocacy organization that is > PRO adult MHL? What the hell are they > thinking? I guess you don't know much about British Columbia, where adult MHL is de rigeur. Go ahead and blame us for rolling over and letting it happen. Nevertheless, I and many other riders continue to ride, despite the MHL. > Is the goal to get people to ride bikes, to > use their bikes for short trips to the > store, to the bar, to the coffee shop, to > work, to parties, etc. -- or is the goal > to make certain that whoever does these > things is wearing a helmet, even if it > means that far fewer people do it? There is no goal. Ride, or find excuses to not ride. No skin off my teeth. >> Jeez, Robert -- I /know/ you're usually above >> this sort of razmatazz. > > I am definitely not above this sort of razmatazz, > whatever sort of razmatazz you think this is. Some of your fellow cyclists are already stuck in MHL jurisdictions. But we still ride anyways. You're welcome to join us. Or, alienate us by shoving our laws and by-laws into our faces. Your call. >> Better pull out that hair that's up your ass >> about MHLs. Then rinse your fingers off, wipe >> 'em off on your jeans, and shake hands with your >> fellow riders to let them know you're still on >> their side. Even those who are stuck in MHL >> jurisdictions. > > That's disgusting. He said. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 16 Mar 2007 17:02:52 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Fri, 16 2007 00:01:08 -0800, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >> I don't know. Ask the Cascade cycling club. >> Are there any other examples anywhere of a >> cycling club/advocacy organization that is >> PRO adult MHL? What the hell are they >> thinking? > >I guess you don't know much about British Columbia, >where adult MHL is de rigeur. > >Go ahead and blame us for rolling over and letting >it happen. > >Nevertheless, I and many other riders continue >to ride, despite the MHL. > With or without helmets? Did you wear one before? People often find that MHL's are not a problem if a) they have already been convinced that wearing a helmet will save their lives; or b) the MHL applies to other people but not to them. How much has cycling decreased following the MHL? Was it like Nova Scotia where cycling decreased by over 60% in the year following the MHL? How much has the injury rate changed following the MHL? Is it like Alberta where the head injury percentage among cyclists admitted to hospital ER's doubled following the MHL?   Date: 15 Mar 2007 17:47:17 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <5rhjv29pv2365r0siv4b09kjqd04lh5aum@4ax.com >, jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > Sorry, all; I forgot... > > "Ozark" is on record as being in favour of an MHL. So, what? We all have to stone him now? -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 16 Mar 2007 12:20:41 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Thu, 15 2007 17:47:17 -0800, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >In article <5rhjv29pv2365r0siv4b09kjqd04lh5aum@4ax.com>, > jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > >> Sorry, all; I forgot... >> >> "Ozark" is on record as being in favour of an MHL. > >So, what? We all have to stone him now? Goodness no. Just remember it when reading his posts that attack helmet skeptics; some of them border on rabid, and it helps to know why.   Date: 15 Mar 2007 17:32:14 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <%kkKh.5752$mJ1.956@newsfe22.lga >, "di" <di9999@cox.net > writes: >> The ongoing helmet debate gives me an idea for a dice-&-board game. >> Nobody wins or loses, because the game never ends. It just keeps >> going around and around. People make excuses to make dinner or >> go to the bathroom or feed the cat, and silently slip away into >> the night, carefully closing the screen door behind them. >> >> The last person left gets to be King Shit of Turd Hill. >> Gets to wear the crown, 'n everything. > Is the crown a bicycle helmet? No, it's just a gold-coloured paper party hat, with a big, black, block-letter 'D' printed on it. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 15 Mar 2007 16:04:39 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Matt O'Toole wrote: > > I don't know. Ask the Cascade cycling club. Are there any other examples > > anywhere of a cycling club/advocacy organization that is PRO adult MHL? > > What the hell are they thinking? > > There are lots. What the hell are they thinking? They're probably just > not thinking. What're some others, so I can make fun of them too.   Date: 15 Mar 2007 15:39:09 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 15, 4:21 pm, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On Thu, 15 2007 20:55:39 GMT, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >On 15 2007 10:55:33 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" > ><bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > > >>On 15, 10:29 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >>> On 15 2007 08:50:06 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" > > >>> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > >>> >On 15, 8:32 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >>> >> On 15 2007 06:59:18 -0700, r15...@aol.com wrote: > > >>> >> >jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > > >>> >> >> The MHL is California is not an issue for you? > > >>> >> >Listen, stop trying to equate MHLs for adults with > >>> >> >MHLs for kids. Nobody's buying it. > > >>> >> An MHL is an MHL - there may be exceptions for some, but for the > >>> >> others (more than 10 million in California) it is still the law. > > >>> >> And the politicians know that the best way to get a bad law passed is > >>> >> to make it apply first to those who cannot vote; when they are cowed, > >>> >> then it is easier to include the rest. > > >>> >Gee, it doesn't seem to work that way with motorcycle MHLs; despite > >>> >virtually all states having a "child/minor" motorcycle MHL (ages/ > >>> >details vary by state), *universal* motorcycle MHLs have been on a > >>> >steady *decrease*, from a high of 47 states in 1975 to 20 as of 2001: > > >>> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/ynjet > > >>> >(see the graph on the right, about a third of the way down) > > >>> >How do ya 'splain that, Chicken Little? ;-) > > >>> Motorcyclists are effective in their oposition to MHL's. > > >>BINGO!!! The first rational post from "jtaylor" in......forever. > > >What have YOU done to oppose MHL's - or are you instead in favour of > >them? > > Sorry, all; I forgot... > > "Ozark" is on record as being in favour of an MHL Oh Goody!!! :-)) I've been hoping for this! Please *do* provide a link to the post where I went "on record" as being "pro-MHL". Please! I want everyone to be able to appreciate the depths of your sad, humorless obsession. Go for it, "j"!!!!!! Go!!!     Date: 15 Mar 2007 22:44:01 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 15 2007 15:39:09 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: >On 15, 4:21 pm, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> On Thu, 15 2007 20:55:39 GMT, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> >On 15 2007 10:55:33 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" >> ><bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: >> >> >>On 15, 10:29 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> >>> On 15 2007 08:50:06 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" >> >> >>> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: >> >>> >On 15, 8:32 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> >>> >> On 15 2007 06:59:18 -0700, r15...@aol.com wrote: >> >> >>> >> >jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> The MHL is California is not an issue for you? >> >> >>> >> >Listen, stop trying to equate MHLs for adults with >> >>> >> >MHLs for kids. Nobody's buying it. >> >> >>> >> An MHL is an MHL - there may be exceptions for some, but for the >> >>> >> others (more than 10 million in California) it is still the law. >> >> >>> >> And the politicians know that the best way to get a bad law passed is >> >>> >> to make it apply first to those who cannot vote; when they are cowed, >> >>> >> then it is easier to include the rest. >> >> >>> >Gee, it doesn't seem to work that way with motorcycle MHLs; despite >> >>> >virtually all states having a "child/minor" motorcycle MHL (ages/ >> >>> >details vary by state), *universal* motorcycle MHLs have been on a >> >>> >steady *decrease*, from a high of 47 states in 1975 to 20 as of 2001: >> >> >>> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/ynjet >> >> >>> >(see the graph on the right, about a third of the way down) >> >> >>> >How do ya 'splain that, Chicken Little? ;-) >> >> >>> Motorcyclists are effective in their oposition to MHL's. >> >> >>BINGO!!! The first rational post from "jtaylor" in......forever. >> >> >What have YOU done to oppose MHL's - or are you instead in favour of >> >them? >> >> Sorry, all; I forgot... >> >> "Ozark" is on record as being in favour of an MHL > > >Oh Goody!!! :-)) I've been hoping for this! > >Please *do* provide a link to the post where I went "on record" as >being "pro-MHL". Please! I want everyone to be able to appreciate the >depths of your sad, humorless obsession. > >Go for it, "j"!!!!!! > >Go!!! Already done - have you forgotten what you posted already? Go to dejanews (now google "groups") and search for "Ozark pro-mhl". Let us know if you have changed you mind and now are not pro--MHL; and if so, what (if anything) have you done to encourage their repeal.   Date: 15 Mar 2007 15:14:37 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <7ljKh.83749$Ju2.39129@newsfe16.lga >, "di" <di9999@cox.net > writes: > > <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message > news:3qcjv2h5omaovtl00dghic4pjrbj7h3skr@4ax.com... >> On 15 2007 10:55:33 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" >>> >> >> What have YOU done to oppose MHL's - or are you instead in favour of >> them? > > News Flash, J Taylor has just bought stock in Bell. I've never seen > anyone so obsessed in something so trivial. I have. But at least stamp collecting is quietly unassuming. The ongoing helmet debate gives me an idea for a dice-&-board game. Nobody wins or loses, because the game never ends. It just keeps going around and around. People make excuses to make dinner or go to the bathroom or feed the cat, and silently slip away into the night, carefully closing the screen door behind them. The last person left gets to be King Shit of Turd Hill. Gets to wear the crown, 'n everything. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 15 Mar 2007 18:07:39 From: di Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:t0kcte.q0a.ln@bud.garden.local... > In article <7ljKh.83749$Ju2.39129@newsfe16.lga>, > "di" <di9999@cox.net> writes: >> >> <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message >> news:3qcjv2h5omaovtl00dghic4pjrbj7h3skr@4ax.com... >>> On 15 2007 10:55:33 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" >>>> >>> >>> What have YOU done to oppose MHL's - or are you instead in favour of >>> them? >> >> News Flash, J Taylor has just bought stock in Bell. I've never seen >> anyone so obsessed in something so trivial. > > I have. But at least stamp collecting is quietly unassuming. > > The ongoing helmet debate gives me an idea for a dice-&-board game. > Nobody wins or loses, because the game never ends. It just keeps > going around and around. People make excuses to make dinner or > go to the bathroom or feed the cat, and silently slip away into > the night, carefully closing the screen door behind them. > > The last person left gets to be King Shit of Turd Hill. > Gets to wear the crown, 'n everything. > > > cheers, > Tom > > -- > Nothing is safe from me. > Above address is just a spam midden. > I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca Is the crown a bicycle helmet?       Date: 15 Mar 2007 23:31:36 From: nash Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling "di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote in message news:%kkKh.5752$mJ1.956@newsfe22.lga... > > "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:t0kcte.q0a.ln@bud.garden.local... >> In article <7ljKh.83749$Ju2.39129@newsfe16.lga>, >> "di" <di9999@cox.net> writes: >>> >>> <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message >>> news:3qcjv2h5omaovtl00dghic4pjrbj7h3skr@4ax.com... >>>> On 15 2007 10:55:33 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" >>>>> >>>> >>>> What have YOU done to oppose MHL's - or are you instead in favour of >>>> them? >>> >>> News Flash, J Taylor has just bought stock in Bell. I've never >>> seen >>> anyone so obsessed in something so trivial. >> >> I have. But at least stamp collecting is quietly unassuming. >> >> The ongoing helmet debate gives me an idea for a dice-&-board game. >> Nobody wins or loses, because the game never ends. It just keeps >> going around and around. People make excuses to make dinner or >> go to the bathroom or feed the cat, and silently slip away into >> the night, carefully closing the screen door behind them. >> >> The last person left gets to be King Shit of Turd Hill. >> Gets to wear the crown, 'n everything. >> >> >> cheers, >> Tom >> >> -- >> Nothing is safe from me. >> Above address is just a spam midden. >> I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca > > Is the crown a bicycle helmet? Perfecto Mundo. or if they choose The Album "No pads, no helmut, ...Just Balls" by Simple Plan Otherwise they may not even join in the fun.   Date: 15 Mar 2007 10:55:33 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 15, 10:29 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On 15 2007 08:50:06 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" > > > > > > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > >On 15, 8:32 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >> On 15 2007 06:59:18 -0700, r15...@aol.com wrote: > > >> >jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > > >> >> The MHL is California is not an issue for you? > > >> >Listen, stop trying to equate MHLs for adults with > >> >MHLs for kids. Nobody's buying it. > > >> An MHL is an MHL - there may be exceptions for some, but for the > >> others (more than 10 million in California) it is still the law. > > >> And the politicians know that the best way to get a bad law passed is > >> to make it apply first to those who cannot vote; when they are cowed, > >> then it is easier to include the rest. > > >Gee, it doesn't seem to work that way with motorcycle MHLs; despite > >virtually all states having a "child/minor" motorcycle MHL (ages/ > >details vary by state), *universal* motorcycle MHLs have been on a > >steady *decrease*, from a high of 47 states in 1975 to 20 as of 2001: > > >http://preview.tinyurl.com/ynjet > > >(see the graph on the right, about a third of the way down) > > >How do ya 'splain that, Chicken Little? ;-) > > Motorcyclists are effective in their oposition to MHL's. BINGO!!! The first rational post from "jtaylor" in......forever. So, cyclists have a choice: *They can act effectively against MHLs, learning from the effective tactics used by motorcyclists. OR *They can be paranoid, whining, simpering alarmists in the fashion of "jtaylor". The choice is clear. ;-)     Date: 23 Mar 2007 11:41:54 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > This point has already been made in the thread - Tom was asked if he > had any facts to support his "belief" that MHL's did not affect > cycling rates (he doesn't); so it was pointed out that in such a case, > best practice was to assume it was no different from replicated > results from other places. Don't you mean 'other place?' And anyway I think some might disagree that such rampant substitution is 'best practice.' Robert     Date: 23 Mar 2007 08:59:44 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 23, 6:11 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > In article <k65703dhoa3a6t59ok16h1sp7ahajgb...@4ax.com>, > jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > > > This point has already been made in the thread - Tom was asked if he > > had any facts to support his "belief" that MHL's did not affect > > cycling rates (he doesn't); so it was pointed out that in such a case, > > best practice was to assume it was no different from replicated > > results from other places. > > Yeah. I'm a horribly bad person. I don't jam your > agendum down other people's throats the way you want > me to. You're not a bad person (I trust). But somehow, you're quite confused about the numbers issue. Forget the effects of bike lanes. Forget the effects of climate. Forget the effect of congestion. Forget the modal share. Pay attention to the matter at hand: Would there be more cycling if people were not forced to wear helmets? For various reasons, there are significant numbers of people who ride less, or give up riding, if forced to wear foam hats. There are probably no people who ride more _because_ they are forced to wear hats. The net effect is less cycling. This has been shown repeatedly, both by specific counts and by other indicators, and I've never seen an exception. If you have data that shows your town is different, you should produce it. If you have no data, it's unrealistic to pretend your town is the lone exception!     Date: 23 Mar 2007 02:11:03 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <k65703dhoa3a6t59ok16h1sp7ahajgba7c@4ax.com >, jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > On 22 2007 20:57:19 -0700, r15757@aol.com wrote: > >>frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> But contrary to your WAG, there were serious drops in cycling measured >>> by before-after counts by trained observers, in addition to the counts >>> done by automated counting devices. And there were the telephone >>> surveys in which large percentages of responders said they rode less >>> (or gave up riding) because of MHLs, there are other interesting >>> indicators of drops. >> >>In Tom's jurisdiction? >> >>If you have a cite about that particular MHL's >>effect on cyclists in BC, now is the time to give it. If >>you are talking about Scuffham and Langley's paper on >>helmet/bike use in New Zealand, you should have >>said so. >> > > This point has already been made in the thread - Tom was asked if he > had any facts to support his "belief" that MHL's did not affect > cycling rates (he doesn't); so it was pointed out that in such a case, > best practice was to assume it was no different from replicated > results from other places. Yeah. I'm a horribly bad person. I don't jam your agendum down other people's throats the way you want me to. I don't jam other people's agendae down people's throats either. I don't even jam my own agendae down other people's throats. I've gotta go feed my cat. May you be blessed with insight & wisdom, and may my (virtual) cat be fed (with sauteed chicken livers,) Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 15 Mar 2007 20:55:39 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 15 2007 10:55:33 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: >On 15, 10:29 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> On 15 2007 08:50:06 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" >> >> >> >> >> >> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: >> >On 15, 8:32 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> >> On 15 2007 06:59:18 -0700, r15...@aol.com wrote: >> >> >> >jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> >> >> >> The MHL is California is not an issue for you? >> >> >> >Listen, stop trying to equate MHLs for adults with >> >> >MHLs for kids. Nobody's buying it. >> >> >> An MHL is an MHL - there may be exceptions for some, but for the >> >> others (more than 10 million in California) it is still the law. >> >> >> And the politicians know that the best way to get a bad law passed is >> >> to make it apply first to those who cannot vote; when they are cowed, >> >> then it is easier to include the rest. >> >> >Gee, it doesn't seem to work that way with motorcycle MHLs; despite >> >virtually all states having a "child/minor" motorcycle MHL (ages/ >> >details vary by state), *universal* motorcycle MHLs have been on a >> >steady *decrease*, from a high of 47 states in 1975 to 20 as of 2001: >> >> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/ynjet >> >> >(see the graph on the right, about a third of the way down) >> >> >How do ya 'splain that, Chicken Little? ;-) >> >> Motorcyclists are effective in their oposition to MHL's. > >BINGO!!! The first rational post from "jtaylor" in......forever. > What have YOU done to oppose MHL's - or are you instead in favour of them?       Date: 15 Mar 2007 22:21:48 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Thu, 15 2007 20:55:39 GMT, jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >On 15 2007 10:55:33 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" ><bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > >>On 15, 10:29 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >>> On 15 2007 08:50:06 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: >>> >On 15, 8:32 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >>> >> On 15 2007 06:59:18 -0700, r15...@aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >> >jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >>> >>> >> >> The MHL is California is not an issue for you? >>> >>> >> >Listen, stop trying to equate MHLs for adults with >>> >> >MHLs for kids. Nobody's buying it. >>> >>> >> An MHL is an MHL - there may be exceptions for some, but for the >>> >> others (more than 10 million in California) it is still the law. >>> >>> >> And the politicians know that the best way to get a bad law passed is >>> >> to make it apply first to those who cannot vote; when they are cowed, >>> >> then it is easier to include the rest. >>> >>> >Gee, it doesn't seem to work that way with motorcycle MHLs; despite >>> >virtually all states having a "child/minor" motorcycle MHL (ages/ >>> >details vary by state), *universal* motorcycle MHLs have been on a >>> >steady *decrease*, from a high of 47 states in 1975 to 20 as of 2001: >>> >>> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/ynjet >>> >>> >(see the graph on the right, about a third of the way down) >>> >>> >How do ya 'splain that, Chicken Little? ;-) >>> >>> Motorcyclists are effective in their oposition to MHL's. >> >>BINGO!!! The first rational post from "jtaylor" in......forever. >> > >What have YOU done to oppose MHL's - or are you instead in favour of >them? Sorry, all; I forgot... "Ozark" is on record as being in favour of an MHL.       Date: 15 Mar 2007 16:59:33 From: di Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message news:3qcjv2h5omaovtl00dghic4pjrbj7h3skr@4ax.com... > On 15 2007 10:55:33 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" >> > > What have YOU done to oppose MHL's - or are you instead in favour of > them? News Flash, J Taylor has just bought stock in Bell. I've never seen anyone so obsessed in something so trivial.         Date: 15 Mar 2007 18:11:49 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling di wrote: > News Flash, J Taylor has just bought stock in Bell. I've never seen > anyone so obsessed in something so trivial. > > MHLs are not trivial. Where there is bicycling activism, the outgrowth is more regulation. I think the reality is that it is best for bicyclists to fly under the radar, learn how to ride well, quit whining about how dangerous it is, quit begging for segregation, and get on with the business of cycling. Wayne We Own the Roads, So Act Like It.   Date: 15 Mar 2007 08:50:06 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 15, 8:32 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On 15 2007 06:59:18 -0700, r15...@aol.com wrote: > > >jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > > >> The MHL is California is not an issue for you? > > >Listen, stop trying to equate MHLs for adults with > >MHLs for kids. Nobody's buying it. > > An MHL is an MHL - there may be exceptions for some, but for the > others (more than 10 million in California) it is still the law. > > And the politicians know that the best way to get a bad law passed is > to make it apply first to those who cannot vote; when they are cowed, > then it is easier to include the rest. Gee, it doesn't seem to work that way with motorcycle MHLs; despite virtually all states having a "child/minor" motorcycle MHL (ages/ details vary by state), *universal* motorcycle MHLs have been on a steady *decrease*, from a high of 47 states in 1975 to 20 as of 2001: http://preview.tinyurl.com/ynjet (see the graph on the right, about a third of the way down) How do ya 'splain that, Chicken Little? ;-)     Date: 24 Mar 2007 09:08:22 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 23, 9:38 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me > wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > On 23, 2:59 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: > >> Matt O'Toole wrote: > > >>> So let's concentrate on the *major* reasons people aren't cycling. > > >> Kids today don't ride nearly as much as they used to. > >> These days about 1 in 5 cycling fatalities involves a youngster. > >> Just ten years ago that ratio was about 1 in 3. The > >> cycling population is aging rapidly and precipitously. > > > > And it's likely that a major cause of this trend is the > > "dangerization" of cycling that's been used to sell helmets! > > Oh, horseshit. Parents don't let kids just "go out and play" as much as > they used to, period. Main reason is all the cable news coverage of child > molesters and kidnappers; they think it IS a dangerous world out there. > (And sadly, it often is.) >From that statement, here's what I can tell: You have difficulty telling the difference between my phrase "a major cause" and your phrase "[The] Main reason..." Even if your unproven statement is true, it does not negate mine. Or to spell it out more slowly, even if the _main_ reason were cable news coverage, it's possible bike helmet fearmongering would be _a_ major cause. Moving beyond the reading/logic lesson: It's interesting you say "and sadly, it often is [a dangerous world]." Of course, "often" is purposely vague. We can't tell if you're alluding to kids being killed in Iraq, or gang violence in America's inner cities, or nonexistent kidnappers hiding behind the swing set in the local park. But obviously, you're trying to contribute to this country's excessive paranoia. Despite the handwringing, incidents of stranger abduction and bike head injury fatality are vanishingly rare. Taking the bike fatalities as an example: Do you remember how many millions of miles get ridden between such incidents? Of course you don't. Why, that would require numbers. Big ones! And those are so confusing, aren't they? - Frank Krygowski       Date: 24 Mar 2007 16:15:03 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 24 2007 09:08:22 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >On 23, 9:38 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote: >Moving beyond the reading/logic lesson: > >It's interesting you say "and sadly, it often is [a dangerous >world]." Of course, "often" is purposely vague. We can't tell if >you're alluding to kids being killed in Iraq, or gang violence in >America's inner cities, or nonexistent kidnappers hiding behind the >swing set in the local park. > >But obviously, you're trying to contribute to this country's excessive >paranoia. Despite the handwringing, incidents of stranger abduction >and bike head injury fatality are vanishingly rare. Taking the bike >fatalities as an example: Do you remember how many millions of miles >get ridden between such incidents? > >Of course you don't. Why, that would require numbers. Big ones! And >those are so confusing, aren't they? > Let's ask Bill a math question: How many miles at typical cycling speeds per fatality - given that there is approximately one fatality per 450 years of cycling 24 hours a day, non-stop.         Date: 24 Mar 2007 11:45:19 From: di Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message news:vhja0315n585edjnr0rpjiauvkp9javvc8@4ax.com... > On 24 2007 09:08:22 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > >>On 23, 9:38 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote: > > >>Moving beyond the reading/logic lesson: >> >>It's interesting you say "and sadly, it often is [a dangerous >>world]." Of course, "often" is purposely vague. We can't tell if >>you're alluding to kids being killed in Iraq, or gang violence in >>America's inner cities, or nonexistent kidnappers hiding behind the >>swing set in the local park. >> >>But obviously, you're trying to contribute to this country's excessive >>paranoia. Despite the handwringing, incidents of stranger abduction >>and bike head injury fatality are vanishingly rare. Taking the bike >>fatalities as an example: Do you remember how many millions of miles >>get ridden between such incidents? >> >>Of course you don't. Why, that would require numbers. Big ones! And >>those are so confusing, aren't they? >> > > Let's ask Bill a math question: > > How many miles at typical cycling speeds per fatality - given that > there is approximately one fatality per 450 years of cycling 24 hours > a day, non-stop. It really sucks if you are that one, so I'll wear my helmet.           Date: 26 Mar 2007 20:06:07 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 26, 6:32 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me > wrote: > r15...@aol.com wrote: > > On 26, 10:35 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > > {snips} > > >> - unless, of course, you are one of those pro-helmet and/or pro-MHL > >> zealots. > > Not me. If you want to fight MHLs, which I consider > > to be an important fight, I would > > suggest not relying on such obviously > > laughably bogus 'data'. > > Too late. Anyone concerned about the spread of MHLs should realize that their interests are not served by the antics of crackpots and cranks such as "jtaylor" and Frank Krygowski.             Date: 27 Mar 2007 08:11:11 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 26 2007 20:06:07 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: >On 26, 6:32 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote: >> r15...@aol.com wrote: >> > On 26, 10:35 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> >> {snips} >> >> >> - unless, of course, you are one of those pro-helmet and/or pro-MHL >> >> zealots. >> > Not me. If you want to fight MHLs, which I consider >> > to be an important fight, I would >> > suggest not relying on such obviously >> > laughably bogus 'data'. >> >> Too late. > > >Anyone concerned about the spread of MHLs should realize that their >interests are not served by the antics of crackpots and cranks such as >"jtaylor" and Frank Krygowski. People who are against MHL's would be well advised to BE concerned when others call for an MHL, as you have repeatedly done in this very newsgroup. All anyone has to do to see this is search the ng archives for "I'd like one in your jurisdiction that was well and truly enforced" and "I do wish jtaylor gets the karma he deserves; in this case, a strong MHL with prison terms. "           Date: 26 Mar 2007 14:38:10 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 26, 10:35 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On 26 2007 10:29:36 -0700, r15...@aol.com wrote: > > >On 26, 9:03 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> Failure Analysis Associates' 1993 estimates of US per-hour fatality > >> rates ... > > >> for about 20 activities (the one that showed cycling as much > >> safer than motoring) did not come with an explanation of survey > >> techniques. But FAA (now Exponent) is a commercial firm that sells > >> data to insurance companies. It's not surprising to me that they keep > >> their methods confidential. > > >Har. They 'keep their methods confidential' because > >if they disclosed how they arrived at such per-hour > >estimates, people would just laugh. > > Oooo, you are the chosen one... > > Oh chosen one, please tell us how they did arrive at those estimates; > you must know the answer, otherwise you would not assert so > emphatically that they are laughable - Picture it: dartboard, blindfold, bottle of rum. So it's off by a billion hours or so, so what? (btw, estimate of WHAT? You might have to determine that before you start a-wonderin about methodology. There is no way to determine exactly what this famous chart which was located in an article about car fires purports to estimate, much less the method used for obtaining said estimate.) > - unless, of course, you are one of those pro-helmet and/or pro-MHL > zealots. Not me. If you want to fight MHLs, which I consider to be an important fight, I would suggest not relying on such obviously laughably bogus 'data'. Robert             Date: 26 Mar 2007 16:32:57 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling r15757@aol.com wrote: > On 26, 10:35 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: {snips} >> - unless, of course, you are one of those pro-helmet and/or pro-MHL >> zealots. > Not me. If you want to fight MHLs, which I consider > to be an important fight, I would > suggest not relying on such obviously > laughably bogus 'data'. Too late.             Date: 26 Mar 2007 21:48:16 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 26 2007 14:38:10 -0700, r15757@aol.com wrote: >On 26, 10:35 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> On 26 2007 10:29:36 -0700, r15...@aol.com wrote: >> >> >On 26, 9:03 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> Failure Analysis Associates' 1993 estimates of US per-hour fatality >> >> rates ... >> >> >> for about 20 activities (the one that showed cycling as much >> >> safer than motoring) did not come with an explanation of survey >> >> techniques. But FAA (now Exponent) is a commercial firm that sells >> >> data to insurance companies. It's not surprising to me that they keep >> >> their methods confidential. >> >> >Har. They 'keep their methods confidential' because >> >if they disclosed how they arrived at such per-hour >> >estimates, people would just laugh. >> >> Oooo, you are the chosen one... >> >> Oh chosen one, please tell us how they did arrive at those estimates; >> you must know the answer, otherwise you would not assert so >> emphatically that they are laughable - > >Picture it: dartboard, blindfold, bottle of rum. So it's >off by a billion hours or so, so what? > > > I would >suggest not relying on such obviously >laughably bogus 'data'. > Why do you say it is obviously laughable?           Date: 24 Mar 2007 17:12:23 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Sat, 24 2007 11:45:19 -0500, "di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote: > ><jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message >news:vhja0315n585edjnr0rpjiauvkp9javvc8@4ax.com... >> On 24 2007 09:08:22 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >> >>>On 23, 9:38 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote: >> >> >>>Moving beyond the reading/logic lesson: >>> >>>It's interesting you say "and sadly, it often is [a dangerous >>>world]." Of course, "often" is purposely vague. We can't tell if >>>you're alluding to kids being killed in Iraq, or gang violence in >>>America's inner cities, or nonexistent kidnappers hiding behind the >>>swing set in the local park. >>> >>>But obviously, you're trying to contribute to this country's excessive >>>paranoia. Despite the handwringing, incidents of stranger abduction >>>and bike head injury fatality are vanishingly rare. Taking the bike >>>fatalities as an example: Do you remember how many millions of miles >>>get ridden between such incidents? >>> >>>Of course you don't. Why, that would require numbers. Big ones! And >>>those are so confusing, aren't they? >>> >> >> Let's ask Bill a math question: >> >> How many miles at typical cycling speeds per fatality - given that >> there is approximately one fatality per 450 years of cycling 24 hours >> a day, non-stop. > >It really sucks if you are that one, so I'll wear my helmet. > Let's ask di a statistics question: How much to head injury rates fall when helmet wearing increases? And if the answer is zero then why wear one?             Date: 24 Mar 2007 13:54:48 From: di Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message news:e3na039b8hq7t1fl0v8aktdtv917630e9q@4ax.com... > On Sat, 24 2007 11:45:19 -0500, "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote: >>>> >>> How many miles at typical cycling speeds per fatality - given that >>> there is approximately one fatality per 450 years of cycling 24 hours >>> a day, non-stop. >> >>It really sucks if you are that one, so I'll wear my helmet. >> > > Let's ask di a statistics question: > > How much to head injury rates fall when helmet wearing increases? > > And if the answer is zero then why wear one? Prove your "zero" statistic, but I won't buy it because statistics are easy to manipulate and bent into any desired result. I just know what happens in my little world, which is at least 5 or 6 people who have crashed and were ok, except for their helmets which were split and broken. Would their heads been split or broken, who knows because they had enough sense to be wearing something else that was. Now let's ask J Taylor a question, who other than you and myself really care if I wear a helmet or not? Since it's only you and me that care, then the solution is simple, I win.               Date: 26 Mar 2007 10:22:22 From: Curtis L. Russell Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Sat, 24 2007 13:54:48 -0500, "di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote: > I just know what happens >in my little world, which is at least 5 or 6 people who have crashed and >were ok, except for their helmets which were split and broken. Really? That's more than I've known from both bicycle racing teams and regular bicycle clubs over the last 20 years, once you remove the accidents in the act of racing. I've known four deaths, all on the road, none of which would have been prevented by the helmet - actually all four were wearing helmets. Now, I've been wearing helmets from the old MSR days in the 1970s, and still wear them, but I have to say, your little world seems to have a lot of careless riders. Certainly I can see 5 or 6 accidents where helmets were scraped badly - I've had several racing accidents that popped rivets in the helmet and two accidents over the last thirty years on the road where the helmet hit the road, but neither split and broke the helmet, not even the all-Styrofoam-with-cloth-cover. I also had an accident with a track helmet on the road back in 1972 that had the Army guys at Fort Ord add me to a study, but it didn't lower my scores on tests, much less kill me. Yeah, I couldn't understand English for a while or count fingers held up in front of my face, but the damage was very local and very transient. For us, the majority, in the middle, the exaggerated numbers of dead-but-for-their-helmets are as bad as the Armageddon of the MHLs. We used to have 'emergency room physicians' pop in with numbers that they saw that did not match any reported levels of accidents or the numbers that should have been seen in recovery and rehab rooms in the aftermath. Bicycle accidents are in general minor enough to not require major rehab. Sit in a sports rehab clinic and count the cyclists - I've done it from both sides. I screwed up a knee in an odd accident (flipped completely over the handlebars after another bike trashed my front wheel) and still spend an occasional day in the local clinic and I also did the accounting for several rehab clinics. You have soccer player after soccer player, lots of football stuff, a lot of lacrosse players in our area, but no bicyclists to speak of. Head injury rehab? We really don't make the needle move much. Speaking as someone that used to have to do the numbers on large volumes of insurance numbers from Prudential to determine the capitation rates for our clinic charges - bicycling is not a real factor worth mentioning. Literally. Get your little world to a couple of good bike handling classes. They are falling head first altogether too often. Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...               Date: 24 Mar 2007 19:01:17 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Sat, 24 2007 13:54:48 -0500, "di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote: > ><jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message >news:e3na039b8hq7t1fl0v8aktdtv917630e9q@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 24 2007 11:45:19 -0500, "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>> How many miles at typical cycling speeds per fatality - given that >>>> there is approximately one fatality per 450 years of cycling 24 hours >>>> a day, non-stop. >>> >>>It really sucks if you are that one, so I'll wear my helmet. >>> >> >> Let's ask di a statistics question: >> >> How much to head injury rates fall when helmet wearing increases? >> >> And if the answer is zero then why wear one? > >Prove your "zero" statistic, www.cyclehelmets.org         Date: 24 Mar 2007 16:37:32 From: nash Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message news:vhja0315n585edjnr0rpjiauvkp9javvc8@4ax.com... > On 24 2007 09:08:22 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > >>On 23, 9:38 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote: > > >>Moving beyond the reading/logic lesson: >> >>It's interesting you say "and sadly, it often is [a dangerous >>world]." Of course, "often" is purposely vague. We can't tell if >>you're alluding to kids being killed in Iraq, or gang violence in >>America's inner cities, or nonexistent kidnappers hiding behind the >>swing set in the local park. >> >>But obviously, you're trying to contribute to this country's excessive >>paranoia. Despite the handwringing, incidents of stranger abduction >>and bike head injury fatality are vanishingly rare. Taking the bike >>fatalities as an example: Do you remember how many millions of miles >>get ridden between such incidents? >> >>Of course you don't. Why, that would require numbers. Big ones! And >>those are so confusing, aren't they? >> > > Let's ask Bill a math question: > > How many miles at typical cycling speeds per fatality - given that > there is approximately one fatality per 450 years of cycling 24 hours > a day, non-stop. ?????Who cycles 24 hours a day. Means nothing.     Date: 23 Mar 2007 18:51:38 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 23, 7:38 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me > wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > On 23, 2:59 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: > >> Matt O'Toole wrote: > >>> I would guess that the overall cultural trend of less cycling > >>> dwarfs any effect of MHLs. The decline in cycling began long > >>> before MHLs were being considered anywhere, in the US or abroad. > > >>> So let's concentrate on the *major* reasons people aren't cycling. > > >> Kids today don't ride nearly as much as they used to. > >> These days about 1 in 5 cycling fatalities involves a youngster. > >> Just ten years ago that ratio was about 1 in 3. The > >> cycling population is aging rapidly and precipitously. > > And it's likely that a major cause of this trend is the > > "dangerization" of cycling that's been used to sell helmets! > > Oh, horseshit. Parents don't let kids just "go out and play" as much as > they used to, period. Main reason is all the cable news coverage of child > molesters and kidnappers; they think it IS a dangerous world out there. > (And sadly, it often is.) > > There's also the "cool factor", and kids prefer skateboards or scruffing > their feet to pedaling bicycles. Helmets have very little to do with it. Don't tell Franky Krygowski that "helmets have very little to do with it", even though it is the truth. Franky's anti-helmet crusade is his only purpose in life. Take that away, and even the Viagara won't help anymore.     Date: 15 Mar 2007 16:29:57 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 15 2007 08:50:06 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: >On 15, 8:32 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> On 15 2007 06:59:18 -0700, r15...@aol.com wrote: >> >> >jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> >> >> The MHL is California is not an issue for you? >> >> >Listen, stop trying to equate MHLs for adults with >> >MHLs for kids. Nobody's buying it. >> >> An MHL is an MHL - there may be exceptions for some, but for the >> others (more than 10 million in California) it is still the law. >> >> And the politicians know that the best way to get a bad law passed is >> to make it apply first to those who cannot vote; when they are cowed, >> then it is easier to include the rest. > > >Gee, it doesn't seem to work that way with motorcycle MHLs; despite >virtually all states having a "child/minor" motorcycle MHL (ages/ >details vary by state), *universal* motorcycle MHLs have been on a >steady *decrease*, from a high of 47 states in 1975 to 20 as of 2001: > >http://preview.tinyurl.com/ynjet > >(see the graph on the right, about a third of the way down) > > >How do ya 'splain that, Chicken Little? ;-) Motorcyclists are effective in their oposition to MHL's. Cyclists clearly are not, as shown by the ever-increasing number of the MHL's in the USofA. What have YOU done to oppose MHL's - or are you instead in favour of them?       Date: 23 Mar 2007 02:37:18 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <fb57039f7iiefltn02c1g9104kocel8bk7@4ax.com >, jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: >>>> Yeah, what do I know? I just live here, and see what I see. >>> >>> And of course, your vision and memory are perfectly calibrated, so you >>> couldn't miss any drop in cycling! >> >>I've noted an ongoing detectable increase in cycling in >>Vancouver Proper since as long as I can remember. > > Do you have any kind of study with numbers that says this, or this > just another instance of faith-based statistics? My rain gear consists of rain cape, fenders, helmet cover, hiking gaiters, and strips of inner tube stretched around my toe clips. Thus equipped I arrive at any destination bone-dry. My shoes & socks aren't even squishy, and my trousers are as dry in the winter as they are in the summer. Other riders I see on the fly (and there are many of them) have their own gear that they've established to work for them. There have been times when I've been sixth or seventh back in a bicycle lineup on 10th Ave, waiting for the traffic light at Granville St. In December. Post MHL. Y'see, I live in a pretty good cycling area, despite being inflicted with the MHL. We've already got a good modal share, and the City is actively shooting for 10% by 2010 in the downtown core. I guess you live in a pretty shitty area, but with negative folks like you around I'm not surprised. Actually, I wonder if you ride at all. I invite you to try it. -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca         Date: 23 Mar 2007 14:34:29 From: Matt O'Toole Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Fri, 23 2007 02:37:18 -0800, Tom Keats wrote: > Y'see, I live in a pretty good cycling area, despite being > inflicted with the MHL. We've already got a good modal share, > and the City is actively shooting for 10% by 2010 in the > downtown core. I hear Victoria is already at 12%, the highest in North America. Davis, CA used to have that honor, but it has slipped as the non-student population has grown, and students are cycling less. Matt O.         Date: 23 Mar 2007 12:46:54 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Fri, 23 2007 02:37:18 -0800, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >In article <fb57039f7iiefltn02c1g9104kocel8bk7@4ax.com>, > jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > >>>>> Yeah, what do I know? I just live here, and see what I see. >>>> >>>> And of course, your vision and memory are perfectly calibrated, so you >>>> couldn't miss any drop in cycling! >>> >>>I've noted an ongoing detectable increase in cycling in >>>Vancouver Proper since as long as I can remember. >> >> Do you have any kind of study with numbers that says this, or this >> just another instance of faith-based statistics? > >My rain gear consists of rain cape, fenders, helmet cover, >hiking gaiters, and strips of inner tube stretched around >my toe clips. Thus equipped I arrive at any destination >bone-dry. My shoes & socks aren't even squishy, and my >trousers are as dry in the winter as they are in the summer. > >Other riders I see on the fly (and there are many of them) >have their own gear that they've established to work for them. > >There have been times when I've been sixth or seventh back in >a bicycle lineup on 10th Ave, waiting for the traffic light at >Granville St. In December. Post MHL. > >Y'see, I live in a pretty good cycling area, despite being >inflicted with the MHL. We've already got a good modal share, >and the City is actively shooting for 10% by 2010 in the >downtown core. > >I guess you live in a pretty shitty area, but with negative >folks like you around I'm not surprised. > >Actually, I wonder if you ride at all. I invite you to try it. That would be a "No", then; you have no facts, just supposition. And a mis-understanding of the difference between cycling rate effects and cycling number effects; I'm sure you will have statistics to correct if this is wrong, but the population of the LMR has been growing, no? Even if you see more cyclists it therefore does not mean that the percentage of people cycling is greater. As well - let's hope this is not too subtle - even if, as you claim without evidence, the rate of cycling _has_ been growing since the MHL, that rate may well have been reduced by the MHL - without it, you'd have even more^h^h^h^h (ooops, sorry, making your mistake for you) a greater percentage of people cycling. But of course, without numbers, we just have to use the best practice, with the aforesaid conclusion.   Date: 15 Mar 2007 08:44:15 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 15, 4:38 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > > Do most Seattle cyclists even realize that they have > > been singled out as particularly dangerous and > > unskilled, compared to others in the US? > > Do they assume that such laws are > > in place everywhere else? Don't they feel > > ridiculous when they strap on a > > helmet for a three-block cruise to the coffee > > shop in the morning? Don't they resent it? > > > Relative to other cities of similar size, there > > seems to be very little casual low-income > > cycling going on in Seattle. Seems like the > > vast majority of transportational cyclists there > > are decked out in a few thousand dollars worth > > of shiny new equipment. Probably a combo > > of weather, terrain, and the MHL. > > That is so hurtful, and downright mean. Huh? In what way? I am legitimately puzzled by this issue. Did my exasperation show too much? Is there some way to bring up this ridiculous MHL that would be acceptable to y'all, or is it the law that must not be spoken of? Am I not allowed to post my own personal observations from cycling in Seattle and around King County? The 'downright mean' and nasty response was Claire's, not mine. > Why are fellow cyclists our own worst enemies? I don't know. Ask the Cascade cycling club. Are there any other examples anywhere of a cycling club/advocacy organization that is PRO adult MHL? What the hell are they thinking? Is the goal to get people to ride bikes, to use their bikes for short trips to the store, to the bar, to the coffee shop, to work, to parties, etc. -- or is the goal to make certain that whoever does these things is wearing a helmet, even if it means that far fewer people do it? > Jeez, Robert -- I /know/ you're usually above > this sort of razmatazz. I am definitely not above this sort of razmatazz, whatever sort of razmatazz you think this is. > Better pull out that hair that's up your ass > about MHLs. Then rinse your fingers off, wipe > 'em off on your jeans, and shake hands with your > fellow riders to let them know you're still on > their side. Even those who are stuck in MHL > jurisdictions. That's disgusting. > cheers, & what John Merrick said, > Tom     Date: 15 Mar 2007 13:39:04 From: Matt O'Toole Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Thu, 15 2007 08:44:15 -0700, r15757 wrote: > On 15, 4:38 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >> Why are fellow cyclists our own worst enemies? Because we're a community of nerds, without social skills or political savvy. But at least some of us try. > I don't know. Ask the Cascade cycling club. Are there any other examples > anywhere of a cycling club/advocacy organization that is PRO adult MHL? > What the hell are they thinking? There are lots. What the hell are they thinking? They're probably just not thinking. > Is the goal to get people to ride bikes, to use their bikes for short > trips to the store, to the bar, to the coffee shop, to work, to parties, > etc. -- or is the goal to make certain that whoever does these things is > wearing a helmet, even if it means that far fewer people do it? Their goal is safety, *as they understand it*, and showing that they're on the side of safety. Most of them mean well. Matt O.   Date: 15 Mar 2007 07:25:58 From: Qui si parla Campagnolo Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 15, 4:34 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On 13 2007 15:15:33 -0700, "treyno...@my-deja.com" > > > > <thomas.treyno...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On 9, 2:55 pm, Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: > >> I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is > >> important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas > >> west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for > >> cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found > >> that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about > >> regular road riding? > > >> Ken > > >The most bicycle friendly community that I have ever visited is Davis, > >Cal. The city vehicles have a bicycle as their emblem. Stoplights > >have pedestrian walk buttons out in the bike lanes (I guess they're > >not really walk buttons but you know what I mean). It's very flat > >there but the Sierras are not too far away. The weather is not as > >nice as my hometown of San Diego but probably better than Florida. I > >don't know about off road riding in that area. > > The MHL is California is not an issue for you? Think the OP is over the age where it's a law...     Date: 15 Mar 2007 14:38:23 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 15 2007 07:25:58 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote: >On 15, 4:34 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> On 13 2007 15:15:33 -0700, "treyno...@my-deja.com" >> >> >> >> <thomas.treyno...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >On 9, 2:55 pm, Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >> >> I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is >> >> important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas >> >> west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for >> >> cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found >> >> that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about >> >> regular road riding? >> >> >> Ken >> >> >The most bicycle friendly community that I have ever visited is Davis, >> >Cal. The city vehicles have a bicycle as their emblem. Stoplights >> >have pedestrian walk buttons out in the bike lanes (I guess they're >> >not really walk buttons but you know what I mean). It's very flat >> >there but the Sierras are not too far away. The weather is not as >> >nice as my hometown of San Diego but probably better than Florida. I >> >don't know about off road riding in that area. >> >> The MHL is California is not an issue for you? > >Think the OP is over the age where it's a law... The law can change; and unfortunately, in the USofA, the trend is toward ever increasing MHL's.   Date: 15 Mar 2007 06:59:18 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > The MHL is California is not an issue for you? Listen, stop trying to equate MHLs for adults with MHLs for kids. Nobody's buying it. Robert     Date: 23 Mar 2007 16:07:11 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 23, 2:59 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: > Matt O'Toole wrote: > > I would guess that the overall cultural trend of less cycling dwarfs any > > effect of MHLs. The decline in cycling began long before MHLs were being > > considered anywhere, in the US or abroad. > > > So let's concentrate on the *major* reasons people aren't cycling. > > Kids today don't ride nearly as much as they used to. > These days about 1 in 5 cycling fatalities involves a youngster. > Just ten years ago that ratio was about 1 in 3. The > cycling population is aging rapidly and precipitously. And it's likely that a major cause of this trend is the "dangerization" of cycling that's been used to sell helmets! Until about 1990 or so, it was expected that kids would fall off bikes. It was expected that they might get a scraped knee, then a band-aid, then go back to riding. Now, after many years of propaganda, it's expected that they will land directly on their head and become permanently or fatally brain injured! The fact that this is vanishingly rare among any cyclists is carefully hidden. So is the fact that 99+% of such injuries happen due to other sorts of accidents. It's too important to helmet promoters to make cycling sound uniquely dangerous. We shouldn't be surprised that many mommies say "Oh no, my kid isn't going to ride a bike. It's too dangerous!" - Frank Krygowski       Date: 23 Mar 2007 17:38:10 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On 23, 2:59 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: >> Matt O'Toole wrote: >>> I would guess that the overall cultural trend of less cycling >>> dwarfs any effect of MHLs. The decline in cycling began long >>> before MHLs were being considered anywhere, in the US or abroad. >> >>> So let's concentrate on the *major* reasons people aren't cycling. >> >> Kids today don't ride nearly as much as they used to. >> These days about 1 in 5 cycling fatalities involves a youngster. >> Just ten years ago that ratio was about 1 in 3. The >> cycling population is aging rapidly and precipitously. > And it's likely that a major cause of this trend is the > "dangerization" of cycling that's been used to sell helmets! Oh, horseshit. Parents don't let kids just "go out and play" as much as they used to, period. Main reason is all the cable news coverage of child molesters and kidnappers; they think it IS a dangerous world out there. (And sadly, it often is.) There's also the "cool factor", and kids prefer skateboards or scruffing their feet to pedaling bicycles. Helmets have very little to do with it.         Date: 29 Mar 2007 15:40:41 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me > wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >> On 23, 2:59 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: >>> Matt O'Toole wrote: >>>> I would guess that the overall cultural trend of less cycling >>>> dwarfs any effect of MHLs. The decline in cycling began long >>>> before MHLs were being considered anywhere, in the US or abroad. >>> >>>> So let's concentrate on the *major* reasons people aren't cycling. >>> >>> Kids today don't ride nearly as much as they used to. >>> These days about 1 in 5 cycling fatalities involves a youngster. >>> Just ten years ago that ratio was about 1 in 3. The >>> cycling population is aging rapidly and precipitously. > >> And it's likely that a major cause of this trend is the >> "dangerization" of cycling that's been used to sell helmets! > > Oh, horseshit. Parents don't let kids just "go out and play" as much as > they used to, period. Main reason is all the cable news coverage of child > molesters and kidnappers; they think it IS a dangerous world out there. > (And sadly, it often is.) I'm mostly going to agree with you there. Except that it's not really a dangerous world. In fact it's less dangerous than it used to be. However news "reporting" about violent crime has increased 600%. Fear sells. It sells newspapers. It keeps people riveted to the local drivel^W^H news. I'll have to see if I can find the original study that talked about it. I've found it before. > There's also the "cool factor", and kids prefer skateboards or scruffing > their feet to pedaling bicycles. Helmets have very little to do with it. Eh, I don't know. I think they definitely do cause a decrease in the youth cyclists, but I think the largest part is how sedentary people have become. Kids don't go outside enough, and they don't have enough unstructured time in general. </my two cents > -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org Yesterday upon the stair I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today -- I think he's from the CIA.         Date: 29 Mar 2007 10:38:33 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 28, 7:10 pm, "David Tang" <dgt...@shaw.ca > wrote in part: > I think in most places, cyclists are required to behave like vehicles > when riding on the road. They therefore also get treated like vehicles. > Which I think means in situations where the was no obvious negligence > or intent to injure, no one gets ticketed. Can you imagine any situation where one car collides with another but there is no obvious negligence or ticketable offense from at least one party? Robert           Date: 30 Mar 2007 01:35:00 From: David Tang Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling <r15757@aol.com > wrote in message news:1175189913.133889.168610@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On 28, 7:10 pm, "David Tang" <dgt...@shaw.ca> wrote in part: > >> I think in most places, cyclists are required to behave like vehicles >> when riding on the road. They therefore also get treated like vehicles. >> Which I think means in situations where the was no obvious negligence >> or intent to injure, no one gets ticketed. > > Can you imagine any situation where one car > collides with another but there is no obvious > negligence or ticketable offense from at least > one party? > > Robert Happens all the time around here during the winter, with the blame usually attributed to the conditions. Sometimes you can't stop, no matter how slow you were going or how much space you allowed for. I imagine rain is occasionally blamed as well, in places that get enough of it. - David           Date: 29 Mar 2007 17:51:20 From: Kristian M Zoerhoff Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 2007-03-29, r15757@aol.com <r15757@aol.com > wrote: > On 28, 7:10 pm, "David Tang" <dgt...@shaw.ca> wrote in part: > >> I think in most places, cyclists are required to behave like vehicles >> when riding on the road. They therefore also get treated like vehicles. >> Which I think means in situations where the was no obvious negligence >> or intent to injure, no one gets ticketed. > > Can you imagine any situation where one car > collides with another but there is no obvious > negligence or ticketable offense from at least > one party? Maybe not, but ticketable offenses don't always result in tickets. Of the last 3 collisions [1] I've been in (all in a car), /not one of them/ resulted in the at-fault motorist getting a ticket. That included 2 rear-end hits, and one blatant red light runner who damn near took my legs off when she knocked the engine block loose. [1] I refuse to call them "accidents" anymore. Negligence is not accidental. -- __o Kristian Zoerhoff _'\(,_ kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com (_)/ (_)         Date: 28 Mar 2007 19:40:22 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <5eFOh.85384$zU1.35447@pd7urf1no >, "David Tang" <dgtang@shaw.ca > writes: > I think in most places, cyclists are required to behave like vehicles > when riding on the road. They therefore also get treated like vehicles. > Which I think means in situations where the was no obvious negligence > or intent to injure, no one gets ticketed. Unfortunately, situations > that result in only minor fender-benders with two cars have more serious > consequences when a cyclist is involved. In situations involving > pedestrian, different rules get applied of course. So is another set > of rules required for cyclists? That could be construed that we aren't > vehicles after all, and give motorists a reason to have us banned from > the roads. From: http://www.bicycledriving.com/trafficlaw.htm "Why Traffic Law Matters Although the highway codes of all states in the USA treat cyclists as drivers of vehicles, many unnecessary and prejudicial rules applying only to cyclists have been added in most but not all states. Such rules fuel the public perception that cyclists should not be classed as drivers of vehicles, providing false but legalistic arguments against treating cyclists as drivers of vehicles. The law should not reflect the belief that cyclists have inferior rights compared to motorists as users of the public roads. When traffic law if fair and reflects the principles of traffic engineering, judges, juries, attorneys, police, and the general public are much more likely to treat cyclists as drivers of vehicles." cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca         Date: 28 Mar 2007 17:44:52 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <460ae72b$0$28087$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > > >> But personally, I think we cyclists _should_ care about how many >> people cycle. There's certainly data that indicates that more cycling >> yields safer cycling. It probably makes it easier to get amenities >> like bike racks outside businesses, bike racks on the front of buses, >> policies allowing bringing bikes on commuter trains, etc. > > I used to care about how many people cycled, but no longer. Yes I'll > extol the benefits of cycling and extend effort toward giving folks the > knowledge to cycle better. But I don't really care if they do or don't. I agree, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. And I certainly don't want to force anyone who doesn't want to ride, to do so. Nevertheless I do think we enjoy certain benefits from participating in a growing and vivacious cycling community. For one thing, it helps bike shops stay alive, so we can easily get our inner tubes & tires. And with a diversity of riding styles, and cross-application[*], some accessories become more available and obtainable. cheers, Tom [*] e.g: using messenger bags for commuting purposes -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca           Date: 02 Apr 2007 12:16:12 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Tom Keats <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: >> >> I used to care about how many people cycled, but no longer. Yes I'll >> extol the benefits of cycling and extend effort toward giving folks the >> knowledge to cycle better. But I don't really care if they do or don't. > > I agree, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. > And I certainly don't want to force anyone who doesn't want to ride, > to do so. I'm not much of a soapbox fellow myself. I have had pretty good results with the 'lead by example' meme however. Quite a few of my coworkers have started cycling to work in the past year or two. I've certainly offered help and encouragement, but I think mainly it's seeing me come in *every* day on the bicycle that they've found encouraging. > Nevertheless I do think we enjoy certain benefits from participating > in a growing and vivacious cycling community. For one thing, it helps > bike shops stay alive, so we can easily get our inner tubes & tires. > And with a diversity of riding styles, and cross-application[*], some > accessories become more available and obtainable. Not to mention more people to buy and sell used bikes from, and of course the larger availability of cycling MOTAS to date. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org "For three days after death hair and fingernails continue to grow but phone calls taper off." -- Johnny Carson           Date: 29 Mar 2007 13:18:39 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Tom Keats wrote: > I agree, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. > And I certainly don't want to force anyone who doesn't want to ride, > to do so. > > Nevertheless I do think we enjoy certain benefits from participating > in a growing and vivacious cycling community. For one thing, it helps > bike shops stay alive, so we can easily get our inner tubes & tires. > And with a diversity of riding styles, and cross-application[*], some > accessories become more available and obtainable. > Probably true. Wayne         Date: 28 Mar 2007 08:56:41 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 27, 11:25 pm, "David Tang" <dgt...@shaw.ca > wrote: > ... as several people (but especially > frkrygow) have noted, the rate of injury is already so low anyway, the > difference is one of infinitesimals. So who cares how many people > cycle besides cyclists? The car drivers certainly appreciate having > less cyclists on the road. That last sentence is probably true for some car drivers. But I think most of us are motorists as well as cyclists, so I assume some motorists are fine with promoting cycling. Also, there are probably motorists who admire and encourage cycling, even if, for whatever reason (fear, handicaps, etc) they don't do it themselves. They could see it as an environmental benefit, or as just removing another car from the road. But personally, I think we cyclists _should_ care about how many people cycle. There's certainly data that indicates that more cycling yields safer cycling. It probably makes it easier to get amenities like bike racks outside businesses, bike racks on the front of buses, policies allowing bringing bikes on commuter trains, etc. > The point I believe frkrygow is trying to make is: > > MHLs decrease the cycling population. More people get less exercise. > Less exercise leads to obesity and health problems. Therefore, if > there were no MHLs, the general population would be healthier as a > result. There's more. I have concerns about the whole "cycling is dangerous" message that's constantly used to promote helmets. There have been several attempts to use the lack of a bike helmet as a "contributory negligence" defense when a motorist has carelessly violated a law and injured a cyclist. Similarly, I've known cyclists that got injured by drivers, but the drivers were never even ticketed. I think this is caused partly by the notion "You knew it was dangerous when you got out there on a bike." If helmets were promoted merely as flashy, stylish headwear so you look like a racer, I would probably laugh at the promotions but otherwise ignore them. But I find too much harm in the "Cycling is Dangerous!" message, and too much dishonesty in the "Helmets work wonderfully!" message. I don't see how this "Cycling is Dangerous!" mindset can do us any good at all. - Frank Krygowski           Date: 29 Mar 2007 02:10:09 From: David Tang Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1175097401.703226.292120@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > On 27, 11:25 pm, "David Tang" <dgt...@shaw.ca> wrote: >> ... as several people (but especially >> frkrygow) have noted, the rate of injury is already so low anyway, the >> difference is one of infinitesimals. So who cares how many people >> cycle besides cyclists? The car drivers certainly appreciate having >> less cyclists on the road. > > That last sentence is probably true for some car drivers. But I think > most of us are motorists as well as cyclists, so I assume some > motorists are fine with promoting cycling. Also, there are probably > motorists who admire and encourage cycling, even if, for whatever > reason (fear, handicaps, etc) they don't do it themselves. They could > see it as an environmental benefit, or as just removing another car > from the road. Most of the readership of this newsgroup are motorists as well cyclists, but I think most of the general population are motorists only. And while most of them may admire cyclists and give way to them when required, I think they would breath better if they didn't have to share the roads with us. That's the context in which I wrote that last sentence. I should have been clearer last time. A very small minority of motorists would probably run us off the road but for the consequences. I once had someone yell very angrily at me to get on the sidewalk where I belonged, even though it was a four-lane road and I was riding as far to the right as possible. I though of giving him the finger, but I saw him looking back at me in the side mirror of his truck as he made a right turn half a block in front of me, and though better of it. > But personally, I think we cyclists _should_ care about how many > people cycle. There's certainly data that indicates that more cycling > yields safer cycling. It probably makes it easier to get amenities > like bike racks outside businesses, bike racks on the front of buses, > policies allowing bringing bikes on commuter trains, etc. I totally agree. >> The point I believe frkrygow is trying to make is: >> >> MHLs decrease the cycling population. More people get less exercise. >> Less exercise leads to obesity and health problems. Therefore, if >> there were no MHLs, the general population would be healthier as a >> result. > > There's more. I have concerns about the whole "cycling is dangerous" > message that's constantly used to promote helmets. There have been > several attempts to use the lack of a bike helmet as a "contributory > negligence" defense when a motorist has carelessly violated a law and > injured a cyclist. > > Similarly, I've known cyclists that got injured by drivers, but the > drivers were never even ticketed. I think this is caused partly by > the notion "You knew it was dangerous when you got out there on a > bike." I think in most places, cyclists are required to behave like vehicles when riding on the road. They therefore also get treated like vehicles. Which I think means in situations where the was no obvious negligence or intent to injure, no one gets ticketed. Unfortunately, situations that result in only minor fender-benders with two cars have more serious consequences when a cyclist is involved. In situations involving pedestrian, different rules get applied of course. So is another set of rules required for cyclists? That could be construed that we aren't vehicles after all, and give motorists a reason to have us banned from the roads. > If helmets were promoted merely as flashy, stylish headwear so you > look like a racer, I would probably laugh at the promotions but > otherwise ignore them. But I find too much harm in the "Cycling is > Dangerous!" message, and too much dishonesty in the "Helmets work > wonderfully!" message. > > I don't see how this "Cycling is Dangerous!" mindset can do us any > good at all. > > - Frank Krygowski - David             Date: 29 Mar 2007 09:53:57 From: Pat Lamb Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling David Tang wrote: > A very small minority of motorists would probably run us off the > road but for the consequences. I once had someone yell very angrily > at me to get on the sidewalk where I belonged, even though it was a > four-lane road and I was riding as far to the right as possible. > I though of giving him the finger, but I saw him looking back at > me in the side mirror of his truck as he made a right turn half > a block in front of me, and though better of it. Every now and then you get a chance... I had one yell, "Get on the sidewalk!" at me in just the right spot; I looked carefully over to my right, saw a grassy embankment, and stared back at the jerk with a "WTF are you talking about? There's no sidewalk there!" look. He was apparently trying to get a rise out of me, because he was slow enough to see my reaction. Apparently embarrassed, he then accelerated away without another word. Pat           Date: 28 Mar 2007 18:07:40 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > But personally, I think we cyclists _should_ care about how many > people cycle. There's certainly data that indicates that more cycling > yields safer cycling. It probably makes it easier to get amenities > like bike racks outside businesses, bike racks on the front of buses, > policies allowing bringing bikes on commuter trains, etc. I used to care about how many people cycled, but no longer. Yes I'll extol the benefits of cycling and extend effort toward giving folks the knowledge to cycle better. But I don't really care if they do or don't. More cyclists doesn't make it safer for me personally. There's always something to lock my bike to whether there is a rack or not, and bike racks on busses may be used by people who would otherwise have ridden the entire distance (I acknowledge some use may increase cycling by trip chaining a long distance). Short haul busses more compete with and reduce cycling rather than enhance it. Wayne             Date: 28 Mar 2007 22:24:32 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling >frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > > >> But personally, I think we cyclists _should_ care about how many >> people cycle. There's certainly data that indicates that more cycling >> yields safer cycling. It probably makes it easier to get amenities >> like bike racks outside businesses, bike racks on the front of buses, >> policies allowing bringing bikes on commuter trains, etc. > >I used to care about how many people cycled, but no longer. Yes I'll >extol the benefits of cycling and extend effort toward giving folks the >knowledge to cycle better. But I don't really care if they do or don't. >More cyclists doesn't make it safer for me personally. There is some good statistical evidence to the contrary; you should start encouraging others to cycle again.               Date: 29 Mar 2007 13:12:02 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling jtaylor@NOSPAM.eastlink.ca wrote: >>frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >>>But personally, I think we cyclists _should_ care about how many >>>people cycle. There's certainly data that indicates that more cycling >>>yields safer cycling. It probably makes it easier to get amenities >>>like bike racks outside businesses, bike racks on the front of buses, >>>policies allowing bringing bikes on commuter trains, etc. >> >>I used to care about how many people cycled, but no longer. Yes I'll >>extol the benefits of cycling and extend effort toward giving folks the >>knowledge to cycle better. But I don't really care if they do or don't. >>More cyclists doesn't make it safer for me personally. > > > There is some good statistical evidence to the contrary; you should > start encouraging others to cycle again. That statistical evidence is for populations and does not transfer to individuals. I'm highly visible both by lane positioning and by hi viz clothing, I know the mechanisms of collions and how to avoid them, and I've been riding for 44 years since I was 4. A few more doofuses on bikes are more likely to reduce my safety rather than enhance it. Wayne             Date: 28 Mar 2007 22:18:34 From: Bill Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Wayne Pein wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > > >> But personally, I think we cyclists _should_ care about how many >> people cycle. There's certainly data that indicates that more cycling >> yields safer cycling. It probably makes it easier to get amenities >> like bike racks outside businesses, bike racks on the front of buses, >> policies allowing bringing bikes on commuter trains, etc. > > I used to care about how many people cycled, but no longer. Yes I'll > extol the benefits of cycling and extend effort toward giving folks the > knowledge to cycle better. But I don't really care if they do or don't. > More cyclists doesn't make it safer for me personally. There's always > something to lock my bike to whether there is a rack or not, and bike > racks on busses may be used by people who would otherwise have ridden > the entire distance (I acknowledge some use may increase cycling by trip > chaining a long distance). Short haul busses more compete with and > reduce cycling rather than enhance it. > > Wayne > Short haul buses are for the lazy in my area since there is nothing over 7 miles from the far west side of my 2 town area to the far east side. Some people are using the buses to get them within about a half mile of their destinations which kind of defeats the purpose of having a bike. Most of these (in my area) are the ones who have one too many traffic tickets and no license and could care less about any health benefits of riding. This is actually a good cycling area but there is a lack of actual cycling enthusiasts. About twice a year I will pass or be passed by an actual serious rider blasting by in Lycra on a real road bike. Other than that rare experience there are a lot of 20-30-40 somethings who don't ride any better than they apparently drove a car. If I want company on a ride I have to take my grandkids because the adults around here think that it is a mandate for anyone over 18 to drive or they will not look properly 'adult'. Lots of satellite dishes around here, few bicycles. Bill Baka         Date: 26 Mar 2007 10:29:36 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 26, 9:03 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > Failure Analysis Associates' 1993 estimates of US per-hour fatality > rates ... How do you know they are '1993 estimates?' Because they popped up in a magazine article about car fires in 1993? Fact is you don't know if these are 1993 numbers or numbers from 1962 or if they are for one month or ten years or if they are even for the US or for the entire world or if they include children or if they are completely made up, or anything. > for about 20 activities (the one that showed cycling as much > safer than motoring) did not come with an explanation of survey > techniques. But FAA (now Exponent) is a commercial firm that sells > data to insurance companies. It's not surprising to me that they keep > their methods confidential. Har. They 'keep their methods confidential' because if they disclosed how they arrived at such per-hour estimates, people would just laugh. Robert           Date: 27 Mar 2007 18:02:29 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 27, 5:32 pm, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On 27 2007 15:12:18 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" > > > > > > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > >> >> I do wish jtaylor gets the karma he deserves; in this case, a strong MHL > >> >> with prison terms. > > >> >Only a lying, deceptive, deluded nutcase like you would try to twist > >> >what I wrote into a call for a MHL. > > >> Um, so by "MHL" you didn't mean "MHL? > > >Are you > > >a) stupid > > >b) insane > > >c) stupid *and* insane > > Insults are a sign that the user has no other support. > > (For the purposes of this thread, "pro-MHL" is not an insult, just a > description of Ozark's position) > > Thanks for the succinct display of your insanity, "j"; I promise to post links to this anytime anyone shows any signs of taking you seriously. TTFN. ;-)           Date: 26 Mar 2007 17:35:52 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 26 2007 10:29:36 -0700, r15757@aol.com wrote: >On 26, 9:03 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Failure Analysis Associates' 1993 estimates of US per-hour fatality >> rates ... > >> for about 20 activities (the one that showed cycling as much >> safer than motoring) did not come with an explanation of survey >> techniques. But FAA (now Exponent) is a commercial firm that sells >> data to insurance companies. It's not surprising to me that they keep >> their methods confidential. > >Har. They 'keep their methods confidential' because >if they disclosed how they arrived at such per-hour >estimates, people would just laugh. > Oooo, you are the chosen one... Oh chosen one, please tell us how they did arrive at those estimates; you must know the answer, otherwise you would not assert so emphatically that they are laughable - - unless, of course, you are one of those pro-helmet and/or pro-MHL zealots.         Date: 26 Mar 2007 09:03:15 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 26, 10:31 am, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote: > > It might be interesting to ask one of several people that spend a lot > of time analyzing US numbers if they know any difference between the > reporting characteristics [of various countries] as well. AFAIK, the US reporting is > self-developed and is not to anyspecific international standard (if > any exists). AFAIK, there is no international standard for determining things like hours of cycle use (something that "r1234567" frequently complains about). In addition, there's no international standard for the term "head injury," which is what allows many pro-helmet researchers to actually count things like cut ears, scratched chins, etc. as "head injuries" to bolster their numbers. There's also not terrific consistency on the general term "injury." Usually, it seems based on visits to Emergency Rooms; occasionally, on hospital admissions. Some of the "Danger! Danger!" crowd have complained that not all bicycle injuries are counted, since people with scraped knees don't go to the ER, but just use bandaids. (Apparently, they want every bandaid application used to scare folks away from cycling!) And as I've pointed out, I speak at least weekly with an ER physician with whom I'm very close. It's easy to get stories of people popping into the ER for trivial things. Likewise, it's certain that many more serious injuries never see the ER, for various reasons. So using ER visits for a definition of "injury" has its shortcomings. But there is good international agreement on whether a person is dead or alive, which is why I like to compare fatality data. However, it's worth noting that there is no official count of head injury fatalities in the US. This, too, allows some promoters to use the phrase "fatality involving a head injury" rather loosely - as in, multiple causes for a particular fatality, perhaps including brain trauma. Regarding hours or miles cycled, AFAIK there's no international standard. However, it's sometimes possible to get details on the figures researchers use as the denominator in "per hour" or "per mile" calculations. For example, in Britain, the transportation agencies used a combination of trained observers at roadsides, automatic counting devices, and telephone surveys. When Australians did their before-MHL and after-MHL counts, they used those same three techniques. Failure Analysis Associates' 1993 estimates of US per-hour fatality rates for about 20 activities (the one that showed cycling as much safer than motoring) did not come with an explanation of survey techniques. But FAA (now Exponent) is a commercial firm that sells data to insurance companies. It's not surprising to me that they keep their methods confidential. Overall, it's good to remember that there are professional researchers in every developed country who try their professional best to assess things like the amount of cycling and the safety of cycling. As expected, there is some variation in the numbers they give. But _all_ the data indicates millions of miles of cycling per fatality. Again, the differences are really differences between infinitesmals. - Frank Krygowski         Date: 26 Mar 2007 08:57:09 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 26, 9:31 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On 26, 7:24 am, "di" <di9...@cox.net> wrote: > <snipped > - pointless discussions of imaginary MHLs - > > My last post on this stupid subject. > <snipped > > > At least you'll know a little more when you return. > > - Frank Krygowski Franky Krygowski, smug and condescending right to the end.           Date: 26 Mar 2007 16:34:20 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 26 2007 08:57:09 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: >On 26, 9:31 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> On 26, 7:24 am, "di" <di9...@cox.net> wrote: >> > ><snipped> > >- pointless discussions of imaginary MHLs - > > This from someone who has called for an MHL. Not one that he himself would be subject to, oh no; only _other_ people should have to wear helmets.         Date: 26 Mar 2007 08:31:03 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 26, 7:24 am, "di" <di9...@cox.net > wrote: > <jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message > > > > People who do not now cycle look at cyclists wearing helmets, and draw > > the obvious conclusion - it _must_ be dangerous, they are wearing a > > helmet. And of course, they've been _told_ it's dangerous, over and over, as a way to get them to buy helmets! > > BS. people also think Mountain Climbing is also dangerous, but it's not > because they wear helmets, it's because they fall from great heights on > rocks. Yes, people think mountain climbing is dangerous. And they note that mountain climbers wear helmets. People also think skydiving is dangerous, and they note that skydivers wear helmets. Ditto for professional football, auto racing, motorcycling, whitewater kayaking, etc. So helmets have, naturally enough, become a signal for "danger." This hurts cycling participation. As an exercise, please list all the activities that are considered very safe, for which helmets are required. As a second exercise, please list all the activities that are considered very safe, where promotional literature commonly talks about the number of fatalities that occur annually, the percentage of fatalities that are caused by any particular type of trauma (like brain injury), etc. Certainly, swimming (with far more deaths per year, and far more deaths per hour participation) gets none of that publicity. And as a result, people think of swimming as very safe family fun. So why do bicyclists enjoy scaring people away from cycling? > They think bikes are dangerous because cars smash into them and > they also fall on pavement, nothing to do with helmets... Oh please. Cyclists have been falling on pavement and skinning knees since cyclists first succeeded in _getting_ pavement, back in the 1890s. Until the 1990s, it didn't stop parents from training 5-year- olds to ride bikes. Beginners rode quiet streets with few cars, then gradually dealt with more traffic as their skills increased. There was never a time when ordinary cycling was very dangerous. Once the Helmet Scare Campaign was in high gear, then you began to hear of deaths, brain injuries, and any other horror that would make a buck out of styrofoam. > My last post on this stupid subject. Try reading about it at www.cyclehelmets.org, or for a lighter treatment, http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/index.html At least you'll know a little more when you return. - Frank Krygowski           Date: 26 Mar 2007 16:32:16 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 26 2007 08:31:03 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >On 26, 7:24 am, "di" <di9...@cox.net> wrote: >> <jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message >> >> >> > People who do not now cycle look at cyclists wearing helmets, and draw >> > the obvious conclusion - it _must_ be dangerous, they are wearing a >> > helmet. > >And of course, they've been _told_ it's dangerous, over and over, as a >way to get them to buy helmets! > >> >> BS. people also think Mountain Climbing is also dangerous, but it's not >> because they wear helmets, it's because they fall from great heights on >> rocks. > >Yes, people think mountain climbing is dangerous. And they note that >mountain climbers wear helmets. People also think skydiving is >dangerous, and they note that skydivers wear helmets. Ditto for >professional football, auto racing, motorcycling, whitewater kayaking, >etc. Which begs the question, why are helmets not required by law for climbers, skydivers, football players, auto and motorcycle racers, kyakers, etcetera?         Date: 24 Mar 2007 11:37:37 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Fri, 23 2007 17:38:10 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote: >frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >> On 23, 2:59 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: >>> Matt O'Toole wrote: >>>> I would guess that the overall cultural trend of less cycling >>>> dwarfs any effect of MHLs. The decline in cycling began long >>>> before MHLs were being considered anywhere, in the US or abroad. >>> >>>> So let's concentrate on the *major* reasons people aren't cycling. >>> >>> Kids today don't ride nearly as much as they used to. >>> These days about 1 in 5 cycling fatalities involves a youngster. >>> Just ten years ago that ratio was about 1 in 3. The >>> cycling population is aging rapidly and precipitously. > >> And it's likely that a major cause of this trend is the >> "dangerization" of cycling that's been used to sell helmets! > >Oh, horseshit. Parents don't let kids just "go out and play" as much as >they used to, period. Main reason is all the cable news coverage of child >molesters and kidnappers; they think it IS a dangerous world out there. >(And sadly, it often is.) > >There's also the "cool factor", and kids prefer skateboards or scruffing >their feet to pedaling bicycles. Helmets have very little to do with it. > Helmet laws are being passed for skateboarders and in-line skaters; despite there being zero or precious little evidence that a) there are any significant head injuries among that population; and b) that helmets would do anything to reduce a), should it ever occur. Much like the situation with cycle MHL's over the past two decades...           Date: 24 Mar 2007 15:14:42 From: nash Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message news:jc3a0355j5dfu0l670qnc3m32ng7sr9sbj@4ax.com... > On Fri, 23 2007 17:38:10 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> > wrote: > >>frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >>> On 23, 2:59 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: >>>> Matt O'Toole wrote: >>>>> I would guess that the overall cultural trend of less cycling >>>>> dwarfs any effect of MHLs. The decline in cycling began long >>>>> before MHLs were being considered anywhere, in the US or abroad. >>>> >>>>> So let's concentrate on the *major* reasons people aren't cycling. >>>> >>>> Kids today don't ride nearly as much as they used to. >>>> These days about 1 in 5 cycling fatalities involves a youngster. >>>> Just ten years ago that ratio was about 1 in 3. The >>>> cycling population is aging rapidly and precipitously. >> >>> And it's likely that a major cause of this trend is the >>> "dangerization" of cycling that's been used to sell helmets! >> >>Oh, horseshit. Parents don't let kids just "go out and play" as much as >>they used to, period. Main reason is all the cable news coverage of child >>molesters and kidnappers; they think it IS a dangerous world out there. >>(And sadly, it often is.) >> >>There's also the "cool factor", and kids prefer skateboards or scruffing >>their feet to pedaling bicycles. Helmets have very little to do with it. >> > > Helmet laws are being passed for skateboarders and in-line skaters; > despite there being zero or precious little evidence that > > a) there are any significant head injuries among that population; and > > b) that helmets would do anything to reduce a), should it ever occur. > > Much like the situation with cycle MHL's over the past two decades.. There was a Surrey youth years ago that always wore his helmut while roller blading. One day while just going up and down his driveway he decided not to and he fell, bumped his head and died. It just takes one time. He was an experienced rollerblader too.             Date: 24 Mar 2007 15:33:30 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Sat, 24 2007 15:14:42 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote: > ><jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message >news:jc3a0355j5dfu0l670qnc3m32ng7sr9sbj@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 23 2007 17:38:10 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> >> wrote: >> >>>frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On 23, 2:59 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: >>>>> Matt O'Toole wrote: >>>>>> I would guess that the overall cultural trend of less cycling >>>>>> dwarfs any effect of MHLs. The decline in cycling began long >>>>>> before MHLs were being considered anywhere, in the US or abroad. >>>>> >>>>>> So let's concentrate on the *major* reasons people aren't cycling. >>>>> >>>>> Kids today don't ride nearly as much as they used to. >>>>> These days about 1 in 5 cycling fatalities involves a youngster. >>>>> Just ten years ago that ratio was about 1 in 3. The >>>>> cycling population is aging rapidly and precipitously. >>> >>>> And it's likely that a major cause of this trend is the >>>> "dangerization" of cycling that's been used to sell helmets! >>> >>>Oh, horseshit. Parents don't let kids just "go out and play" as much as >>>they used to, period. Main reason is all the cable news coverage of child >>>molesters and kidnappers; they think it IS a dangerous world out there. >>>(And sadly, it often is.) >>> >>>There's also the "cool factor", and kids prefer skateboards or scruffing >>>their feet to pedaling bicycles. Helmets have very little to do with it. >>> >> >> Helmet laws are being passed for skateboarders and in-line skaters; >> despite there being zero or precious little evidence that >> >> a) there are any significant head injuries among that population; and >> >> b) that helmets would do anything to reduce a), should it ever occur. >> >> Much like the situation with cycle MHL's over the past two decades.. > >There was a Surrey youth years ago that always wore his helmut while roller >blading. One day while just going up and down his driveway he decided not >to and he fell, bumped his head and died. It just takes one time. >He was an experienced rollerblader too. > Can we presume that you are speaking about this incident? http://www.thenownewspaper.com/issues02/064102/news/064102nn1.html If so, apart from the other errors in your post, are you alleging that, had he been wearing a helmet, he would _not_ have died? And are you also alleging that there is no possibility that the helmet contributed to the injury? And in light of the debate on the prevalence of such injuries, please re-read the comments regarding that point, despite the fact that most skateboarders do not wear helmets - which is possibly to their advantage...               Date: 24 Mar 2007 16:33:32 From: nash Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling And are you also alleging that there is no possibility that the helmet contributed to the injury? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< He was not wearing a helmut. -insubstantial errors on my part- that was 3 years ago for gosh sakes. Proof you should start wearing yours.                 Date: 24 Mar 2007 16:55:18 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Sat, 24 2007 16:33:32 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote: >And are >you also alleging that there is no possibility that the helmet >contributed to the injury? ><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > >He was not wearing a helmut. -insubstantial errors on my part- that was 3 >years ago for gosh sakes. >Proof you should start wearing yours. > Perhaps you should look up "risk compensation" and spend a little more time considering the effect a helmet might have - the poor child usually wore one, and so would develop habits and practices that could be more dangerous, in the erroneous belief that he was magically protected. Helmet or no, when he attempted whatever trick or stunt that resulted in the fall, it is possible that he did so because he usually wore a helmet. Helmets do not have to be worn to have an effect.               Date: 24 Mar 2007 16:29:40 From: nash Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message news:kuga03t0v6vha9mupt5qbv399jga0ntsus@4ax.com... > On Sat, 24 2007 15:14:42 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> > wrote: > >> >><jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message >>news:jc3a0355j5dfu0l670qnc3m32ng7sr9sbj@4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 23 2007 17:38:10 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On 23, 2:59 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: >>>>>> Matt O'Toole wrote: >>>>>>> I would guess that the overall cultural trend of less cycling >>>>>>> dwarfs any effect of MHLs. The decline in cycling began long >>>>>>> before MHLs were being considered anywhere, in the US or abroad. >>>>>> >>>>>>> So let's concentrate on the *major* reasons people aren't cycling. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kids today don't ride nearly as much as they used to. >>>>>> These days about 1 in 5 cycling fatalities involves a youngster. >>>>>> Just ten years ago that ratio was about 1 in 3. The >>>>>> cycling population is aging rapidly and precipitously. >>>> >>>>> And it's likely that a major cause of this trend is the >>>>> "dangerization" of cycling that's been used to sell helmets! >>>> >>>>Oh, horseshit. Parents don't let kids just "go out and play" as much as >>>>they used to, period. Main reason is all the cable news coverage of >>>>child >>>>molesters and kidnappers; they think it IS a dangerous world out there. >>>>(And sadly, it often is.) >>>> >>>>There's also the "cool factor", and kids prefer skateboards or scruffing >>>>their feet to pedaling bicycles. Helmets have very little to do with >>>>it. >>>> >>> >>> Helmet laws are being passed for skateboarders and in-line skaters; >>> despite there being zero or precious little evidence that >>> >>> a) there are any significant head injuries among that population; and >>> >>> b) that helmets would do anything to reduce a), should it ever occur. >>> >>> Much like the situation with cycle MHL's over the past two decades.. >> >>There was a Surrey youth years ago that always wore his helmut while >>roller >>blading. One day while just going up and down his driveway he decided not >>to and he fell, bumped his head and died. It just takes one time. >>He was an experienced rollerblader too. >> > > Can we presume that you are speaking about this incident? > > http://www.thenownewspaper.com/issues02/064102/news/064102nn1.html > > If so, apart from the other errors in your post, are you alleging > that, had he been wearing a helmet, he would _not_ have died? And are > you also alleging that there is no possibility that the helmet > contributed to the injury? > > And in light of the debate on the prevalence of such injuries, please > re-read the comments regarding that point, despite the fact that most > skateboarders do not wear helmets - which is possibly to their > advantage... And you are obviously ignoring the whole article which says... Recreational pursuits like skateboarding, cycling and rollerblading result in the second highest number of brain injuries annually in the province among young adults, according to yse Neilson of the Brain Injury Associations of B.C. Only motor vehicle accidents account for more brain injuries. "We stress; always, always, always, wear protective gear. I don't want to sound like I'm blaming the victim, but it's a shame this little guy wasn't wearing a helmet," Neilson said. There is nothing wrong with what I said. Got your head on backwards. Oh, yeah , skateboarding instead of rollerblading ( cause that is what I do) and on a residential block near his home most likely instead of driveway. Does not change anything. Uncomfortable is not a reason to kill yourself. Duh? But you are rather ignorant to post what you did.                 Date: 24 Mar 2007 16:50:15 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Sat, 24 2007 16:29:40 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote: > ><jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message >news:kuga03t0v6vha9mupt5qbv399jga0ntsus@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 24 2007 15:14:42 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> >> wrote: >> >>> >>><jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message >>>news:jc3a0355j5dfu0l670qnc3m32ng7sr9sbj@4ax.com... >>>> On Fri, 23 2007 17:38:10 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> On 23, 2:59 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> Matt O'Toole wrote: >>>>>>>> I would guess that the overall cultural trend of less cycling >>>>>>>> dwarfs any effect of MHLs. The decline in cycling began long >>>>>>>> before MHLs were being considered anywhere, in the US or abroad. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So let's concentrate on the *major* reasons people aren't cycling. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kids today don't ride nearly as much as they used to. >>>>>>> These days about 1 in 5 cycling fatalities involves a youngster. >>>>>>> Just ten years ago that ratio was about 1 in 3. The >>>>>>> cycling population is aging rapidly and precipitously. >>>>> >>>>>> And it's likely that a major cause of this trend is the >>>>>> "dangerization" of cycling that's been used to sell helmets! >>>>> >>>>>Oh, horseshit. Parents don't let kids just "go out and play" as much as >>>>>they used to, period. Main reason is all the cable news coverage of >>>>>child >>>>>molesters and kidnappers; they think it IS a dangerous world out there. >>>>>(And sadly, it often is.) >>>>> >>>>>There's also the "cool factor", and kids prefer skateboards or scruffing >>>>>their feet to pedaling bicycles. Helmets have very little to do with >>>>>it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Helmet laws are being passed for skateboarders and in-line skaters; >>>> despite there being zero or precious little evidence that >>>> >>>> a) there are any significant head injuries among that population; and >>>> >>>> b) that helmets would do anything to reduce a), should it ever occur. >>>> >>>> Much like the situation with cycle MHL's over the past two decades.. >>> >>>There was a Surrey youth years ago that always wore his helmut while >>>roller >>>blading. One day while just going up and down his driveway he decided not >>>to and he fell, bumped his head and died. It just takes one time. >>>He was an experienced rollerblader too. >>> >> >> Can we presume that you are speaking about this incident? >> >> http://www.thenownewspaper.com/issues02/064102/news/064102nn1.html >> >> If so, apart from the other errors in your post, are you alleging >> that, had he been wearing a helmet, he would _not_ have died? And are >> you also alleging that there is no possibility that the helmet >> contributed to the injury? >> >> And in light of the debate on the prevalence of such injuries, please >> re-read the comments regarding that point, despite the fact that most >> skateboarders do not wear helmets - which is possibly to their >> advantage... > >And you are obviously ignoring the whole article which says... >Recreational pursuits like skateboarding, cycling and rollerblading result >in the second highest number of brain injuries annually in the province >among young adults, according to yse Neilson of the Brain Injury >Associations of B.C. Yes, perhaps it is the highest _number_, excepting those involving motorcars - but it is a vanishingly small _rate_ of injury; an example being that the fatality rate while cycling, for instance, is something like one per 450 years of riding non-stop, 24 hours a day. Obviously, the rate of injury will be somewhat larger than that of fatality, but even if it were two or three orders of magniutde greater, it would _still_ be a vanishingly small rate. If you are not going to have an injury, why wear a helmet? Secondly, the largest and best-constructed studies show essentially zero effect on head injury rates when helmet wearing increases abruptly. Even if you do have an injury, if a helmet won't help, why wear it? Thirdly, is is possible (some sources state likely) that helmets contribute to the rate of rotational injury, a type of injury that requires a force much, much less than that of impact. If wearing a helmet might change a minor scrape into a serious injury, why wear it? >Only motor vehicle accidents account for more brain >injuries. > Well, then, let's have helmets for motorists - the helmet manufacturers and MHL crazies should be salivating at that one... > >Uncomfortable is not a reason to kill yourself. Duh? But you are rather >ignorant to post what you did. > It is rather the ignorance of the facts in re helmet use and (lack of) effect on injury rates that is showing, and in your post, not mine.                   Date: 24 Mar 2007 18:23:01 From: nash Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling If you are not going to have an injury, why wear a helmet? <<<<<<<<<<<<< Should we put that on your tomb stone bud?         Date: 23 Mar 2007 16:04:51 From: Bill Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Bill Sornson wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >> On 23, 2:59 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: >>> Matt O'Toole wrote: >>>> I would guess that the overall cultural trend of less cycling >>>> dwarfs any effect of MHLs. The decline in cycling began long >>>> before MHLs were being considered anywhere, in the US or abroad. >>>> So let's concentrate on the *major* reasons people aren't cycling. >>> Kids today don't ride nearly as much as they used to. >>> These days about 1 in 5 cycling fatalities involves a youngster. >>> Just ten years ago that ratio was about 1 in 3. The >>> cycling population is aging rapidly and precipitously. > >> And it's likely that a major cause of this trend is the >> "dangerization" of cycling that's been used to sell helmets! > > Oh, horseshit. Parents don't let kids just "go out and play" as much as > they used to, period. Main reason is all the cable news coverage of child > molesters and kidnappers; they think it IS a dangerous world out there. > (And sadly, it often is.) > > There's also the "cool factor", and kids prefer skateboards or scruffing > their feet to pedaling bicycles. Helmets have very little to do with it. > > I sort of go with B.S. on this one since any kid under about 8 has to have an adult with them these days. News coverage does have a lot to do with it since a kid might get molested in Maine but it makes the headlines on the television news. Now all the parents are paranoid about letting their kids go out alone. As far as cycling goes the current crop of kids are far more likely to have their bicycles stolen and hence no riding. It is a different world than I grew up in, for damn sure. As far as helmets and the cool factor I enforce the helmet wearing when I take my kids and their friends out for a long (to them) ride, mainly for legal protection. Around the houses, not a helmet in sight. Take the case of a kid that rides in front of a semi, helmet or not the kid is history. It happened to one of my granddaughter's friends a few years back but was swept under the rug so to speak. Too gross for the news. Time for the boob tube. Bill Baka     Date: 23 Mar 2007 16:01:54 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 23, 2:52 pm, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org > wrote: > On Fri, 23 2007 08:47:01 -0700, frkrygow wrote: > > There have been significant drops in cycling in, AFAIK, every > > jurisdiction where it's been possible to perform counts; and in quite a > > few where counts were not specifically done, other evidence has > > indicated significant drops. That's not just NZ, but several Australian > > jurisdictions, a couple Canadian ones, and probably others I'm not > > thinking of. > > I would guess that the overall cultural trend of less cycling dwarfs any > effect of MHLs. The decline in cycling began long before MHLs were being > considered anywhere, in the US or abroad. Any "cultural trend" is unlikely to cause a step change in cycling at the exact time a helmet law is introduced. Yet that's what's been seen over and over, whenever observations have been done. What else do you know of that causes sudden drops in cycling of over 30%? And why do you think this easily identifiable cause in cycling reduction should be ignored? - Frank Krygowski     Date: 23 Mar 2007 15:58:13 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 23, 2:51 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > Yes, I should have been more clear. > > > There have been significant drops in cycling in, AFAIK, every > > jurisdiction where it's been possible to perform counts; and in quite > > a few where counts were not specifically done, other evidence has > > indicated significant drops. That's not just NZ, but several > > Australian jurisdictions, a couple Canadian ones, and probably others > > I'm not thinking of. > > What citations can you provide other than > Scuffham and Langley? Hagel BE, Rizkallah JW, Lamy A, Belton KL, Jhangri GS, Cherry N, et al. Bicycle helmet prevalence two years after the introduction of mandatory use legislation for under 18 year olds in Alberta, Canada. Inj Prev 2006;12(4):262-265 The authors don't call it out (maybe hoping nobody will notice) but counts of cyclists before and after the kids' MHL showed a drop of kids cycling over 40%. Robinson, D. L., Head Injuries and Bicycle Helmet Laws, Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol 28, No4 pp 463-475 notes drops of over 30% and more in Sydney OZ, and similar drops in Victoria. In those jurisdictions, the number of cyclists actually dropped more than the number of injuries. See the news release at http://www.cycle-helmets.com/bikewest.html Also see http://www.cycle-helmets.com/bicycle_numbers.html at that site. Also see http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1096 and check the separate pages on the effects of the laws. I've got more citations buried away, but that should do for now. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 23 Mar 2007 11:59:13 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Matt O'Toole wrote: > I would guess that the overall cultural trend of less cycling dwarfs any > effect of MHLs. The decline in cycling began long before MHLs were being > considered anywhere, in the US or abroad. > > So let's concentrate on the *major* reasons people aren't cycling. Kids today don't ride nearly as much as they used to. These days about 1 in 5 cycling fatalities involves a youngster. Just ten years ago that ratio was about 1 in 3. The cycling population is aging rapidly and precipitously. Robert     Date: 23 Mar 2007 11:51:57 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > Yes, I should have been more clear. > > There have been significant drops in cycling in, AFAIK, every > jurisdiction where it's been possible to perform counts; and in quite > a few where counts were not specifically done, other evidence has > indicated significant drops. That's not just NZ, but several > Australian jurisdictions, a couple Canadian ones, and probably others > I'm not thinking of. What citations can you provide other than Scuffham and Langley? Robert     Date: 23 Mar 2007 08:47:01 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 22, 11:57 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > But contrary to your WAG, there were serious drops in cycling measured > > by before-after counts by trained observers, in addition to the counts > > done by automated counting devices. And there were the telephone > > surveys in which large percentages of responders said they rode less > > (or gave up riding) because of MHLs, there are other interesting > > indicators of drops. > > In Tom's jurisdiction? > > If you have a cite about that particular MHL's > effect on cyclists in BC, now is the time to give it. If > you are talking about Scuffham and Langley's paper on > helmet/bike use in New Zealand, you should have > said so. Yes, I should have been more clear. There have been significant drops in cycling in, AFAIK, every jurisdiction where it's been possible to perform counts; and in quite a few where counts were not specifically done, other evidence has indicated significant drops. That's not just NZ, but several Australian jurisdictions, a couple Canadian ones, and probably others I'm not thinking of. Again, helmet proponents have caught on, and now structure things to prevent counts, so more detective work is necessary. I don't know if Tom's jurisdiction has seen the detective work yet - but I know I've _never_ seen any evidence that a MHL has increased cycling. How could that possibly occur?       Date: 23 Mar 2007 14:52:30 From: Matt O'Toole Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Fri, 23 2007 08:47:01 -0700, frkrygow wrote: > There have been significant drops in cycling in, AFAIK, every > jurisdiction where it's been possible to perform counts; and in quite a > few where counts were not specifically done, other evidence has > indicated significant drops. That's not just NZ, but several Australian > jurisdictions, a couple Canadian ones, and probably others I'm not > thinking of. I would guess that the overall cultural trend of less cycling dwarfs any effect of MHLs. The decline in cycling began long before MHLs were being considered anywhere, in the US or abroad. So let's concentrate on the *major* reasons people aren't cycling. Matt O.         Date: 25 Mar 2007 08:50:45 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 24, 8:43 pm, "di" <di9...@cox.net > wrote: > <jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message > > news:n38b03hs17oiouuqkcfs5lj84n3av3dcuf@4ax.com...> On Sat, 24 2007 14:54:36 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> > > wrote: > > > Of course, it could be argured that the above reflects just _death_ > > rates - but injury rates also show the same disparity: > > > injury per 1 million population > > > cycles 453, cars 987 > > What's the numbers, out of 1 million population, may be 990,000+ ride in > cars, maybe 1,000 ride cycles. Di, get someone to explain "per hour" to you. Then go back and read my post responding to Bill Sornson. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 23 Mar 2007 01:46:09 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <1174622239.344369.184280@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com >, r15757@aol.com writes: > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > >> But contrary to your WAG, there were serious drops in cycling measured >> by before-after counts by trained observers, in addition to the counts >> done by automated counting devices. And there were the telephone >> surveys in which large percentages of responders said they rode less >> (or gave up riding) because of MHLs, there are other interesting >> indicators of drops. > > In Tom's jurisdiction? > > If you have a cite about that particular MHL's > effect on cyclists in BC, now is the time to give it. If > you are talking about Scuffham and Langley's paper on > helmet/bike use in New Zealand, you should have > said so. > > Robert Please excuse me. I have to go feed the cat. <sound of my clip-clopping footsteps fading off into the distance. > cheers, and sincere thanks for your Positive inputs about city bike riding (Blessings upon ya, kindred spirit) Tom -- I guess I don't get to wear the paper gold crown hat with the big 'D' on it. Someone else does. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 22 Mar 2007 21:04:16 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <1174619938.724623.109450@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >, frkrygow@gmail.com writes: >> I have an hunch you're mostly talking about the BMX kids. >> Those who've mastered much of their craft can actually be >> fascinating to watch. But it certainly can be scary and >> wince-causing when they stitch in-&-out, off the street and >> onto the sidewalk, and then onto the street again -- at >> intersections! Especially if there's a line of parked cars >> on street, and pedestrians on the sidewalk. I suspect it's >> more of a skateboard mindset to them, than a purely >> bicycling thing. > > Yes, and what safety advice to they hear most often? Follow the rules > of the road? Don't ride on the sidewalks? Ride consistently and > visibly? > > Nope. The first and usually ONLY thing they're likely to be told is > "Always Wear Your Helmet!" I reiterate from my up-thread post: "It's interesting to note that Mandatory Helmet Laws (MHLs) were hardly even considered until some time after the upsurge of the popularity of BMX bikes. But that's not to cast blame on the BMX crowd either. If there is any blame to be lain, it's on those who don't know much about bicycling -- of which in North America is the vast majority, to whom a daring BMX kid darting in-&-out of traffic, and a transportational rider mindfully eking his way home from work or the shops, are one and the same." cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 22 Mar 2007 20:57:19 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > But contrary to your WAG, there were serious drops in cycling measured > by before-after counts by trained observers, in addition to the counts > done by automated counting devices. And there were the telephone > surveys in which large percentages of responders said they rode less > (or gave up riding) because of MHLs, there are other interesting > indicators of drops. In Tom's jurisdiction? If you have a cite about that particular MHL's effect on cyclists in BC, now is the time to give it. If you are talking about Scuffham and Langley's paper on helmet/bike use in New Zealand, you should have said so. Robert       Date: 25 Mar 2007 09:29:05 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 25, 9:52 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On 24, 10:47 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> wrote: > > > > > > > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:1174768541.572888.201370@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > > > > On 24, 2:23 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> wrote: > > >> If you are not going to have an injury, why wear a helmet? > > >> <<<<<<<<<<<<< > > > >> Should we put that on your tomb stone bud? > > > > If you like that idea, Nash, you should campaign to have it etched in > > > the tombstone of _every_ head injury fatality victim. > > > > Remember, you'll be doing 50 times as many motorists as cyclists. > > > You'll be doing 40 times as many people who fall around their own > > > homes. The cyclists are going to be less than one percent of the > > > total. > > > It's pointless watching you chase your own tail anymore. totally useless > > I've noticed that there are people who react to numbers that way. > "Oh, good God, he's using numbers. I never understood numbers, so > it's pointless talking to him." > > Try using something other than the same old "number 2", Franky.       Date: 25 Mar 2007 08:52:20 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 24, 10:47 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net > wrote: > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1174768541.572888.201370@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > > > On 24, 2:23 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> wrote: > >> If you are not going to have an injury, why wear a helmet? > >> <<<<<<<<<<<<< > > >> Should we put that on your tomb stone bud? > > > If you like that idea, Nash, you should campaign to have it etched in > > the tombstone of _every_ head injury fatality victim. > > > Remember, you'll be doing 50 times as many motorists as cyclists. > > You'll be doing 40 times as many people who fall around their own > > homes. The cyclists are going to be less than one percent of the > > total. > > It's pointless watching you chase your own tail anymore. totally useless I've noticed that there are people who react to numbers that way. "Oh, good God, he's using numbers. I never understood numbers, so it's pointless talking to him." - Frank Krygowski         Date: 25 Mar 2007 12:46:58 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On 24, 10:47 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> wrote: >> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1174768541.572888.201370@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... >> >>> On 24, 2:23 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> wrote: >>>> If you are not going to have an injury, why wear a helmet? >>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<< >> >>>> Should we put that on your tomb stone bud? >> >>> If you like that idea, Nash, you should campaign to have it etched >>> in the tombstone of _every_ head injury fatality victim. >> >>> Remember, you'll be doing 50 times as many motorists as cyclists. >>> You'll be doing 40 times as many people who fall around their own >>> homes. The cyclists are going to be less than one percent of the >>> total. >> >> It's pointless watching you chase your own tail anymore. totally >> useless > > I've noticed that there are people who react to numbers that way. > "Oh, good God, he's using numbers. I never understood numbers, so > it's pointless talking to him." You left out the word "disingenuously". HTH!       Date: 25 Mar 2007 07:08:16 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 24, 8:47 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net > wrote: > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1174768541.572888.201370@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > > > On 24, 2:23 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> wrote: > >> If you are not going to have an injury, why wear a helmet? > >> <<<<<<<<<<<<< > > >> Should we put that on your tomb stone bud? > > > If you like that idea, Nash, you should campaign to have it etched in > > the tombstone of _every_ head injury fatality victim. > > > Remember, you'll be doing 50 times as many motorists as cyclists. > > You'll be doing 40 times as many people who fall around their own > > homes. The cyclists are going to be less than one percent of the > > total. > > > - Frank Krygowski > > It's pointless watching you chase your own tail anymore. LOL: vision of Franky Krygowski as a yappy little dog with a small helmet stuck to the end of it's tail. "yip, yip, yip". Sit, Franky, sit! > totally useless "Totally Useless: the Frank Krygowski Story", not coming soon to a bookstore near you.       Date: 24 Mar 2007 13:36:22 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 24, 1:03 pm, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On 24 2007 08:46:28 -0700, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > >On 24, 11:14 am, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> wrote: > > >> There was a Surrey youth years ago that always wore his helmut while roller > >> blading. One day while just going up and down his driveway he decided not > >> to and he fell, bumped his head and died. It just takes one time. > >> He was an experienced rollerblader too. > > >It just takes one time, all right. > > >Now go look up the _other_ head injury fatalities in Surrey - or in > >Britain - or in the US - or in Australia, or New Zealand, or any > >other developed country. What's the major source of head injury > >fatalities? > > >Nearly half of them happen inside cars. That's the number one source, > >despite seat belts and air bags and anti-lock brakes. Fully 99% of > >them (at least in the US) do _not_ happen on bikes (or on > >rollerblades, for that matter). > > >Yes, it only takes one time. And 99% of those "one times" have > >nothing to do with bikes. > > >But people continue to pretend that bikes are the major danger. How > >odd. > > And worse, some who should know better (we have ozark) call for MHL's "we have ozark" what, "j"? Calling you a liar? Yep, you're a liar. Calling you an obsessed nutball? Yep, you're an obsessed nutball. I think eveyone can see that you're nuttier than the holiday fruitcake.       Date: 24 Mar 2007 13:35:41 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 24, 2:23 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net > wrote: > If you are not going to have an injury, why wear a helmet? > <<<<<<<<<<<<< > > Should we put that on your tomb stone bud? If you like that idea, Nash, you should campaign to have it etched in the tombstone of _every_ head injury fatality victim. Remember, you'll be doing 50 times as many motorists as cyclists. You'll be doing 40 times as many people who fall around their own homes. The cyclists are going to be less than one percent of the total. - Frank Krygowski         Date: 25 Mar 2007 02:47:22 From: nash Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1174768541.572888.201370@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > On 24, 2:23 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> wrote: >> If you are not going to have an injury, why wear a helmet? >> <<<<<<<<<<<<< >> >> Should we put that on your tomb stone bud? > > If you like that idea, Nash, you should campaign to have it etched in > the tombstone of _every_ head injury fatality victim. > > Remember, you'll be doing 50 times as many motorists as cyclists. > You'll be doing 40 times as many people who fall around their own > homes. The cyclists are going to be less than one percent of the > total. > > - Frank Krygowski It's pointless watching you chase your own tail anymore. totally useless       Date: 24 Mar 2007 11:40:01 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 24, 10:55 am, j "the liar" tay...@hfx.andara.com wrote: <reams of taylorblather snipped > > Helmets do not have to be worn to have an effect. But condoms do. Pity the entity that fathered you didn't know that simple fact.       Date: 23 Mar 2007 08:49:55 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 22 2007 20:57:19 -0700, r15757@aol.com wrote: >frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > >> But contrary to your WAG, there were serious drops in cycling measured >> by before-after counts by trained observers, in addition to the counts >> done by automated counting devices. And there were the telephone >> surveys in which large percentages of responders said they rode less >> (or gave up riding) because of MHLs, there are other interesting >> indicators of drops. > >In Tom's jurisdiction? > >If you have a cite about that particular MHL's >effect on cyclists in BC, now is the time to give it. If >you are talking about Scuffham and Langley's paper on >helmet/bike use in New Zealand, you should have >said so. > This point has already been made in the thread - Tom was asked if he had any facts to support his "belief" that MHL's did not affect cycling rates (he doesn't); so it was pointed out that in such a case, best practice was to assume it was no different from replicated results from other places.         Date: 23 Mar 2007 16:44:58 From: Mike Latondresse Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote in news:k65703dhoa3a6t59ok16h1sp7ahajgba7c@4ax.com: > > This point has already been made in the thread - Tom was asked if he > had any facts to support his "belief" that MHL's did not affect > cycling rates (he doesn't); so it was pointed out that in such a case, > best practice was to assume it was no different from replicated > results from other places. I agree with Tom having cycle commuted in Vancouver for in excess of 15 years, I have seen a significant increase in cyclist during my daily commute...once I was alone and now I am many.           Date: 23 Mar 2007 14:00:02 From: Curtis L. Russell Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Fri, 23 2007 16:44:58 -0000, Mike Latondresse <mikelat@dccnetnospam.com > wrote: >I agree with Tom having cycle commuted in Vancouver for in excess of 15 >years, I have seen a significant increase in cyclist during my daily >commute...once I was alone and now I am many. Uh, huh, and next you scream, "I AM LEGION". Curtis L. Russell If I could cast out demons, there would be a lot fewer people on Usenet     Date: 22 Mar 2007 20:56:19 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <1174619318.766863.201140@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >, frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > On 22, 4:04 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >> In article <41n503t5br8apedashda0b055fh6uvg...@4ax.com>, >> jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: >> >> >> > You've been told that there are studies that show MHL's decrease >> > cycling (in some cases by more than 50%) - and yet you continue to >> > assert, without evidence, that this is not the case in BC. >> >> Yeah, what do I know? I just live here, and see what I see. > > And of course, your vision and memory are perfectly calibrated, so you > couldn't miss any drop in cycling! I've noted an ongoing detectable increase in cycling in Vancouver Proper since as long as I can remember. Especially since a local network of designated bike routes has undergone continuing development from 1997 (more-or-less contemporaneously with our MHL) to date. > Darn, why did those people in MHL > jurisdictions bother to do scientific before-after counts anyway? Did they? 'Cuz I can't find 'em for Vancouver, let alone the whole of BC, yet jtaylor wants a cite for the growing numbers of riders in my jurisdiction since 1996 -- I suspect full knowing such figures don't exist. Make our happy thoughts come true and let us know from whence those particular figures come (especially for Vancouver and Victoria BC,) since you know all about them. > They should have just brought you in to get your WAG! Anybody should bring me in just to get my cooking. > One more point: In a different post, you said not to worry about > drops in cycling because of MHLs; that "Real riders are > irrepressible." > > I find that distatefully elitist. There's nothing elite about doing what ya gotta (or willfully gonna) do. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca       Date: 23 Mar 2007 08:51:24 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Thu, 22 2007 20:56:19 -0800, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >In article <1174619318.766863.201140@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: >> On 22, 4:04 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >>> In article <41n503t5br8apedashda0b055fh6uvg...@4ax.com>, >>> jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: >>> >>> >>> > You've been told that there are studies that show MHL's decrease >>> > cycling (in some cases by more than 50%) - and yet you continue to >>> > assert, without evidence, that this is not the case in BC. >>> >>> Yeah, what do I know? I just live here, and see what I see. >> >> And of course, your vision and memory are perfectly calibrated, so you >> couldn't miss any drop in cycling! > >I've noted an ongoing detectable increase in cycling in >Vancouver Proper since as long as I can remember. Do you have any kind of study with numbers that says this, or this just another instance of faith-based statistics?     Date: 22 Mar 2007 20:18:58 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 22, 9:21 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > In article <hLAMh.50411$zU1.29176@pd7urf1no>, > "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> writes: > > > People that do not wear helmuts I find > > are just a pain the way they break all the rules. As if helmeted riders don't? Do you want to hear about the family of four I passed on my commute home from work, all in helmets, all riding facing traffic on a busy road? How about the four upper-middle-class, middle-aged men I passed in a prosperous neighborhood, riding at night, in helmets, facing traffic, with not a headlight among them? How about the loaded-pannier cycle tourist I passed at one of our busiest downtown intersections - the one who rode through the red light, diagonally across the center of a multi-lane intersection, rather than put his foot down? How about the young newbie guy riding with me and some friends, who made his left turn by zooming to the left gutter of the road 100 feet before the intersection? The oncoming car driver sure was surprised! How about the roadie dudes I watched on an invitational ride, who lined up five abreast on a two lane road, blocking both lanes, and giving the finger to the car driver that came up behind and politely tooted his car horn? How many of these would you like to read about? It could be the start of a new Usenet group. > I have an hunch you're mostly talking about the BMX kids. > Those who've mastered much of their craft can actually be > fascinating to watch. But it certainly can be scary and > wince-causing when they stitch in-&-out, off the street and > onto the sidewalk, and then onto the street again -- at > intersections! Especially if there's a line of parked cars > on street, and pedestrians on the sidewalk. I suspect it's > more of a skateboard mindset to them, than a purely > bicycling thing. Yes, and what safety advice to they hear most often? Follow the rules of the road? Don't ride on the sidewalks? Ride consistently and visibly? Nope. The first and usually ONLY thing they're likely to be told is "Always Wear Your Helmet!" As if that will help when they pop out from a parked car directly in front of a Chevy Blazer or Ford Explorer. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 22 Mar 2007 20:08:38 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 22, 4:04 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > In article <41n503t5br8apedashda0b055fh6uvg...@4ax.com>, > jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > > > > You've been told that there are studies that show MHL's decrease > > cycling (in some cases by more than 50%) - and yet you continue to > > assert, without evidence, that this is not the case in BC. > > Yeah, what do I know? I just live here, and see what I see. And of course, your vision and memory are perfectly calibrated, so you couldn't miss any drop in cycling! Darn, why did those people in MHL jurisdictions bother to do scientific before-after counts anyway? They should have just brought you in to get your WAG! But contrary to your WAG, there were serious drops in cycling measured by before-after counts by trained observers, in addition to the counts done by automated counting devices. And there were the telephone surveys in which large percentages of responders said they rode less (or gave up riding) because of MHLs, there are other interesting indicators of drops. There's other evidence that was hidden away, too. For example, evidence of the drops has been gleaned from research papers studying things like hospital records in Nova Scotia. Helmet promoters touted the fewer head injuries showing up in ERs after the MHL. But less pro- helmet researchers noted that there were far fewer bike injuries of _any_ kind after the MHL. Why would there be, say, fewer skinned knees and broken collar bones? Helmets don't prevent those! Well, in a way they do. If forced to wear a helmet, enough people stop riding, and the number of ER visits for non-head injuries drops. Of course, helmet promoters don't mention that. They just mention the drop in head injuries, and pretend the helmets are doing wonderful things. The helmet promoters have caught on to the fact that their laws reduce cycling. They now tacitly fight before-after counts of cyclists by lobbying ahead of time to judge success not by the head injury data, and not by the _number_ of cyclists with and without helmets, but the _percentage_ of cyclists in helmets. If the percentage goes up, the law is judged a "success" - even if the head injury rate is worse. Why not count cyclists? Because in some jurisdictions, for every cyclist that donned a helmet, several others gave up riding entirely. It's true whether or not you choose to believe it. > Meanwhile, you continue to believe it's all solely about helmets, > while neglecting to consider the ridership-enhancing effects of > cycling facilities and ever-developing local cycling cultures, > offsetting any negative effects caused by MHLs or any other thing > that might dissuade people from riding. Your logic is entirely backwards! Sure, there are other influences that could cause people to cycle more. But what we're discussing is the effect of a MHL, not the effect of other influences. And as I pointed out, it requires some amazingly convoluted thinking to pretend that there wouldn't be _some_ anti-cycling effect. We know there are people who will cycle less, or not at all, if forced to wear helmets. Where are you going to find other people who will say "Gee, now that I'm forced to wear a funny hat, I want to start riding a lot!" The fact remains, with a MHL, the riding will be less than it _would_ have been. This has been shown far too consistently for us to take your WAGs seriously. - One more point: In a different post, you said not to worry about drops in cycling because of MHLs; that "Real riders are irrepressible." I find that distatefully elitist. I think bicycling is worth promoting. You don't promote it by saying "Here's a new obstacle to getting people on bikes. If you don't like it, you don't count. You're not a REAL rider." Why not just charge $1000 per year for the privilege of riding? REAL riders won't mind, will they? - Frank Krygowski     Date: 22 Mar 2007 17:21:29 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <hLAMh.50411$zU1.29176@pd7urf1no >, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > writes: > MHL is the helmut law I gather. Yup. > Does not stop people from riding w/o a > helmut so why would it stop people from riding. Nope. > When the buses were on strike and when we had gas wars I think people > switched permaneantly, partially, and some not but that is what it takes. My main bike is a cast-off from when the bus strike was finally resolved. Except I've gradually replaced everything but the basic frame, thumb shifters and brake levers. > Walt has them for $12 Bell Adult. Even cheaper for used ones from the thrift shops, if one just wants to be legal, and doesn't care about whom else's hair has been in there. > People that do not wear helmuts I find > are just a pain the way they break all the rules. I have an hunch you're mostly talking about the BMX kids. Those who've mastered much of their craft can actually be fascinating to watch. But it certainly can be scary and wince-causing when they stitch in-&-out, off the street and onto the sidewalk, and then onto the street again -- at intersections! Especially if there's a line of parked cars on street, and pedestrians on the sidewalk. I suspect it's more of a skateboard mindset to them, than a purely bicycling thing. It's interesting to note that Mandatory Helmet Laws (MHLs) were hardly even considered until some time after the upsurge of the popularity of BMX bikes. But that's not to cast blame on the BMX crowd either. If there is any blame to be lain, it's on those who don't know much about bicycling -- of which in North America is the vast majority, to whom a daring BMX kid darting in-&-out of traffic, and a transportational rider mindfully eking his way home from work or the shops, are one and the same. The main thing is to live up to your own lights, and look after your own skin. And respect others' rights to do the same in their own ways. cheers, Tom -- "I'm not a nerd." -- Ognir Rrats I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca       Date: 23 Mar 2007 18:12:05 From: nash Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling The main thing is to live up to your own lights, and look after your own skin. And respect others' rights to do the same in their own ways. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I do and I follow the law but still get dissed because of the other DA's breaking all the rules. There are no statistics but why else do bikers all get lumped into the lawbreakers group or causing drivers just to act so abnormally when you just want to follow the rules. Like they just saw a ghost. If they making their own rules like riding against you or jumping off the sidewalk along side you whenever. Even if, I am sure, they all think they are ster and have more rights than me when they do not. If you do what is expected at least you are playing the same game. If you do not, I do not think you worked enough for my respect.     Date: 22 Mar 2007 12:04:57 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <41n503t5br8apedashda0b055fh6uvg0tp@4ax.com >, jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > On Thu, 22 2007 10:10:39 -0800, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) > wrote: > >>I'm afraid I've gotten a little involved myself -- not >>in the usual pro/anti tug-of-war, but in reacting to >>insinuations that MHL'd denizens have done cycling a >>disservice by not fighting the law enough (and winning.) >>What are we supposed to do, beg for forgiveness? > > >> >>And I don't believe ridership in Vancouver or Victoria has >>suffered much since BC's MHL was enacted. > > The problem is that helmets, and MHL's have come about because people > trusted their "beliefs", rather than examine the actual data. > > You've been told that there are studies that show MHL's decrease > cycling (in some cases by more than 50%) - and yet you continue to > assert, without evidence, that this is not the case in BC. Yeah, what do I know? I just live here, and see what I see. Meanwhile, you continue to believe it's all solely about helmets, while neglecting to consider the ridership-enhancing effects of cycling facilities and ever-developing local cycling cultures, offsetting any negative effects caused by MHLs or any other thing that might dissuade people from riding. > That is a (continued) disservice to cycling; you should stop it, and > begin that begging you talked about. I hope you don't make a habit of saying: "you should." -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca       Date: 25 Mar 2007 20:32:21 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling David Tang wrote: > I'm curious to know what jurisdiction these statistics > were taken from. I'm guessing they are from a study > Robinson did in Australia in 1996, from which he's often > cited. If so, can these numbers really be applied to the > US? Are you kidding? This 'data' can not even be applied to Australia with any confidence. Any time somebody comes up with a per-hour rate for cycling, it's a terminally sketchy enterprise that may, at best, produce a wild-ass guess-timate. And if they don't even bother to explain where they came up with those numbers, look out. And if you ever hear of anybody trying to apply these Australia numbers to the US, while glossing over the inherent fatal flaws in per-hour injury 'data', while constantly spewing insults about others' inability to understand math, etc, obviously they're up to no good and should be treated accordingly. Robert       Date: 25 Mar 2007 19:43:28 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 25, 3:57 pm, "David Tang" <dgt...@shaw.ca > wrote: > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1174836864.503620.259410@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > I've posted this perhaps 20 times, but here again are the head injury > > fatality rates, PER HOUR EXPOSURE, for four groups of road users: > > > Cyclists: 0.19 HI deaths per million hours. > > > Pedestrians: 0.34 HI deaths per million hours. > > > Motorists: 0.17 HI deaths per million hours. > > > Motorcyclists: 2.90 HI deaths per million hours. > > > The paper this was quoted from (Robinson, D. L., Head Injuries and > > Bicycle Helmet Laws) didn't give the per-hour figure for folks around > > the home, I'll grant you that. > > I'm curious to know what jurisdiction these statistics > were taken from. I'm guessing they are from a study > Robinson did in Australia in 1996, from which he's often > cited. Yes, they are. If you have other data, we should examine it. FWIW, I've seen data from several different countries (although it's buried pretty deeply). There are differences between countries, but one consistent main point: The fatality risk of cycling is extremely low, with many millions of miles biked between fatalities. Differences between different countries and different data amount to comparing infinitesmals. > If so, can these numbers really be applied to the > US? The two cultures and two infrastructures are pretty similar, from what I can tell (including, sadly, the propensity to obesity in the two). But if you've specific US data, we should look at it. Take a look at http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm to see some of the information I found. - Frank Krygowski         Date: 26 Mar 2007 13:56:50 From: David Tang Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1174877008.227788.256800@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On 25, 3:57 pm, "David Tang" <dgt...@shaw.ca> wrote: >> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1174836864.503620.259410@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> <<...statistical information deleted... >> >> >> I'm curious to know what jurisdiction these statistics >> were taken from. I'm guessing they are from a study >> Robinson did in Australia in 1996, from which he's often >> cited. > > Yes, they are. If you have other data, we should examine it. > > FWIW, I've seen data from several different countries (although it's > buried pretty deeply). There are differences between countries, but > one consistent main point: The fatality risk of cycling is extremely > low, with many millions of miles biked between fatalities. > Differences between different countries and different data amount to > comparing infinitesmals. > >> If so, can these numbers really be applied to the >> US? > > The two cultures and two infrastructures are pretty similar, from what > I can tell (including, sadly, the propensity to obesity in the two). > But if you've specific US data, we should look at it. > > Take a look at http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm > to see some of the information I found. > > - Frank Krygowski No, I don't have any other data. Statistics being what they are, it just seems prudent to question them. - David       Date: 25 Mar 2007 19:36:05 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 25, 9:16 pm, "di" <di9...@cox.net > wrote: > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1174836864.503620.259410@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > First, "di" was saying the numbers didn't matter; that being _even > > one_ head injury victim "sucks." She didn't explain why being one > > motorist head injury victim sucks less. Is it because they have lots > > more company while sitting in the head injury ward? > > > - Frank Krygowski > > "She", I would tell you that you are wrong, but I'm afraid you would come > up with some statistics that would prove "me" wrong. I'm certainly willing to read whatever data you have! But you shouldn't be afraid of data that proves you wrong. The trick is to learn from it, not be afraid of it. Again, male or female, you've implied that numbers don't matter - that being only _one_ cycling head injury victim "sucks." But you ignore that there are 99 other such victims for every cyclist victim, and that on average, cyclists don't seem to be at any unusual risk. Why the logical disconnect? > di is initials, not > a name. Being wrong sucks as much as head injuries. Dealing with anonymous posters has always had a certain suckiness to it, including having to guess at gender. Although I don't comment on it as much as, say, Jobst Brandt or Sheldon Brown. Why hide? - Frank Krygowski       Date: 25 Mar 2007 18:27:53 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 25, 7:16 pm, "di" <di9...@cox.net > wrote: > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1174836864.503620.259410@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > First, "di" was saying the numbers didn't matter; that being _even > > one_ head injury victim "sucks." She didn't explain why being one > > motorist head injury victim sucks less. Is it because they have lots > > more company while sitting in the head injury ward? > > > - Frank Krygowski > > "She", I would tell you that you are wrong, but I'm afraid you would come > up with some statistics that would prove "me" wrong. LOL! > di is initials, not a name. Well, Franky Krygowski has decided you are a "she"; there's no point in arguing about it, he'll just post the same things again and again until he wears you down and you give up. ;-) > Being wrong sucks as much as head injuries. Franky must have a hell of a headache at this point in his life.       Date: 25 Mar 2007 08:49:27 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 24, 6:29 pm, "di" <di9...@cox.net > wrote: > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1174768857.584686.250630@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > On 24, 12:45 pm, "di" <di9...@cox.net> wrote: > >> <jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message > > >> > Let's ask Bill a math question: > > >> > How many miles at typical cycling speeds per fatality - given that > >> > there is approximately one fatality per 450 years of cycling 24 hours > >> > a day, non-stop. > > >> It really sucks if you are that one, so I'll wear my helmet. > > > Hmm. Not into math, I see. > > > Still, di, you can certainly understand that non-bicycle head injuries > > are 99% of the problem, right? > > What problem? The problem of serious brain injuries in America. > > Can you understand that per hour, the head injury risk of cycling is > > quite normal and not at all excessive? > > It only takes one injury, then anything normal is gone forever. But isn't that true for the 99% of serious head injuries that have nothing to do with cycling? Why are only the cycling ones tragedies? > > So if you're engaged in the other things that cause lots more head > > injuries - things like riding in a car, or walking around the home - > > does it somehow not suck if you get a serious or fatal head injury? > > Would you feel better if we wore helments when riding in a car? If I > remember correctly, we have other protection, seat belts, air bags, hard > metal all around us, all which is not available on a bicycle. Of course, seat belts and air bags have helped. They have made riding in cars roughly as safe as riding a bike. Until they came along, riding in cars was way more dangerous than riding a bike. So now, it's about a tie. (The "hard metal all around you" is what causes most of the serious head injuries in cars. It's what your head runs into.) Anyway, todays cars are about as safe as todays bicycles, whether or not the bicyclist wears a helmet. (The bike helmets haven't made any detectable difference.) So would I feel better if people wore helmets riding in cars? Actually, no. I think that, too, would be evidence of fearmongering, deceit and paranoia. I think cars are adequately safe, just as I think bicycles are adequately safe. I think that people who want to increase safety should concentrate on other issues. Getting people to drive properly could be one. > I supposed you would also try to play sports without proper protective > equipment, drive without seatbelts, refuse to wear eye protection when using > power equipment, etc. Maybe you won't like this, but I grew up playing football and baseball with friends almost daily. And just like the kids I see down at the village lawn, we played without helmets, protective pads and mouth guards. Should the safety nannies be outlawing that as well? Should kids on swings have to wear foam hats? Good God, what if a kid climbs a tree? Or should we just cut all the trees down? Obviously, by your logic we don't need to look at any real data; why, if only ONE life can be saved <wring hands here > ... - Frank Krygowski       Date: 25 Mar 2007 08:34:24 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 24, 6:54 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me > wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > On 24, 12:45 pm, "di" <di9...@cox.net> wrote: > >> > > >> It really sucks if you are that one, so I'll wear my helmet. > > > Hmm. Not into math, I see. > > > Still, di, you can certainly understand that non-bicycle head injuries > > are 99% of the problem, right? > > > Can you understand that per hour, the head injury risk of cycling is > > quite normal and not at all excessive? > > > So if you're engaged in the other things that cause lots more head > > injuries - things like riding in a car, or walking around the home - > > does it somehow not suck if you get a serious or fatal head injury? > > Gee, can anyone spot the flaw in /that/ "logic"?!? LOL > > HINT: Think TOTAL NUMBERS. How many more drivers and passengers are there > than cyclists? How many more RESIDENTS are there than cyclists? > > Does a higher percentage of bike riders get injured than of drivers? > Home-dwellers? Of course it does. There are two problems with your post, Bill. First, "di" was saying the numbers didn't matter; that being _even one_ head injury victim "sucks." She didn't explain why being one motorist head injury victim sucks less. Is it because they have lots more company while sitting in the head injury ward? Second, Bill, your specific objection has been disproven many many times, although you seem unable to understand that. Do you have a friend who understands math? If so, get him to go over this next part: To disprove your point above, you look at the fatality (or head injury) rate PER HOUR. I've posted this perhaps 20 times, but here again are the head injury fatality rates, PER HOUR EXPOSURE, for four groups of road users: Cyclists: 0.19 HI deaths per million hours. Pedestrians: 0.34 HI deaths per million hours. Motorists: 0.17 HI deaths per million hours. Motorcyclists: 2.90 HI deaths per million hours. The paper this was quoted from (Robinson, D. L., Head Injuries and Bicycle Helmet Laws) didn't give the per-hour figure for folks around the home, I'll grant you that. But if you're out moving around in public, should you _always_ wear a helmet? Clearly, cycling is not tremendously dangerous compared to our other popular ways of getting around! - Frank Krygowski         Date: 25 Mar 2007 20:16:10 From: di Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1174836864.503620.259410@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > First, "di" was saying the numbers didn't matter; that being _even > one_ head injury victim "sucks." She didn't explain why being one > motorist head injury victim sucks less. Is it because they have lots > more company while sitting in the head injury ward? > > - Frank Krygowski "She", I would tell you that you are wrong, but I'm afraid you would come up with some statistics that would prove "me" wrong. di is initials, not a name. Being wrong sucks as much as head injuries.         Date: 25 Mar 2007 19:57:28 From: David Tang Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1174836864.503620.259410@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > I've posted this perhaps 20 times, but here again are the head injury > fatality rates, PER HOUR EXPOSURE, for four groups of road users: > > Cyclists: 0.19 HI deaths per million hours. > > Pedestrians: 0.34 HI deaths per million hours. > > Motorists: 0.17 HI deaths per million hours. > > Motorcyclists: 2.90 HI deaths per million hours. > > The paper this was quoted from (Robinson, D. L., Head Injuries and > Bicycle Helmet Laws) didn't give the per-hour figure for folks around > the home, I'll grant you that. I'm curious to know what jurisdiction these statistics were taken from. I'm guessing they are from a study Robinson did in Australia in 1996, from which he's often cited. If so, can these numbers really be applied to the US? - David           Date: 27 Mar 2007 14:23:18 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 27, 1:45 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > None of your objections support your estimation of "bogus", > "laughable", and so on. > > If you know the figures are wrong, you must know what the real ones > are... > > O chosen one, why don't you tell us what the real ones are?- Hide quoted text - You're not getting it, jt. There is no way to tell what those figures are estimates OF. That is kind of a prerequisite to determining if they are bogus or not. Robert             Date: 27 Mar 2007 21:51:56 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 27 2007 14:23:18 -0700, r15757@aol.com wrote: >On 27, 1:45 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >> None of your objections support your estimation of "bogus", >> "laughable", and so on. >> >> If you know the figures are wrong, you must know what the real ones >> are... >> >> O chosen one, why don't you tell us what the real ones are?- Hide quoted text - > >You're not getting it, jt. > >There is no way to tell what those figures are estimates OF. That is >kind of a prerequisite to determining if they are bogus or not. > >Robert So if one cannot tell if they are bogus, why are you asserting that they are?           Date: 27 Mar 2007 06:00:15 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 27, 2:11 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On 26 2007 20:06:07 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" > > > > > > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > >On 26, 6:32 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote: > >> r15...@aol.com wrote: > >> > On 26, 10:35 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > > >> {snips} > > >> >> - unless, of course, you are one of those pro-helmet and/or pro-MHL > >> >> zealots. > >> > Not me. If you want to fight MHLs, which I consider > >> > to be an important fight, I would > >> > suggest not relying on such obviously > >> > laughably bogus 'data'. > > >> Too late. > > >Anyone concerned about the spread of MHLs should realize that their > >interests are not served by the antics of crackpots and cranks such as > >"jtaylor" and Frank Krygowski. > > People who are against MHL's would be well advised to BE concerned > when others call for an MHL, as you have repeatedly done in this very > newsgroup. > > All anyone has to do to see this is search the ng archives for > > "I'd like one in your jurisdiction that was well and truly enforced" > > and > > "I do wish jtaylor gets the karma he deserves; in this case, a strong > MHL with prison terms." Mercy!!! The TRUTH at last!!!! That's right, "jtaylor", I wished a MHL for *you*, as karmic payback for the ass that you are. In fact, I later wished you a Mandatory Helmet *Life*: helmets whilst cycling, walking, showering, sleeping, defecating, wanking off, etc. I even suggested that you be interred with a helmet on your pointy little head. Yes, "jtaylor", for you I wish a Mandatory Helmet AfterLife! Only a lying, deceptive, deluded nutcase like you would try to twist what I wrote into a call for a MHL. But that's typical for you, isn't it?             Date: 27 Mar 2007 15:38:28 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 27 2007 06:00:15 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: >> People who are against MHL's would be well advised to BE concerned >> when others call for an MHL, as you have repeatedly done in this very >> newsgroup. >> >> All anyone has to do to see this is search the ng archives for >> >> "I'd like one in your jurisdiction that was well and truly enforced" >> >> and >> >> "I do wish jtaylor gets the karma he deserves; in this case, a strong >> MHL with prison terms." > > >Only a lying, deceptive, deluded nutcase like you would try to twist >what I wrote into a call for a MHL. > Um, so by "MHL" you didn't mean "MHL"?           Date: 25 Mar 2007 21:01:06 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Sun, 25 2007 19:57:28 GMT, "David Tang" <dgtang@shaw.ca > wrote: ><frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1174836864.503620.259410@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >> I've posted this perhaps 20 times, but here again are the head injury >> fatality rates, PER HOUR EXPOSURE, for four groups of road users: >> >> Cyclists: 0.19 HI deaths per million hours. >> >> Pedestrians: 0.34 HI deaths per million hours. >> >> Motorists: 0.17 HI deaths per million hours. >> >> Motorcyclists: 2.90 HI deaths per million hours. >> >> The paper this was quoted from (Robinson, D. L., Head Injuries and >> Bicycle Helmet Laws) didn't give the per-hour figure for folks around >> the home, I'll grant you that. > >I'm curious to know what jurisdiction these statistics >were taken from. I'm guessing they are from a study >Robinson did in Australia in 1996, from which he's often >cited. If so, can these numbers really be applied to the >US? > The Failure Associates US numbers show similar proportions: Cycling - .26 per million hours Motoring - .47 per million hours Motorcycling - 8.8 per million hours Living - 1.53 per milion hours (note that these are deaths from ALL causes, not just head injuries).             Date: 26 Mar 2007 00:49:23 From: David Tang Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message news:7nod03p5obgm59sg9gkm7k2a5ep5utvlo5@4ax.com... > On Sun, 25 2007 19:57:28 GMT, "David Tang" <dgtang@shaw.ca> wrote: > >><frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1174836864.503620.259410@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> I've posted this perhaps 20 times, but here again are the head injury >>> fatality rates, PER HOUR EXPOSURE, for four groups of road users: >>> >>> Cyclists: 0.19 HI deaths per million hours. >>> >>> Pedestrians: 0.34 HI deaths per million hours. >>> >>> Motorists: 0.17 HI deaths per million hours. >>> >>> Motorcyclists: 2.90 HI deaths per million hours. >>> >>> The paper this was quoted from (Robinson, D. L., Head Injuries and >>> Bicycle Helmet Laws) didn't give the per-hour figure for folks around >>> the home, I'll grant you that. >> >>I'm curious to know what jurisdiction these statistics >>were taken from. I'm guessing they are from a study >>Robinson did in Australia in 1996, from which he's often >>cited. If so, can these numbers really be applied to the >>US? >> > > The Failure Associates US numbers show similar proportions: > > Cycling - .26 per million hours > > Motoring - .47 per million hours > > Motorcycling - 8.8 per million hours > > Living - 1.53 per milion hours > > (note that these are deaths from ALL causes, not just head injuries). Thank you. So now I'm trying to compare these numbers with the ones shown in the graph at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/. The graph reports fatalities per billion km of cycling, presumably all deaths and not just head injuries. On the graph, the US looks to be running at 110 deaths/bn-km. Assuming an average cycling speed of 20km/hr, it would take 50 million hours to cycle a billion km. That translates to 2.2 cycling deaths for each million hours of cycling, by my calculation. Arguably that number is similar to the Failure Associates number taking into account variations in how the calculations are arrived at (the graph is for a single year, vs. perhaps multi-year for Failure Associates; the single year could have seen a higher than normal death rate; the number of hours spent cycling may have been counted differently; etc.) What is bothersome is that the US in 1996 had a death rate at least five times higher than the lowest countries on the chart. Again, considering the chart is for a single year and that over time some reversion to the mean will take place, and assuming the cyclehelmets.org guys grabbed the most skewed statistics to prove a point, it would seems to me that the US may be running around twice the rate of deaths as the lowest countries. Why might that be? And if that is the reality, I think the argument should be what to do about it, rather than whether MHLs have any effect on fatality rate or cycling participation. - David               Date: 26 Mar 2007 10:31:02 From: Curtis L. Russell Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Mon, 26 2007 00:49:23 GMT, "David Tang" <dgtang@shaw.ca > wrote: >What is bothersome is that the US in 1996 had a death rate >at least five times higher than the lowest countries on the >chart. That chart is too simple. It doesn't correct for any population differences - for instance, even given that the US bicyclists are an aging group compared to before, it is still likely that in miles ridden the population skews young compared to other countries. Certainly, it did at one time. The chart makes another interesting and unintended point, which is that the countries that are doing better have a lower reported rate of helmet use among adults. And yet, their own chart... It might be interesting to ask one of several people that spend a lot of time analyzing US numbers if they know any difference between the reporting characteristics as well. AFAIK, the US reporting is self-developed and is not to anyspecific international standard (if any exists). Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...                 Date: 30 Mar 2007 13:08:01 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 28, 9:16 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > On 27, 9:54 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: > > [snip] > > Dear Robert, > > Transport Safety Statistics 2002 > > *1* Deaths > *2* Percentage of road deaths > *3* All casualties (1) > *4* Percentage of all road casualties > > Road (GB) > *1* *2* *3* *4* > car occupants 1,747 51% 197,425 65% > pedestrians 775 23% 38,784 13% > motorcyclists 609 17% 28,353 9% > pedal cyclists 130 4% 17,107 6% > light goods > vehicle > occupants 70 2% 7,007 2% > heavy goods > vehicle > occupants 63 2% 3,178 1% > bus/coach > occupants 19 >1% 9,005 3% > others 18 >1% 1,766 >1% > > Total Road 3,431 x 302,605 x > > Notes: > (1) Definitions are as follows. Number of deaths / killed are human > casualties who sustained injuries which caused death less than 30 days > after the incident. All casualties includes the number killed, > seriously injured or slightly injured. A serious injury is an injury > for which a person is detained in hospital as an 'in-patient', or any > of the following injuries whether or not they are detained in > hospital: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, severe > cuts and lacerations, severe general shock requiring medical treatment > and injuries causing death 30 or more days after the incident. A > slight injury is an injury of a minor character such as a sprain, > bruise or cut which are not judged to be severe, or slight shock > requiring roadside attention. The injured casualty is recorded as > seriously or slightly injured by the police on the basis of > information available within a short time of the incident. This will > therefore not reflect the results of a medical examination, but may be > influenced according to whether the casualty is hospitalised (Road > Accidents Great Britain 1999). > > Source: Road Casualties Great Britain 2002: DfT (2003) > > Cross modal comparison of fatality risk for passengers > > 2001 Fatalities per billion passenger kilometres > > Motor cycle/moped 112 > Foot 48 > Pedal cycle 33 > Car 3 > Van 0.9 > Rail 0.1 > Water 0.4 > Bus or coach 0.2 > Air 0.01 > > Source: Road Casualties Great Britain 2002: DfT (2003). > > http://www.pacts.org.uk/policy/briefings/statistics_uk.htm > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel Thanks, Carl. I haven't had time to contribute to Usenet for a while, and won't for another while. If you convert the units and assume a realistic cycling speed, you'll find they are reasonably close to FAA's. I see r12345 has already rejected the figures as perhaps being 25% off. Of course, even if they were true: a) they could be off in either direction - that is, cycling could be safer than claimed b) the risk of fatality per hour or mile is still infinitesmal. Gotta go. - Frank Krygowski                 Date: 28 Mar 2007 23:58:30 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <1175150358.212971.319400@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >, r15757@aol.com writes: > Tom Keats wrote in part: > >> Everybody's >> a self-styled expert. They don't think they need any, >> and don't want any. The hubris/nemesis effect will >> teach them, the hard way. >> >> That's just how it is, and how it's been. > > Professor Pain. A lot more brutal than > John Houseman in the Paper Chase. > > Robert Bob, I want all my garmonbozea (pain and suffering.) Life is hard. So is herding cats, or digging a hole in the ocean. So is me stepping forward and admitting that I'm often a self-styled expert too, no better than anyone else[*]. But there you go, and there it is. cheers, Tom [*] Well, maybe a little. -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca                 Date: 28 Mar 2007 23:39:18 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Tom Keats wrote in part: > Everybody's > a self-styled expert. They don't think they need any, > and don't want any. The hubris/nemesis effect will > teach them, the hard way. > > That's just how it is, and how it's been. Professor Pain. A lot more brutal than John Houseman in the Paper Chase. Robert                 Date: 28 Mar 2007 23:07:39 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <1175145907.406036.58920@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >, r15757@aol.com writes: > Thoughts? Many of the riders I see, don't ride all that safely. They can play the numbers and statistically expect to get away with it for a while, but sooner or later the stats will catch up to them. Especially as they become lackadaisically complacent in the belief they are statistically unhittable and invulnerable. Helmets might or might not help them. No guarantees. Frank's experience includes cycling instruction. But I daresay the majority of people on bicycles out there on the streets have not had the benefit of instruction, or years of experience. Everybody's a self-styled expert. They don't think they need any, and don't want any. The hubris/nemesis effect will teach them, the hard way. That's just how it is, and how it's been. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca                 Date: 28 Mar 2007 22:25:07 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > [snip] Note also that Frank's Design News chart makes the claim that US cyclists spend approx. 10 times as many total hours cycling per year as their British counterparts (assuming the DfT numbers are correct), even though the population of England is about one sixth that of the US. Thoughts?                 Date: 28 Mar 2007 21:25:39 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > [snip] Dear Carl, Interesting numbers. Sound so official, don't they? Unfortunately, the rates appear to be based on the National Travel Survey, which seems to round cyclist mileage, er, kilometerage to the nearest billion. In this case, 4 billion total kilometers. So, even if rounded to the correct billion, which is not an assumption I am prepared to make, the fatality rate recorded here could be off by 25%. Robert                 Date: 28 Mar 2007 18:16:44 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 27, 9:54 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: [snip] Dear Robert, Transport Safety Statistics 2002 *1* Deaths *2* Percentage of road deaths *3* All casualties (1) *4* Percentage of all road casualties Road (GB) *1* *2* *3* *4* car occupants 1,747 51% 197,425 65% pedestrians 775 23% 38,784 13% motorcyclists 609 17% 28,353 9% pedal cyclists 130 4% 17,107 6% light goods vehicle occupants 70 2% 7,007 2% heavy goods vehicle occupants 63 2% 3,178 1% bus/coach occupants 19 >1% 9,005 3% others 18 >1% 1,766 >1% Total Road 3,431 x 302,605 x Notes: (1) Definitions are as follows. Number of deaths / killed are human casualties who sustained injuries which caused death less than 30 days after the incident. All casualties includes the number killed, seriously injured or slightly injured. A serious injury is an injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an 'in-patient', or any of the following injuries whether or not they are detained in hospital: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, severe cuts and lacerations, severe general shock requiring medical treatment and injuries causing death 30 or more days after the incident. A slight injury is an injury of a minor character such as a sprain, bruise or cut which are not judged to be severe, or slight shock requiring roadside attention. The injured casualty is recorded as seriously or slightly injured by the police on the basis of information available within a short time of the incident. This will therefore not reflect the results of a medical examination, but may be influenced according to whether the casualty is hospitalised (Road Accidents Great Britain 1999). Source: Road Casualties Great Britain 2002: DfT (2003) Cross modal comparison of fatality risk for passengers 2001 Fatalities per billion passenger kilometres Motor cycle/moped 112 Foot 48 Pedal cycle 33 Car 3 Van 0.9 Rail 0.1 Water 0.4 Bus or coach 0.2 Air 0.01 Source: Road Casualties Great Britain 2002: DfT (2003). http://www.pacts.org.uk/policy/briefings/statistics_uk.htm Cheers, Carl Fogel                 Date: 28 Mar 2007 17:34:43 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > The date is given. Nope. You made it up. BTW, do you understand why your assertion that these numbers are from 1993 has zero chance of being correct? > So is the source. The source could be God -- it wouldn't make the figures any more useable in the absence of the minimum necessary information. > So is the fact that they are > fatality risks. At least you got that part right. > So you are questioning the "US" part of what I said, > because that wasn't specifically called out? > > In my experience, the vast, vast majority of accident data posted in > the US is data _for_ the US. That's the default situation, and there > are thousands of US publications that don't specify that; they assume > the reader will know. First of all, that's simply false. Second, what do you think the 'default situation' is for a publication (like Design News) that is published in Japan, China, and Poland in addition to the US? Is there some guy in China claiming that 'of course these numbers are for China, that's the 'default situation' for publications distributed in China?' > Good grief. The figures I've seen from roughly 8 developed countries > were quite similar - all having less than one fatality per million > hours bicycling, IIRC. You've made this claim before but I don't think you've ever managed to post a citation of any sort for these alleged studies. Please post a cite so the folks at home can check out these peer-reviewed journals at our local well-stocked research libraries. > In addition, I'm not aware of any significant > changes taking place year by year, except for a very gradual downward > trend, probably caused by improved medical techniques. You might want to look at the advance numbers for 2006. And 'improved medical techniques?' Try dwindling usage of bikes by kids. Kids under 16 accounted for about one third of fatalities just ten years ago; now they account for only one fifth. > It's your contention that the data doesn't exist. But professionals > in many countries have published data that, in their opinion, does > exist. So we've got a group of research professionals on one side of > the argument, and a bike messenger on the other. Let's be clear. Any 'research professional' who has studied this issue and doesn't have their head firmly implanted in their ass can tell you that the only halfway reliable data here is the number of fatalities. That information is enough to tell us that the fatality rate for cycling in the US must be pretty low. But any claims of per-hour rates would be well into the realm of fuzzy guesswork and conjecture based on extremely limited information. Why can't you admit this simple fact? Robert, lowly messenger                 Date: 28 Mar 2007 15:11:57 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 28, 1:33 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > The date is given. Nope. No date given.                 Date: 28 Mar 2007 12:50:40 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 28, 12:24 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me > wrote: > r15...@aol.com wrote: > > Hey, it's reeeeaaal simple, people. If the data doesn't > > exist, don't attempt to wish it into existence. If you do, > > you run the risk of having some lowly bike messenger > > or other peon come along and make you look like a > > massive retard. > > But enough about Global Warming. <eg> Thinking of Franky Krygowski conjures up images of "hot gases" for you, too, eh?                 Date: 28 Mar 2007 12:33:12 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 28, 1:36 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: > On 28, 9:14 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Personally, I think the figures are estimates of the number of > > fatalities per million hours exposure for different activities or > > events. I think that because that's what it said at the top of the > > chart, IIRC. > > That's so very interesting! Because earlier in this thread you > claimed the chart was "Failure Analysis Associates' > 1993 estimates of US per-hour fatality rates," which it > most certainly does not say at the top of the chart, > or on the bottom of the chart, or anywhere other than > your imagination. ... > So you really have changed your tune here after I called > you on it. Now are you claiming that the rates refer > to ALL cyclists worldwide? The date is given. So is the source. So is the fact that they are fatality risks. So you are questioning the "US" part of what I said, because that wasn't specifically called out? In my experience, the vast, vast majority of accident data posted in the US is data _for_ the US. That's the default situation, and there are thousands of US publications that don't specify that; they assume the reader will know. Admittedly, they aren't familiar with Usenet's contentious battles over every detail. If they did realize that you would use that to claim there was zero value in their numbers, I'm sure that Failure Analysis Associates would have - um - not cared a bit. > ...For ALL time? Or what? > Please be specific. Good grief. The figures I've seen from roughly 8 developed countries were quite similar - all having less than one fatality per million hours bicycling, IIRC. In addition, I'm not aware of any significant changes taking place year by year, except for a very gradual downward trend, probably caused by improved medical techniques. IOW, it doesn't matter much whether the data was from one year in the US, five years in the US, one year in countries of Western culture, five years in those countries, etc. If you have sense enough to recognize that the data must be approximate - for _all_ activities, not just cycling - your objections become quite unimportant. > > Now granted, they didn't have any bike messengers on their research > > staff, at least as far as I've heard. Perhaps if they'd hired a bike > > messenger like r12345, he would have uncovered definitive data that > > would allow them to improve on the figures. However, I note that to > > date, he has not. He's mostly yowled that "IT CAN'T BE TRUE." Mostly > > because it makes cycling sound way too safe for his taste. > ... > > Then give us the ranking of fatalities per million hours exposure that > > _you've_ found for those listed activities. > > Hey, it's reeeeaaal simple, people. If the data doesn't > exist, don't attempt to wish it into existence. If you do, > you run the risk of having some lowly bike messenger > or other peon come along and make you look like a > massive retard. As someone else said, the crude insults indicate a person losing an argument. It's your contention that the data doesn't exist. But professionals in many countries have published data that, in their opinion, does exist. So we've got a group of research professionals on one side of the argument, and a bike messenger on the other. The bike messenger _might_ be right; all those researchers _might_ be wrong. But I know who I'd bet on. - Frank Krygowski                 Date: 28 Mar 2007 10:36:11 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 28, 9:14 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > Personally, I think the figures are estimates of the number of > fatalities per million hours exposure for different activities or > events. I think that because that's what it said at the top of the > chart, IIRC. That's so very interesting! Because earlier in this thread you claimed the chart was "Failure Analysis Associates' 1993 estimates of US per-hour fatality rates," which it most certainly does not say at the top of the chart, or on the bottom of the chart, or anywhere other than your imagination. (aside to jt: part of Frank's statement above is obviously untrue, and the other part is obviously made up. Do you understand why?) So you really have changed your tune here after I called you on it. Now are you claiming that the rates refer to ALL cyclists worldwide? For ALL time? Or what? Please be specific. This is important 'data', right? > I think the figures are not likely to contain tremendous error Figures for what exactly???? > Now granted, they didn't have any bike messengers on their research > staff, at least as far as I've heard. Perhaps if they'd hired a bike > messenger like r12345, he would have uncovered definitive data that > would allow them to improve on the figures. However, I note that to > date, he has not. He's mostly yowled that "IT CAN'T BE TRUE." Mostly > because it makes cycling sound way too safe for his taste. ... > Then give us the ranking of fatalities per million hours exposure that > _you've_ found for those listed activities. Hey, it's reeeeaaal simple, people. If the data doesn't exist, don't attempt to wish it into existence. If you do, you run the risk of having some lowly bike messenger or other peon come along and make you look like a massive retard. Robert                   Date: 28 Mar 2007 10:24:36 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling r15757@aol.com wrote: > Hey, it's reeeeaaal simple, people. If the data doesn't > exist, don't attempt to wish it into existence. If you do, > you run the risk of having some lowly bike messenger > or other peon come along and make you look like a > massive retard. But enough about Global Warming. <eg >                 Date: 28 Mar 2007 09:14:07 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Trimming away R 12345's insults (which are usually a sign of a weak argument): On 28, 12:54 am, r15...@aol.com wrote: > > Curious -- What do you think these figures are estimates > of, jt? Why do you think that, since no such information > was given? Personally, I think the figures are estimates of the number of fatalities per million hours exposure for different activities or events. I think that because that's what it said at the top of the chart, IIRC. I think the figures are not likely to contain tremendous error because I know something about the organization (Failure Analysis Associates) that produced the chart. At the time it was published, they were (and still are) the largest risk consultation firm in America. They consult very successfully for the insurance industry (among others) to help that industry evaluate risk. The insurance industry successfully uses their data in order to make sure they make money, and it seems to work rather well. If they weren't good at their job, they'd not be the biggest in the country. At the time they provided that data to Design News magazine, they had over 100 PhDs on staff, many of whom specialized in exactly that sort of data mining. Now granted, they didn't have any bike messengers on their research staff, at least as far as I've heard. Perhaps if they'd hired a bike messenger like r12345, he would have uncovered definitive data that would allow them to improve on the figures. However, I note that to date, he has not. He's mostly yowled that "IT CAN'T BE TRUE." Mostly because it makes cycling sound way too safe for his taste. So if they _had_ hired him, it would probably be just for deliveries. Which is fine, because that's an honorable way of making a living. > I'm just trying to help. Then give us the ranking of fatalities per million hours exposure that _you've_ found for those listed activities. http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html - Frank Krygowski                 Date: 27 Mar 2007 21:54:13 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >You're not getting it, jt. > > > >There is no way to tell what those figures are estimates OF. That is > >kind of a prerequisite to determining if they are bogus or not. > > > >Robert > > So if one cannot tell if they are bogus, why are you asserting that > they are? What I am saying is this -- you guys look like massive retards trying to pass off this random chart, with no explanation for what the 'figures' are even supposed to estimate, as data of any useful sort whatsoever. It's really not very hard, for most people. Curious -- What do you think these figures are estimates of, jt? Why do you think that, since no such information was given? Do you have ESP or something? You obviously haven't even seen this chart in its original form; I suggest you look it up and save yourself some embarassment. It's way too late for Krygowski. I'm just trying to help. But if you continue to insist that this somehow constitues useful data, I will continue to make fun of you for it. Laughable, yes. Robert                 Date: 27 Mar 2007 15:12:18 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 27, 9:38 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On 27 2007 06:00:15 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" > > > > > > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > >> People who are against MHL's would be well advised to BE concerned > >> when others call for an MHL, as you have repeatedly done in this very > >> newsgroup. > > >> All anyone has to do to see this is search the ng archives for > > >> "I do wish jtaylor gets the karma he deserves; in this case, a strong > >> MHL with prison terms." > > >Only a lying, deceptive, deluded nutcase like you would try to twist > >what I wrote into a call for a MHL. > > Um, so by "MHL" you didn't mean "MHL? Are you a) stupid b) insane c) stupid *and* insane ?                   Date: 27 Mar 2007 23:32:55 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 27 2007 15:12:18 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: >> >> >Only a lying, deceptive, deluded nutcase like you would try to twist >> >what I wrote into a call for a MHL. >> >> Um, so by "MHL" you didn't mean "MHL? > > >Are you > >a) stupid > >b) insane > >c) stupid *and* insane > Insults are a sign that the user has no other support. (For the purposes of this thread, "pro-MHL" is not an insult, just a description of Ozark's position.)                   Date: 27 Mar 2007 22:20:56 From: Bill Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Ozark Bicycle wrote: > On 27, 9:38 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> On 27 2007 06:00:15 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" >> >> >> >> >> >> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: >>>> People who are against MHL's would be well advised to BE concerned >>>> when others call for an MHL, as you have repeatedly done in this very >>>> newsgroup. >>>> All anyone has to do to see this is search the ng archives for >>>> "I do wish jtaylor gets the karma he deserves; in this case, a strong >>>> MHL with prison terms." >>> Only a lying, deceptive, deluded nutcase like you would try to twist >>> what I wrote into a call for a MHL. >> Um, so by "MHL" you didn't mean "MHL? > > > Are you > > a) stupid > > b) insane > > c) stupid *and* insane > > ? > You guys should 'get a room' of your own. Every year someone starts this damned 'Helmet war' and it never goes away. Please, thread, die. Bill Baka               Date: 26 Mar 2007 11:12:54 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Mon, 26 2007 00:49:23 GMT, "David Tang" <dgtang@shaw.ca > wrote: > >What is bothersome is that the US in 1996 had a death rate >at least five times higher than the lowest countries on the >chart. Again, considering the chart is for a single year >and that over time some reversion to the mean will take place, >and assuming the cyclehelmets.org guys grabbed the most skewed >statistics to prove a point, it would seems to me that the US >may be running around twice the rate of deaths as the lowest >countries. > >Why might that be? And if that is the reality, I think the >argument should be what to do about it, rather than whether >MHLs have any effect on fatality rate or cycling participation. > You seem to be missing the point. One of the most common reasons that people give for not cycling is that they think it is dangerous. People who do not now cycle look at cyclists wearing helmets, and draw the obvious conclusion - it _must_ be dangerous, they are wearing a helmet. The USofA has an abyssmally low cycling rate, compared many other countries. The USofA has more helmet laws, more people subject to them, and has had them for longer than any other country. We know that MHL's decrease cycling. We know that as cycling increases, the rate of injury to cyclists drops. "What to do about it" is simple - get rid of the MHL's.                 Date: 28 Mar 2007 03:25:22 From: David Tang Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message news:t7af03hg1qj5ci9i3hnfqkh5c2v2snndsj@4ax.com... > On Mon, 26 2007 00:49:23 GMT, "David Tang" <dgtang@shaw.ca> wrote: >> >>What is bothersome is that the US in 1996 had a death rate >>at least five times higher than the lowest countries on the >>chart. Again, considering the chart is for a single year >>and that over time some reversion to the mean will take place, >>and assuming the cyclehelmets.org guys grabbed the most skewed >>statistics to prove a point, it would seems to me that the US >>may be running around twice the rate of deaths as the lowest >>countries. >> >>Why might that be? And if that is the reality, I think the >>argument should be what to do about it, rather than whether >>MHLs have any effect on fatality rate or cycling participation. >> > > You seem to be missing the point. > > One of the most common reasons that people give for not cycling is > that they think it is dangerous. > > People who do not now cycle look at cyclists wearing helmets, and draw > the obvious conclusion - it _must_ be dangerous, they are wearing a > helmet. > Yes, I am missing the point. Otherwise I wouldn't have posted what I did. I get that some people consider cycling dangerous, but as you've said, it's just one of the common reasons they give for not cycling. And I agree, helmets don't help. > The USofA has an abyssmally low cycling rate, compared many other > countries. > > The USofA has more helmet laws, more people subject to them, and has > had them for longer than any other country. > > We know that MHL's decrease cycling. > > We know that as cycling increases, the rate of injury to cyclists > drops. > > "What to do about it" is simple - get rid of the MHL's. By "What to do about it" do you mean to increase cycling, consequently decreasing the rate of injuries? But as several people (but especially frkrygow) have noted, the rate of injury is already so low anyway, the difference is one of infinitesimals. So who cares how many people cycle besides cyclists? The car drivers certainly appreciate having less cyclists on the road. The point I believe frkrygow is trying to make is: MHLs decrease the cycling population. More people get less exercise. Less exercise leads to obesity and health problems. Therefore, if there were no MHLs, the general population would be healthier as a result. Since you did not mention this, can I conclude that you have also missed the point? Or perhaps you failed to mention this because the situation is very complex, there are multiple points, and that the reason folks in power haven't seen the light and repealed MHLs is because they are not as convinced as you of the resulting effect? Because the situation is complex, one can appear to "miss the point". Also, not everyone shares the same "point". I think that's why we end up in these protracted discussions. The key is how to make the discussions productive. - David P.S. It's possible I've missed other points that frkrygow has tried to make, but hopefully I've made my point. :-)                 Date: 26 Mar 2007 06:24:13 From: di Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message news:t7af03hg1qj5ci9i3hnfqkh5c2v2snndsj@4ax.com... > On Mon, 26 2007 00:49:23 GMT, "David Tang" <dgtang@shaw.ca> wrote: > > >> >>What is bothersome is that the US in 1996 had a death rate >>at least five times higher than the lowest countries on the >>chart. Again, considering the chart is for a single year >>and that over time some reversion to the mean will take place, >>and assuming the cyclehelmets.org guys grabbed the most skewed >>statistics to prove a point, it would seems to me that the US >>may be running around twice the rate of deaths as the lowest >>countries. >> >>Why might that be? And if that is the reality, I think the >>argument should be what to do about it, rather than whether >>MHLs have any effect on fatality rate or cycling participation. >> > > You seem to be missing the point. > > One of the most common reasons that people give for not cycling is > that they think it is dangerous. > > People who do not now cycle look at cyclists wearing helmets, and draw > the obvious conclusion - it _must_ be dangerous, they are wearing a > helmet. > BS. people also think Mountain Climbing is also dangerous, but it's not because they wear helmets, it's because they fall from great heights on rocks. They think bikes are dangerous because cars smash into them and they also fall on pavement, nothing to do with helmets, personally I think it;'s the Parrot colored jerseys that make it dangerous. My last post on this stupid subject.       Date: 24 Mar 2007 15:32:08 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 24, 4:54 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me > wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > On 24, 12:45 pm, "di" <di9...@cox.net> wrote: > >> <jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message > > >>> Let's ask Bill a math question: > > >>> How many miles at typical cycling speeds per fatality - given that > >>> there is approximately one fatality per 450 years of cycling 24 > >>> hours a day, non-stop. > > >> It really sucks if you are that one, so I'll wear my helmet. > > > Hmm. Not into math, I see. > > > Still, di, you can certainly understand that non-bicycle head injuries > > are 99% of the problem, right? > > > Can you understand that per hour, the head injury risk of cycling is > > quite normal and not at all excessive? > > > So if you're engaged in the other things that cause lots more head > > injuries - things like riding in a car, or walking around the home - > > does it somehow not suck if you get a serious or fatal head injury? > > Gee, can anyone spot the flaw in /that/ "logic"?!? LOL > > HINT: Think TOTAL NUMBERS. How many more drivers and passengers are there > than cyclists? How many more RESIDENTS are there than cyclists? > > Does a higher percentage of bike riders get injured than of drivers? > Home-dwellers? Of course it does. > > That's why they make protective gear for various activities. Avail yourself > of it, or don't. Who cares? "Who cares?" That's easy for you - a normal guy with something going on in your life - to say. But think of poor lil' Franky Krygowski.....without his anti-helmet crusade, the sad old duffer has absolutely *nothing* going on in his life. It gives him a reason to get out of bed each morning. So, of course he CARES. Why else would he drone on and on and on, again and again and again with the same-same- same regugitated bullshit about how helmets are ruining everyone's life?       Date: 24 Mar 2007 13:40:57 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 24, 12:45 pm, "di" <di9...@cox.net > wrote: > <jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message > > > Let's ask Bill a math question: > > > How many miles at typical cycling speeds per fatality - given that > > there is approximately one fatality per 450 years of cycling 24 hours > > a day, non-stop. > > It really sucks if you are that one, so I'll wear my helmet. Hmm. Not into math, I see. Still, di, you can certainly understand that non-bicycle head injuries are 99% of the problem, right? Can you understand that per hour, the head injury risk of cycling is quite normal and not at all excessive? So if you're engaged in the other things that cause lots more head injuries - things like riding in a car, or walking around the home - does it somehow not suck if you get a serious or fatal head injury? - Frank Krygowski         Date: 26 Mar 2007 12:38:58 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 26, 10:34 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On 26 2007 08:57:09 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" > > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > >On 26, 9:31 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On 26, 7:24 am, "di" <di9...@cox.net> wrote: > > ><snipped> > > >- pointless discussions of imaginary MHLs - > > This from someone who has called for an MHL. Please provide the evidence, dickhead. It's been over two weeks now. Post the link! > > Not one that he himself would be subject to, oh no; only _other_ > people should have to wear helmets. Come on, we could still use that laugh!!!         Date: 24 Mar 2007 17:29:03 From: di Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1174768857.584686.250630@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On 24, 12:45 pm, "di" <di9...@cox.net> wrote: >> <jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message >> >> > Let's ask Bill a math question: >> >> > How many miles at typical cycling speeds per fatality - given that >> > there is approximately one fatality per 450 years of cycling 24 hours >> > a day, non-stop. >> >> It really sucks if you are that one, so I'll wear my helmet. > > Hmm. Not into math, I see. > > Still, di, you can certainly understand that non-bicycle head injuries > are 99% of the problem, right? What problem? > > Can you understand that per hour, the head injury risk of cycling is > quite normal and not at all excessive? It only takes one injury, then anything normal is gone forever. > > So if you're engaged in the other things that cause lots more head > injuries - things like riding in a car, or walking around the home - > does it somehow not suck if you get a serious or fatal head injury? Would you feel better if we wore helments when riding in a car? If I remember correctly, we have other protection, seat belts, air bags, hard metal all around us, all which is not available on a bicycle. > > - Frank Krygowski > This all would really be humorus if you guys weren't so obsessively serious. I supposed you would also try to play sports without proper protective equipment, drive without seatbelts, refuse to wear eye protection when using power equipment, etc.         Date: 24 Mar 2007 14:54:36 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On 24, 12:45 pm, "di" <di9...@cox.net> wrote: >> <jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message >> >>> Let's ask Bill a math question: >> >>> How many miles at typical cycling speeds per fatality - given that >>> there is approximately one fatality per 450 years of cycling 24 >>> hours a day, non-stop. >> >> It really sucks if you are that one, so I'll wear my helmet. > > Hmm. Not into math, I see. > > Still, di, you can certainly understand that non-bicycle head injuries > are 99% of the problem, right? > > Can you understand that per hour, the head injury risk of cycling is > quite normal and not at all excessive? > > So if you're engaged in the other things that cause lots more head > injuries - things like riding in a car, or walking around the home - > does it somehow not suck if you get a serious or fatal head injury? Gee, can anyone spot the flaw in /that/ "logic"?!? LOL HINT: Think TOTAL NUMBERS. How many more drivers and passengers are there than cyclists? How many more RESIDENTS are there than cyclists? Does a higher percentage of bike riders get injured than of drivers? Home-dwellers? Of course it does. That's why they make protective gear for various activities. Avail yourself of it, or don't. Who cares?           Date: 27 Mar 2007 06:03:21 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 26, 9:49 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: > jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > > Why do you say it is obviously laughable? > > Come on Jtaylor. Why don't you go > to the library and look at the original > source for this 'information.' It's in a > magazine called Design News, appended > to an article about car fires. The date of > the issue was October 4, 1993. The > article had nothing to do with bicycling. > Check it out and tell us if you can: > > -- determine if the numbers are for the > previous year (1992), or for some other > year, or for a year's worth of data, or > a decade's, or a month's, or forever... > > -- determine if it refers to all cyclists including > kids or just to adults. > > -- determine if it refers only to US cyclists > or US and Euro cyclists or just British cyclists > or the whole world's population of cyclists. > > -- determine what methodology was used > to estimate the total amount of cycling in hours > (regardless of what place or time period > the chart is concerned with), a necessary > step to arrive at the precious 'fatality rate.' > > -- ETC. > > I'll give you a hint jtaylor. That information is > not there for our edification and enjoyment. > I guess Exponent was keeping all that essential info > confidential! > > This chart is a total non-starter. It is completely > useless. The number itself might be right on the > k (for some [?] parameter), but to wave > this chart around, repeatedly, as 'data' would be > undeniably laughable, bogus and ridiculous. Who > would do such a thing?? > > Does the name "jtaylor" ring a bell? ;-)           Date: 26 Mar 2007 21:36:35 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 26, 11:49 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: > jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > > Why do you say it is obviously laughable? > > Come on Jtaylor. Why don't you go > to the library and look at the original > source for this 'information.' It's in a > magazine called Design News, appended > to an article about car fires. The date of > the issue was October 4, 1993. The > article had nothing to do with bicycling. > Check it out and tell us if you can: > > -- determine if the numbers are for the > previous year (1992), or for some other > year, or for a year's worth of data, or > a decade's, or a month's, or forever... > > -- determine if it refers to all cyclists including > kids or just to adults. > > -- determine if it refers only to US cyclists > or US and Euro cyclists or just British cyclists > or the whole world's population of cyclists. > > -- determine what methodology was used > to estimate the total amount of cycling in hours > (regardless of what place or time period > the chart is concerned with), a necessary > step to arrive at the precious 'fatality rate.' > > -- ETC. > > I'll give you a hint jtaylor. That information is > not there for our edification and enjoyment. > I guess Exponent was keeping all that essential info > confidential! > > This chart is a total non-starter. It is completely > useless. The number itself might be right on the > k (for some [?] parameter), but to wave > this chart around, repeatedly, as 'data' would be > undeniably laughable, bogus and ridiculous. Who > would do such a thing?? It's true, the chart was not presented as a definitive study of bike safety data. It was a straightforward attempt to put various terrible consequences in context, i.e. to rate relative risks. The article to which it was attached was not written by FAA staff. Apparently an editor asked (and probably paid) for the relative risk list, from the largest risk consultation firm in the US. But the list has gotten a lot of attention from the bicycling crowd, for two reasons: 1) Bicycling advocates have pointed out that it rates cycling's fatality rate (per hour) as tiny, roughly half that of motoring, and roughly 1/4 that of swimming. 2) Bicycling's detractors claim it must be worthless, since the data sources are not explained. But so far, the detractors (i.e. the "Bicycling is Dangerous!" crowd) haven't complained about the lack of explanation of swimming exposure. Or motorcycling. Or flying in light planes. Or scuba diving. Or water skiing. None of which have easily estimable hours of exposure, and all of which are listed as having higher fatality rates than cycling. (Motoring can be said to have more data behind it, but there's still significant uncertainty there - as well as great differences in different conditions, e.g. freeway vs. country highway.) The bicycling detractors have also not given better data as a rebuttal, AFAIK. What can be said is that the FAA cycling figure is roughly comparable to findings from several other countries, using their own methods. And if it's off by a factor of four, cycling is still safer than swimming, according to FAA's "swimming" data. Should we scare people away from the pool and beach? And even if it's off by a factor of ten, cycling still requires many millions of miles before you reach even a 50/50 chance of dying on the bike. How many millions of miles do you plan to cycle? For the math phobics with cheap calculators, here's a hint: you'd better be a strong believer in reincarnation. Here's the list: http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html - Frank Krygowski             Date: 27 Mar 2007 08:02:30 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 26 2007 21:36:35 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >> This chart is a total non-starter. It is completely >> useless. The number itself might be right on the >> k (for some [?] parameter), but to wave >> this chart around, repeatedly, as 'data' would be >> undeniably laughable, bogus and ridiculous. Who >> would do such a thing?? > >It's true, the chart was not presented as a definitive study of bike >safety data. It was a straightforward attempt to put various terrible >consequences in context, i.e. to rate relative risks. The article to >which it was attached was not written by FAA staff. Apparently an >editor asked (and probably paid) for the relative risk list, from the >largest risk consultation firm in the US. > >But the list has gotten a lot of attention from the bicycling crowd, >for two reasons: > >1) Bicycling advocates have pointed out that it rates cycling's >fatality rate (per hour) as tiny, roughly half that of motoring, and >roughly 1/4 that of swimming. > >2) Bicycling's detractors claim it must be worthless, since the data >sources are not explained. > >But so far, the detractors (i.e. the "Bicycling is Dangerous!" crowd) >haven't complained about the lack of explanation of swimming >exposure. Or motorcycling. Or flying in light planes. Or scuba >diving. Or water skiing. None of which have easily estimable hours >of exposure, and all of which are listed as having higher fatality >rates than cycling. (Motoring can be said to have more data behind >it, but there's still significant uncertainty there - as well as great >differences in different conditions, e.g. freeway vs. country >highway.) > >The bicycling detractors have also not given better data as a >rebuttal, AFAIK. > >What can be said is that the FAA cycling figure is roughly comparable >to findings from several other countries, using their own methods. >And if it's off by a factor of four, cycling is still safer than >swimming, according to FAA's "swimming" data. Should we scare people >away from the pool and beach? And even if it's off by a factor of >ten, cycling still requires many millions of miles before you reach >even a 50/50 chance of dying on the bike. > Just to put these numbers in terms that someone with _really_ poor math skills can understand, you'd have to cycle (at typical cycling speeds) around the world - all the way around the equator, pacific ocean and everything, about 800 times to have 1/2 a chance of dying. Factor of ten off? Goodness, that's only 80 times around the world; better get those magic foam hats on... ...if only one life is saved... ...think of the chiiilllddddrrruuuunnn...           Date: 26 Mar 2007 20:49:58 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > Why do you say it is obviously laughable? Come on Jtaylor. Why don't you go to the library and look at the original source for this 'information.' It's in a magazine called Design News, appended to an article about car fires. The date of the issue was October 4, 1993. The article had nothing to do with bicycling. Check it out and tell us if you can: -- determine if the numbers are for the previous year (1992), or for some other year, or for a year's worth of data, or a decade's, or a month's, or forever... -- determine if it refers to all cyclists including kids or just to adults. -- determine if it refers only to US cyclists or US and Euro cyclists or just British cyclists or the whole world's population of cyclists. -- determine what methodology was used to estimate the total amount of cycling in hours (regardless of what place or time period the chart is concerned with), a necessary step to arrive at the precious 'fatality rate.' -- ETC. I'll give you a hint jtaylor. That information is not there for our edification and enjoyment. I guess Exponent was keeping all that essential info confidential! This chart is a total non-starter. It is completely useless. The number itself might be right on the k (for some [?] parameter), but to wave this chart around, repeatedly, as 'data' would be undeniably laughable, bogus and ridiculous. Who would do such a thing?? Robert             Date: 27 Mar 2007 07:45:02 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 26 2007 20:49:58 -0700, r15757@aol.com wrote: >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >> Why do you say it is obviously laughable? > >Come on Jtaylor. Why don't you go >to the library and look at the original >source for this 'information.' It's in a >magazine called Design News, appended >to an article about car fires. The date of >the issue was October 4, 1993. The >article had nothing to do with bicycling. >Check it out and tell us if you can: > >-- determine if the numbers are for the >previous year (1992), or for some other >year, or for a year's worth of data, or >a decade's, or a month's, or forever... > >-- determine if it refers to all cyclists including >kids or just to adults. > >-- determine if it refers only to US cyclists >or US and Euro cyclists or just British cyclists >or the whole world's population of cyclists. > >-- determine what methodology was used >to estimate the total amount of cycling in hours >(regardless of what place or time period >the chart is concerned with), a necessary >step to arrive at the precious 'fatality rate.' > >-- ETC. > >I'll give you a hint jtaylor. That information is >not there for our edification and enjoyment. >I guess Exponent was keeping all that essential info >confidential! > >This chart is a total non-starter. It is completely >useless. The number itself might be right on the >k (for some [?] parameter), but to wave >this chart around, repeatedly, as 'data' would be >undeniably laughable, bogus and ridiculous. Who >would do such a thing?? > >Robert None of your objections support your estimation of "bogus", "laughable", and so on. If you know the figures are wrong, you must know what the real ones are... O chosen one, why don't you tell us what the real ones are?           Date: 24 Mar 2007 22:37:10 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Sat, 24 2007 14:54:36 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote: >frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >> On 24, 12:45 pm, "di" <di9...@cox.net> wrote: >>> <jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message >>> >>>> Let's ask Bill a math question: >>> >>>> How many miles at typical cycling speeds per fatality - given that >>>> there is approximately one fatality per 450 years of cycling 24 >>>> hours a day, non-stop. >>> >>> It really sucks if you are that one, so I'll wear my helmet. >> >> Hmm. Not into math, I see. >> >> Still, di, you can certainly understand that non-bicycle head injuries >> are 99% of the problem, right? >> >> Can you understand that per hour, the head injury risk of cycling is >> quite normal and not at all excessive? >> >> So if you're engaged in the other things that cause lots more head >> injuries - things like riding in a car, or walking around the home - >> does it somehow not suck if you get a serious or fatal head injury? > >Gee, can anyone spot the flaw in /that/ "logic"?!? LOL > >HINT: Think TOTAL NUMBERS. Oh oh. Bill Sornson doing numbers; this spells trouble, folks... >How many more drivers and passengers are there >than cyclists? How many more RESIDENTS are there than cyclists? > >Does a higher percentage of bike riders get injured than of drivers? >Home-dwellers? Of course it does. > Well, not, a higher percentage of cyclists does NOT get injured than drivers, or home dwellers. Odds of dying due to injury per year of activity (that's a bit under 9000 hours) are pedalcyclist - one in 381963 car occupant - one in 18412 falls involving bed,chair, or other furniture - one in 347076 (this last is only a _single_ one of the many categories of possible death causes for home-dwellers) source: http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm Now, of course, these are figures from just the USofA, and those are based only on the death rate among the population for one year (2003), so the numbers may be different in other countries or other years - but from the above numbers, cycling injuries are roughly twenty times less likely to result in death than those sustained in motorvehicle accidents. Of course, it could be argured that the above reflects just _death_ rates - but injury rates also show the same disparity: injury per 1 million population cycles 453, cars 987 injury per 1 million miles cycles 15, cars 99 source: http://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/helmets.html Now Bill, time to dust off that trusty calculator...but remember to count how many digits it has (using you fingers is allowed, as is counting out loud - nobody's watching).             Date: 24 Mar 2007 19:43:44 From: di Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message news:n38b03hs17oiouuqkcfs5lj84n3av3dcuf@4ax.com... > On Sat, 24 2007 14:54:36 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> > wrote: > > Of course, it could be argured that the above reflects just _death_ > rates - but injury rates also show the same disparity: > > injury per 1 million population > > cycles 453, cars 987 > What's the numbers, out of 1 million population, may be 990,000+ ride in cars, maybe 1,000 ride cycles.               Date: 24 Mar 2007 20:26:40 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling di wrote: > <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message > news:n38b03hs17oiouuqkcfs5lj84n3av3dcuf@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 24 2007 14:54:36 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> >> wrote: >> >> Of course, it could be argured that the above reflects just _death_ >> rates - but injury rates also show the same disparity: >> >> injury per 1 million population >> >> cycles 453, cars 987 >> > What's the numbers, out of 1 million population, may be 990,000+ ride in > cars, maybe 1,000 ride cycles. I have Flailor plonked, so it's amusing seeing these confusing misattributions (or whatever they are). I wrote nothing quoted above. Bill "he just keeps flailing away LOL " S.                 Date: 25 Mar 2007 20:56:18 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Sat, 24 2007 20:26:40 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote: >di wrote: >> <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com> wrote in message >> news:n38b03hs17oiouuqkcfs5lj84n3av3dcuf@4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 24 2007 14:54:36 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Of course, it could be argured that the above reflects just _death_ >>> rates - but injury rates also show the same disparity: >>> >>> injury per 1 million population >>> >>> cycles 453, cars 987 >>> >> What's the numbers, out of 1 million population, may be 990,000+ ride in >> cars, maybe 1,000 ride cycles. > >I have Flailor plonked, so it's amusing seeing these confusing >misattributions (or whatever they are). I wrote nothing quoted above. Learn to count quote characters - the post from "di" (to whom you should complain, if you wish to insist on being wrong) above has no more than three, so you should be able to work out that nothing in it was attributed to you.       Date: 22 Mar 2007 19:26:05 From: nash Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:9hnute.87o.ln@bud.garden.local... > In article <41n503t5br8apedashda0b055fh6uvg0tp@4ax.com>, > jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: >> On Thu, 22 2007 10:10:39 -0800, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) >> wrote: >> >>>I'm afraid I've gotten a little involved myself -- not >>>in the usual pro/anti tug-of-war, but in reacting to >>>insinuations that MHL'd denizens have done cycling a >>>disservice by not fighting the law enough (and winning.) >>>What are we supposed to do, beg for forgiveness? >> >> >>> >>>And I don't believe ridership in Vancouver or Victoria has >>>suffered much since BC's MHL was enacted. >> >> The problem is that helmets, and MHL's have come about because people >> trusted their "beliefs", rather than examine the actual data. >> >> You've been told that there are studies that show MHL's decrease >> cycling (in some cases by more than 50%) - and yet you continue to >> assert, without evidence, that this is not the case in BC. > > Yeah, what do I know? I just live here, and see what I see. > Meanwhile, you continue to believe it's all solely about helmets, > while neglecting to consider the ridership-enhancing effects of > cycling facilities and ever-developing local cycling cultures, > offsetting any negative effects caused by MHLs or any other thing > that might dissuade people from riding. > >> That is a (continued) disservice to cycling; you should stop it, and >> begin that begging you talked about. > > I hope you don't make a habit of saying: "you should." > > -- > Nothing is safe from me. > Above address is just a spam midden. > I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca MHL is the helmut law I gather. Does not stop people from riding w/o a helmut so why would it stop people from riding. When the buses were on strike and when we had gas wars I think people switched permaneantly, partially, and some not but that is what it takes. Walt has them for $12 Bell Adult. People that do not wear helmuts I find are just a pain the way they break all the rules. Quite a few law breakers in the Surrey area. Being Pitbull town you come to expect it and the police do not care about cyclists doing right or wrong.     Date: 15 Mar 2007 14:32:36 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 15 2007 06:59:18 -0700, r15757@aol.com wrote: >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >> The MHL is California is not an issue for you? > >Listen, stop trying to equate MHLs for adults with >MHLs for kids. Nobody's buying it. > An MHL is an MHL - there may be exceptions for some, but for the others (more than 10 million in California) it is still the law. And the politicians know that the best way to get a bad law passed is to make it apply first to those who cannot vote; when they are cowed, then it is easier to include the rest.       Date: 20 Mar 2007 02:43:39 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <dm9qv2p2dv8ioksee1lg8e6gu7ohddepug@4ax.com >, jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > On Sat, 17 2007 19:20:33 -0800, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) > wrote: > >>In article <1174162492.028226.137750@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, >> r15757@aol.com writes: >> > >> >>Vancouver has odius roads, under-developed & >>poorly implemented bicycle infrastructure, >>pig-ignorant drivers, and tons of transportational >>(and other) cycling. ~And~ a comprehensive, >>province-wide MHL. >> >>IIRC, Vancouver has the second-highest (after >>Victoria BC) per capita cycling modal share >>in Canada. Go figure. >> > > A single data point tells us nothing. > > Do you have a figures that show > > a) any change in cycling following the MHL? I have figures that show cycling /during/ the MHL. > b) any change in the rate of head injury following the MHL? I have refs to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia listing collision aftermath stats. You can get those via Google too, if you have the will. > If not, we will have to continue to rely on those figures from other > situations, which tell us that MHL's reduce cycling and do nothing to > (or possibly increase) head injury rates. No we won't. But I'm sure we'll be subjected to your continued propagandistic idealoguery BS anyway. Bloody hell!! There's a whole bunch of things that discourage cycling. And yet you won't address those things. Instead, you distract with a bunch of relentless helmet BS. Y'know what? You're the 5th Column! ~You~ are the enemy! And I'm sayin' that as someone who doesn't really believe in helmets either. -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca         Date: 20 Mar 2007 13:31:51 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Tue, 20 2007 02:43:39 -0800, tomkeats@bud.garden.local (Tom Keats) wrote: >In article <dm9qv2p2dv8ioksee1lg8e6gu7ohddepug@4ax.com>, > jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: >> On Sat, 17 2007 19:20:33 -0800, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) >> wrote: >> >>>In article <1174162492.028226.137750@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, >>> r15757@aol.com writes: >>> >> >>> >>>Vancouver has odius roads, under-developed & >>>poorly implemented bicycle infrastructure, >>>pig-ignorant drivers, and tons of transportational >>>(and other) cycling. ~And~ a comprehensive, >>>province-wide MHL. >>> >>>IIRC, Vancouver has the second-highest (after >>>Victoria BC) per capita cycling modal share >>>in Canada. Go figure. >>> >> >> A single data point tells us nothing. >> >> Do you have a figures that show >> >> a) any change in cycling following the MHL? > >I have figures that show cycling /during/ the MHL. > I'll take that's a "No", then? >> b) any change in the rate of head injury following the MHL? > >I have refs to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia >listing collision aftermath stats. > That would be a "No", as well? >You can get those via Google too, if you have the will. But they won't tell us what happens following increases in helmet use. > >> If not, we will have to continue to rely on those figures from other >> situations, which tell us that MHL's reduce cycling and do nothing to >> (or possibly increase) head injury rates. > >No we won't. But I'm sure we'll be subjected to your >continued propagandistic idealoguery BS anyway. > Um, in what way can posting a synopsis of the results of carefully designed and carried out studies on the (lack of) effectiveness of cycle helmets be considered "propaganda", "idealistic", or "BS"? Do you deny that those are the results found - cycling decreases and head injury rates do not? >Bloody hell!! There's a whole bunch of things that discourage >cycling. And yet you won't address those things. Like the BC ban on unicycles, fixed gear cycles, and ordinaries? Like the BC court decision that cyclists must use the graveled shoulder if it exists, rather than the bitumen? As a google expert, you migft be able to find some posts from yours truly addressing those...   Date: 15 Mar 2007 04:17:54 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <9e8iv2tbhpaj77pcdhv0h7jmt1c7hdunh6@4ax.com >, jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: >>The most bicycle friendly community that I have ever visited is Davis, >>Cal. The city vehicles have a bicycle as their emblem. Stoplights >>have pedestrian walk buttons out in the bike lanes (I guess they're >>not really walk buttons but you know what I mean). It's very flat >>there but the Sierras are not too far away. The weather is not as >>nice as my hometown of San Diego but probably better than Florida. I >>don't know about off road riding in that area. >> > > The MHL is California is not an issue for you? A Real Cyclist will ride, MHL or no. -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 15 Mar 2007 03:38:18 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <1173731314.084612.173190@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com >, r15757@aol.com writes: > On 12, 11:47 am, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote: >> r15...@aol.com wrote: > Are there any groups in Seattle working to get this law repealed? >> >> Not that I'm aware of. There's a certain amount of grumbling from >> various cyclists, but no organized effort. It does not help that >> Cascade, the largest bicycle club is pro-MHL. > > > Do most Seattle cyclists even realize that they have > been singled out as particularly dangerous and > unskilled, compared to others in the US? > Do they assume that such laws are > in place everywhere else? Don't they feel > ridiculous when they strap on a > helmet for a three-block cruise to the coffee > shop in the morning? Don't they resent it? > > Relative to other cities of similar size, there > seems to be very little casual low-income > cycling going on in Seattle. Seems like the > vast majority of transportational cyclists there > are decked out in a few thousand dollars worth > of shiny new equipment. Probably a combo > of weather, terrain, and the MHL. That is so hurtful, and downright mean. Why are fellow cyclists our own worst enemies? Jeez, Robert -- I /know/ you're usually above this sort of razmatazz. Better pull out that hair that's up your ass about MHLs. Then rinse your fingers off, wipe 'em off on your jeans, and shake hands with your fellow riders to let them know you're still on their side. Even those who are stuck in MHL jurisdictions. cheers, & what John Merrick said, Tom -- I /am/ an animal! Grrrr! I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 17 Mar 2007 16:37:33 From: greggery peccary Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling >> >> >> Do most Seattle cyclists even realize that they have >> been singled out as particularly dangerous and >> unskilled, compared to others in the US? by whom? >> Do they assume that such laws are >> in place everywhere else? Don't they feel >> ridiculous when they strap on a >> helmet for a three-block cruise to the coffee >> shop in the morning? Don't they resent it? 1. most dont wear them here anyway 2. i wear mine because it saved my life...twice. >> >> Relative to other cities of similar size, there >> seems to be very little casual low-income >> cycling going on in Seattle. Seems like the >> vast majority of transportational cyclists there >> are decked out in a few thousand dollars worth >> of shiny new equipment. Probably a combo >> of weather, terrain, and the MHL. i get so tired of this bullshit. i got my gore tex pants for $20 at the rei garage, half of what you hipsters pay for a fucking pair of jeans and i stay dry! as for 'shiny', ya i like to be seen. good luck if you're not. see you at harborview (i might even get to see neurosurg do a crani on you!)   Date: 13 Mar 2007 23:27:33 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <1173838444.286341.128640@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com >, "Veloise" <galena3066@mypacks.net > writes: > Pat wrote: > >> Did you just mean to say that you collect bottle while riding a bicycle? > > Someone's getting w-a-y too far into celebrating the hemicentennial of > the Cat in the Hat. I'd rather have those bottles picked up, than becoming broken glass sherds all over the street. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 13 Mar 2007 19:14:04 From: Veloise Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Pat wrote: > Did you just mean to say that you collect bottle while riding a bicycle? Someone's getting w-a-y too far into celebrating the hemicentennial of the Cat in the Hat. --Karen D.   Date: 13 Mar 2007 15:15:33 From: treynolds@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 9, 2:55 pm, Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net > wrote: > I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is > important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas > west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for > cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found > that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about > regular road riding? > > Ken The most bicycle friendly community that I have ever visited is Davis, Cal. The city vehicles have a bicycle as their emblem. Stoplights have pedestrian walk buttons out in the bike lanes (I guess they're not really walk buttons but you know what I mean). It's very flat there but the Sierras are not too far away. The weather is not as nice as my hometown of San Diego but probably better than Florida. I don't know about off road riding in that area. Tom     Date: 22 Mar 2007 10:10:39 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <7vnjv2hkm9j8ej1vptbasntini8aiiufnk@4ax.com >, Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com > writes: >>The ongoing helmet debate gives me an idea for a dice-&-board game. >>Nobody wins or loses, because the game never ends. It just keeps >>going around and around. People make excuses to make dinner or >>go to the bathroom or feed the cat, and silently slip away into >>the night, carefully closing the screen door behind them. >> >>The last person left gets to be King Shit of Turd Hill. >>Gets to wear the crown, 'n everything. >> > If it's anything like what goes on here, or anywhere there's "true > believers", it sounds more like a diced and bored game. I'm afraid I've gotten a little involved myself -- not in the usual pro/anti tug-of-war, but in reacting to insinuations that MHL'd denizens have done cycling a disservice by not fighting the law enough (and winning.) What are we supposed to do, beg for forgiveness? Oh, well. Looking back on the mid-90's with an edified, critical eye of today is easy. And I don't believe ridership in Vancouver or Victoria has suffered much since BC's MHL was enacted. There will always be those lyric cyclists who'll dredge up any excuse to not ride. "Don' wanna wear no stoopid helmet" is as good as any. If that excuse wasn't so conveniently available, it'll be something else. While MHLs may be onerous, but they are not the death knell of cycling. The sky isn't falling. Real riders are irrepressible. > People ask if I'm not afraid to wear the kettle pot and frankly, I am > just a little bit wary of wearing it. First I'd not want to dent it > or brake the Bakelite. Second, I'd rather have no helmet than that > thing on in the off chance of any rude encounters. OTOH, it does have > a positive effect by generating more smiles and pleasant encounters. > It's for those that I'll occasionally risk a possible ticket or > concussion The best way to get a no-helmet ticket seems to be riding helmetless on one of the busier cycle-commuting routes during commuting hours. Especially along the Chinatown/downtown portion of the Adanac route, and around the Burrard St bridge. > I'm looking at the Predator Trinity helmet as a replacement for my > everyday skate bucket that replaced my everyday kayak hat. I've seen the adverts for the Predator Trinity. It does have an appealing, spelunker look. > For fun > I'll wear the equestrian helmet from the thrift shop, or the kettle. > I do have a couple old Bell bicycle helmets for polo. > > Though I've been wearing a helmet ~98.72% of the time that I've spent > riding, since 1975, It's most rarely been a "bicycling helmet". While I won't trust a cycling bucket as safety equipment for as far as I can drop one, I must say they do make pretty good riding hats. The straps keep 'em from blowing off, and with a cover on, they're quite waterproof. I find my visor to be useful in the rain. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca       Date: 22 Mar 2007 18:44:17 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Thu, 22 2007 10:10:39 -0800, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >I'm afraid I've gotten a little involved myself -- not >in the usual pro/anti tug-of-war, but in reacting to >insinuations that MHL'd denizens have done cycling a >disservice by not fighting the law enough (and winning.) >What are we supposed to do, beg for forgiveness? > >And I don't believe ridership in Vancouver or Victoria has >suffered much since BC's MHL was enacted. The problem is that helmets, and MHL's have come about because people trusted their "beliefs", rather than examine the actual data. You've been told that there are studies that show MHL's decrease cycling (in some cases by more than 50%) - and yet you continue to assert, without evidence, that this is not the case in BC. That is a (continued) disservice to cycling; you should stop it, and begin that begging you talked about.         Date: 24 Mar 2007 08:46:28 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 24, 11:14 am, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net > wrote: > > There was a Surrey youth years ago that always wore his helmut while roller > blading. One day while just going up and down his driveway he decided not > to and he fell, bumped his head and died. It just takes one time. > He was an experienced rollerblader too. It just takes one time, all right. Now go look up the _other_ head injury fatalities in Surrey - or in Britain - or in the US - or in Australia, or New Zealand, or any other developed country. What's the major source of head injury fatalities? Nearly half of them happen inside cars. That's the number one source, despite seat belts and air bags and anti-lock brakes. Fully 99% of them (at least in the US) do _not_ happen on bikes (or on rollerblades, for that matter). Yes, it only takes one time. And 99% of those "one times" have nothing to do with bikes. But people continue to pretend that bikes are the major danger. How odd. - Frank Krygowski           Date: 24 Mar 2007 19:03:13 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 24 2007 08:46:28 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >On 24, 11:14 am, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> wrote: >> >> There was a Surrey youth years ago that always wore his helmut while roller >> blading. One day while just going up and down his driveway he decided not >> to and he fell, bumped his head and died. It just takes one time. >> He was an experienced rollerblader too. > >It just takes one time, all right. > >Now go look up the _other_ head injury fatalities in Surrey - or in >Britain - or in the US - or in Australia, or New Zealand, or any >other developed country. What's the major source of head injury >fatalities? > >Nearly half of them happen inside cars. That's the number one source, >despite seat belts and air bags and anti-lock brakes. Fully 99% of >them (at least in the US) do _not_ happen on bikes (or on >rollerblades, for that matter). > >Yes, it only takes one time. And 99% of those "one times" have >nothing to do with bikes. > >But people continue to pretend that bikes are the major danger. How >odd. > And worse, some who should know better (we have ozark) call for MHL's.             Date: 24 Mar 2007 20:09:30 From: nash Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message news:djta031p99fncnkjtmmf58mr28g8679vbs@4ax.com... > On 24 2007 08:46:28 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > >>On 24, 11:14 am, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> wrote: >>> >>> There was a Surrey youth years ago that always wore his helmut while >>> roller >>> blading. One day while just going up and down his driveway he decided >>> not >>> to and he fell, bumped his head and died. It just takes one time. >>> He was an experienced rollerblader too. >> >>It just takes one time, all right. >> >>Now go look up the _other_ head injury fatalities in Surrey - or in >>Britain - or in the US - or in Australia, or New Zealand, or any >>other developed country. What's the major source of head injury >>fatalities? >> >>Nearly half of them happen inside cars. That's the number one source, >>despite seat belts and air bags and anti-lock brakes. Fully 99% of >>them (at least in the US) do _not_ happen on bikes (or on >>rollerblades, for that matter). >> >>Yes, it only takes one time. And 99% of those "one times" have >>nothing to do with bikes. >> >>But people continue to pretend that bikes are the major danger. How >>odd. >> > > And worse, some who should know better (we have ozark) call for MHL's. This is so twisted I hardly know what we were discussing. The Surrey teen did not train without a helmut therefore he failed. If no one wore a helmut would you wear one just for your educated self or not wear one to be like everyone else who may or may not be cool and uneducated. If a Ball team practices against a certain offense from another ball team and at finals they use an offense they never used the practice would be forfeit and they would most likely lose to the offense because they were not prepared for other systems. Murphys law in both games, ball or helmuted/ unhelmuted teen.     Date: 15 Mar 2007 10:34:44 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 13 2007 15:15:33 -0700, "treynolds@my-deja.com" <thomas.treynolds@gmail.com > wrote: >On 9, 2:55 pm, Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >> I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is >> important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas >> west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for >> cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found >> that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about >> regular road riding? >> >> Ken > >The most bicycle friendly community that I have ever visited is Davis, >Cal. The city vehicles have a bicycle as their emblem. Stoplights >have pedestrian walk buttons out in the bike lanes (I guess they're >not really walk buttons but you know what I mean). It's very flat >there but the Sierras are not too far away. The weather is not as >nice as my hometown of San Diego but probably better than Florida. I >don't know about off road riding in that area. > The MHL is California is not an issue for you?       Date: 19 Mar 2007 19:58:48 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 17, 9:51 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On 17 2007 06:16:54 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" > > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > > >> "Ozark" is on record as being in favour of an MHL. > > >That is a lie. Another in a long line of lies, half-truths and > >distortions from the infamous "jtaylor". > > Are you denying that you called for an MHL in my jurisdiction? > > Remember, your posts have been archived by Google Groups... And......???? tick-tock ;-)       Date: 17 Mar 2007 08:57:38 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 17, 9:51 am, jtaylor, master of the half-truth, wrote: > On 17 2007 06:16:54 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" > > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > > >> "Ozark" is on record as being in favour of an MHL. > > >That is a lie. Another in a long line of lies, half-truths and > >distortions from the infamous "jtaylor". > > Are you denying that you called for an MHL in my jurisdiction? > > Remember, your posts have been archived by Google Groups... Please *do* provide a link to that post; the original, unedited, unsnipped text in it's original context. I think we could all use a laugh today, "j"! ;-)       Date: 17 Mar 2007 08:08:46 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 17, 8:04 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On Sat, 17 2007 01:00:25 -0800, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) > wrote: > > >Speaking of efforts, it seems to me it wouldn't hurt to > >turn away from the hat issue a little, and maybe think > >about how such things as bad chip-seal pavement and > >poor rumble strip implementations and a whole bunch of > >other things that more immediately and directly affect > >ridership, discourage cycling significantly. Now, /those/ > >are things to stop a rider in his/her tracks -- much more > >than the question of whether or not to wear a helmet before > >mounting up and setting foot to pedal. > > >Having to wear a helmet, or even having the choice of > >wearing a helmet, doesn't stop anybody nearly as much > >as unnecessarily, arbitrarily uglified roads that one > >can't even ride a bike /on/ because they have such > >horrible surfaces. > > Do you have stats to back this up? > > There are population studies that show drops in cycling exceeding 50% > when MHL's are passed; and because they affect everyone within their > jurisdiction, it is probable that they have a greater effect than some > road repairs outside a few people's houses. And note, the documented MHL-caused drops in cycling show that the helmet issue discourage those who already ride - that is, those who tolerate other less-than-optimum cycling conditions. Also, the observed drops have been step changes, obviously caused by the laws themselves. I think there's been another change, an ecological change caused by the decades of warnings that, MHL or no, you _need_ a helmet to ride. It's convinced many people that cycling is hazardous. We'd probably have a lot more cycling now if that hadn't been done. However, if Tom or anyone else wants to work on improving the cycling environment, that's fine too. Each person can pick his own project. (I'm locally working on the one Tom suggested, too.) Just don't disparage another's project because you think yours is more worthy. - Frank Krygowski       Date: 16 Mar 2007 14:56:23 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: yo, "jtaylor", where's that link? On 16, 6:46 am, "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: > On 16, 6:20 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 15 2007 17:47:17 -0800, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) > > wrote: > > > >In article <5rhjv29pv2365r0siv4b09kjqd04lh5...@4ax.com>, > > > jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > > > >> Sorry, all; I forgot... > > > >> "Ozark" is on record as being in favour of an MHL. > > > >So, what? We all have to stone him now? > > > Goodness no. > > > Just remember it when reading his posts that attack helmet skeptics; > > some of them border on rabid, and it helps to know why. > > Yo, "j": > > http://preview.tinyurl.com/22mec4 > > People are gonna start to think you are full 'o' shit if you don't > provide that link, jboy Yo, "j", are you having a problem providing that link?       Date: 16 Mar 2007 05:46:30 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: yo, "jtaylor", where's that link? On 16, 6:20 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On Thu, 15 2007 17:47:17 -0800, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) > wrote: > > >In article <5rhjv29pv2365r0siv4b09kjqd04lh5...@4ax.com>, > > jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > > >> Sorry, all; I forgot... > > >> "Ozark" is on record as being in favour of an MHL. > > >So, what? We all have to stone him now? > > Goodness no. > > Just remember it when reading his posts that attack helmet skeptics; > some of them border on rabid, and it helps to know why. Yo, "j": http://preview.tinyurl.com/22mec4 People are gonna start to think you are full 'o' shit if you don't provide that link, jboy.       Date: 15 Mar 2007 18:39:38 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 15, 4:44 pm, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On 15 2007 15:39:09 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" > > > > > > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > >On 15, 4:21 pm, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >> On Thu, 15 2007 20:55:39 GMT, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >> >On 15 2007 10:55:33 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" > >> ><bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > > >> >>On 15, 10:29 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >> >>> On 15 2007 08:50:06 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle" > > >> >>> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > >> >>> >On 15, 8:32 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >> >>> >> On 15 2007 06:59:18 -0700, r15...@aol.com wrote: > > >> >>> >> >jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > > >> >>> >> >> The MHL is California is not an issue for you? > > >> >>> >> >Listen, stop trying to equate MHLs for adults with > >> >>> >> >MHLs for kids. Nobody's buying it. > > >> >>> >> An MHL is an MHL - there may be exceptions for some, but for the > >> >>> >> others (more than 10 million in California) it is still the law. > > >> >>> >> And the politicians know that the best way to get a bad law passed is > >> >>> >> to make it apply first to those who cannot vote; when they are cowed, > >> >>> >> then it is easier to include the rest. > > >> >>> >Gee, it doesn't seem to work that way with motorcycle MHLs; despite > >> >>> >virtually all states having a "child/minor" motorcycle MHL (ages/ > >> >>> >details vary by state), *universal* motorcycle MHLs have been on a > >> >>> >steady *decrease*, from a high of 47 states in 1975 to 20 as of 2001: > > >> >>> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/ynjet > > >> >>> >(see the graph on the right, about a third of the way down) > > >> >>> >How do ya 'splain that, Chicken Little? ;-) > > >> >>> Motorcyclists are effective in their oposition to MHL's. > > >> >>BINGO!!! The first rational post from "jtaylor" in......forever. > > >> >What have YOU done to oppose MHL's - or are you instead in favour of > >> >them? > > >> Sorry, all; I forgot... > > >> "Ozark" is on record as being in favour of an MHL > > >Oh Goody!!! :-)) I've been hoping for this! > > >Please *do* provide a link to the post where I went "on record" as > >being "pro-MHL". Please! I want everyone to be able to appreciate the > >depths of your sad, humorless obsession. > > >Go for it, "j"!!!!!! > > >Go!!! > > Already done - have you forgotten what you posted already? Really? Where? Please, please!!! Post a link *in this thread* directly to the post I made where I went "on record" as being "pro-MHL". The *original post*, unedited, unsnipped and in it's original context. You can do that, can't you, you insane little ninny? >   Date: 13 Mar 2007 07:06:26 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Claire Petersky wrote: > ... I don't > give a flying fuck one way of the other. Yeah that obviously doesn't touch a nerve or anything like that. You are totally at peace with the universe.     Date: 14 Mar 2007 14:35:59 From: Claire Petersky Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling <r15757@aol.com > wrote in message news:1173794786.249576.59060@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > Claire Petersky wrote: > >> ... I don't >> give a flying fuck one way of the other. > You are > totally at peace with the universe. You know, the other day, we had a fairly gentle rain for several days. And quite a few earthworms were flooded out of their holes. As I rode to work, I saw hundreds, if not thousands, of earthworms fruitlessly slithering on the pavement. I felt really sorry for them. Yes, I could have stopped my bike and flung them back on the lawns, but that would have taken all morning, and I was out there to get to work, not engage in earthworm rescue. Besides, robins have to eat, too. Yesterday, when it was dry, I saw a single earthworm on the pavement. This worm might have even been a survivor of getting flooded out the day before. But it was really dry, and even a bit windy, and the poor thing was drying out as it was writhing towards a damp earth that was really no where within its reach. I felt really sorry for this worm, too -- in some ways, worse about this single worm, than I did for all the others I had seen the day before. I thought about if I had flung it onto a wet lawn, if it would have even survived, as it was half-desicated already -- would that have only increased its suffering before death? But I didn't stop -- I just rolled on. -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky       Date: 15 Mar 2007 14:43:15 From: DougC Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Claire Petersky wrote: > > You know, the other day, we had a fairly gentle rain for several days. And > quite a few earthworms were flooded out of their holes. As I rode to work, I > saw hundreds, if not thousands, of earthworms fruitlessly slithering on the > pavement. I felt really sorry for them. Yes, I could have stopped my bike > and flung them back on the lawns, but that would have taken all morning, and > I was out there to get to work, not engage in earthworm rescue. Besides, > robins have to eat, too. > > Yesterday, when it was dry, I saw a single earthworm on the pavement. This > worm might have even been a survivor of getting flooded out the day before. > But it was really dry, and even a bit windy, and the poor thing was drying > out as it was writhing towards a damp earth that was really no where within > its reach. I felt really sorry for this worm, too -- in some ways, worse > about this single worm, than I did for all the others I had seen the day > before. I thought about if I had flung it onto a wet lawn, if it would have > even survived, as it was half-desicated already -- would that have only > increased its suffering before death? But I didn't stop -- I just rolled on. > They wouldn't have wanted you to fling them back on the lawns. Fun fact: when earthworms come out when it rains, it's to /fuck/, not because they are in any immediate danger of drowning. ~         Date: 16 Mar 2007 11:23:49 From: Claire Petersky Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling "DougC" <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote in message news:blhKh.399$B61.63@newsfe06.lga... > Fun fact: when earthworms come out when it rains, it's to /fuck/, not > because they are in any immediate danger of drowning. Earthworms, from what I understand, are male and female at the same time. Still, out there on the pavement, they get run over by bikes and cars, and many of them are unable to return to their home environment. -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky           Date: 19 Mar 2007 14:54:19 From: DougC Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Claire Petersky wrote: > > > Earthworms, from what I understand, are male and female at the same time. > Yes they are--but they still prefer another to tango with (I dunno remember if they can do the job themselves...?) ~             Date: 19 Mar 2007 14:57:47 From: di Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling "DougC" <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote in message news:LTBLh.58$f47.42@newsfe03.lga... > Claire Petersky wrote: >> >> >> Earthworms, from what I understand, are male and female at the same time. >> > > Yes they are--but they still prefer another to tango with (I dunno > remember if they can do the job themselves...?) > ~ I bet it's tough on the male parts, crawling around without legs. This group gets more educational everyday.     Date: 13 Mar 2007 09:32:57 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling r15757@aol.com wrote: > Claire Petersky wrote: > >> ... I don't >> give a flying fuck one way of the other. > > Yeah that obviously doesn't touch > a nerve or anything like that. You are > totally at peace with the universe. Fuckin' OMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm       Date: 14 Mar 2007 07:27:47 From: Roger Zoul Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Bill Sornson wrote: :: r15757@aol.com wrote: ::: Claire Petersky wrote: ::: :::: ... I don't :::: give a flying fuck one way of the other. ::: ::: Yeah that obviously doesn't touch ::: a nerve or anything like that. You are ::: totally at peace with the universe. :: :: Fuckin' OMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm :)   Date: 12 Mar 2007 21:39:45 From: peter Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Just A User wrote: > Well the site I got my info from doesn't have it listed as the metro > area and population as about 226,000. But now I am sure that is within > the Scottsdale city limits. So this may be taken off my list. I would > much prefer to be in a slightly smaller area. Yes, the population of Scottsdale itself isn't very meaningful since it's all part of the metro Phoenix area. Tucson and the towns nearby strike me as much more desirable from a cycling standpoint. That city is a bit higher in altitude and as a result isn't quite as hot as Phoenix and doesn't have nearly as large a metro area so it's easier to find places to ride away from the crowds. There are significant hills in all directions (Catalinas, Rincons, Santa Ritas, and Tucson Mtns.) to add some topographic diversity and also plenty of options for flatter rides.   Date: 12 Mar 2007 18:17:47 From: peter Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Just A User wrote: > jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > > On Mon, 12 2007 15:30:12 -0400, Matt O'Toole > > WA passed a law in 1990; NSW in 1991. By 1996 all parts of Australia > > had MHL's; a 1998 paper published in both _Injury Prevention_ and _The > > Australian Doctor_ begins with this bald statement: > > > > "This article shows that bicycle helmet laws have done more harm than > > good." > Well that statement sounds silly. I can't understand how a helmet law > would do more harm than good, unless SO many people gave up cycling > rather than wear a head protection device. Which I really can't see > happening, but I will admit that it's not impossible. Not hard to have that happen at all. A study published by the British Medical Association indicated that the health benefits of cycling outweighed the risks due to accidents by a ratio of 20 to 1. I.e. for every person-year lost in a population of cyclists due to an accident, there was a gain of 20 person-years from the health benefits associated with their cycling. So even if helmets were 100% effective in eliminating fatalities and as few as 5% of the people who would otherwise cycle gave it up in response to a helmet law the two effects would cancel each other out and there would be no net gain. In practice it has been observed that helmets are way less than 100% effective (there's serious question whether they reduce fatalities at all) and ridership studies have shown decreases in cycling of around 20 - 30% in response to mandatory helmet laws. So it would be expected that passage of a helmet law will result in the loss of far more person-years of life than are gained.     Date: 12 Mar 2007 22:16:05 From: Roger Zoul Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling peter wrote: :: Just A User wrote: ::: jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: :::: On Mon, 12 2007 15:30:12 -0400, Matt O'Toole :::: WA passed a law in 1990; NSW in 1991. By 1996 all parts of :::: Australia had MHL's; a 1998 paper published in both _Injury :::: Prevention_ and _The Australian Doctor_ begins with this bald :::: statement: :::: :::: "This article shows that bicycle helmet laws have done more harm :::: than good." ::: Well that statement sounds silly. I can't understand how a helmet ::: law would do more harm than good, unless SO many people gave up ::: cycling rather than wear a head protection device. Which I really ::: can't see happening, but I will admit that it's not impossible. :: :: Not hard to have that happen at all. A study published by the :: British Medical Association indicated that the health benefits of :: cycling outweighed the risks due to accidents by a ratio of 20 to 1. :: I.e. for every person-year lost in a population of cyclists due to :: an accident, there was a gain of 20 person-years from the health :: benefits associated with their cycling. So even if helmets were :: 100% effective in eliminating fatalities and as few as 5% of the :: people who would otherwise cycle gave it up in response to a helmet :: law the two effects would cancel each other out and there would be :: no net gain. :: :: In practice it has been observed that helmets are way less than 100% :: effective (there's serious question whether they reduce fatalities at :: all) and ridership studies have shown decreases in cycling of around :: 20 - 30% in response to mandatory helmet laws. So it would be :: expected that passage of a helmet law will result in the loss of far :: more person-years of life than are gained. I find the notion of 20-30% decrease in cycling to be very hard to believe. I don't see how such could be the case among though who enjoy cycling.       Date: 13 Mar 2007 10:36:31 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Mon, 12 2007 22:16:05 -0400, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote: >peter wrote: >:: Just A User wrote: >::: jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >:::: On Mon, 12 2007 15:30:12 -0400, Matt O'Toole >:::: WA passed a law in 1990; NSW in 1991. By 1996 all parts of >:::: Australia had MHL's; a 1998 paper published in both _Injury >:::: Prevention_ and _The Australian Doctor_ begins with this bald >:::: statement: >:::: >:::: "This article shows that bicycle helmet laws have done more harm >:::: than good." >::: Well that statement sounds silly. I can't understand how a helmet >::: law would do more harm than good, unless SO many people gave up >::: cycling rather than wear a head protection device. Which I really >::: can't see happening, but I will admit that it's not impossible. >:: >:: Not hard to have that happen at all. A study published by the >:: British Medical Association indicated that the health benefits of >:: cycling outweighed the risks due to accidents by a ratio of 20 to 1. >:: I.e. for every person-year lost in a population of cyclists due to >:: an accident, there was a gain of 20 person-years from the health >:: benefits associated with their cycling. So even if helmets were >:: 100% effective in eliminating fatalities and as few as 5% of the >:: people who would otherwise cycle gave it up in response to a helmet >:: law the two effects would cancel each other out and there would be >:: no net gain. >:: >:: In practice it has been observed that helmets are way less than 100% >:: effective (there's serious question whether they reduce fatalities at >:: all) and ridership studies have shown decreases in cycling of around >:: 20 - 30% in response to mandatory helmet laws. So it would be >:: expected that passage of a helmet law will result in the loss of far >:: more person-years of life than are gained. > >I find the notion of 20-30% decrease in cycling to be very hard to believe. >I don't see how such could be the case among though who enjoy cycling. > People who find things hard to believe are often easily convinced by the flimsiest of evidence (e.g. TRT and the ravings of pro MHL posters). www.cyclehelmets.org         Date: 14 Mar 2007 07:33:45 From: Roger Zoul Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: :: On Mon, 12 2007 22:16:05 -0400, "Roger Zoul" :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote: :: ::: peter wrote: ::::: Just A User wrote: :::::: jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: ::::::: On Mon, 12 2007 15:30:12 -0400, Matt O'Toole ::::::: WA passed a law in 1990; NSW in 1991. By 1996 all parts of ::::::: Australia had MHL's; a 1998 paper published in both _Injury ::::::: Prevention_ and _The Australian Doctor_ begins with this bald ::::::: statement: ::::::: ::::::: "This article shows that bicycle helmet laws have done more harm ::::::: than good." :::::: Well that statement sounds silly. I can't understand how a helmet :::::: law would do more harm than good, unless SO many people gave up :::::: cycling rather than wear a head protection device. Which I really :::::: can't see happening, but I will admit that it's not impossible. ::::: ::::: Not hard to have that happen at all. A study published by the ::::: British Medical Association indicated that the health benefits of ::::: cycling outweighed the risks due to accidents by a ratio of 20 to ::::: 1. I.e. for every person-year lost in a population of cyclists ::::: due to an accident, there was a gain of 20 person-years from the ::::: health benefits associated with their cycling. So even if ::::: helmets were 100% effective in eliminating fatalities and as few ::::: as 5% of the people who would otherwise cycle gave it up in ::::: response to a helmet law the two effects would cancel each other ::::: out and there would be no net gain. ::::: ::::: In practice it has been observed that helmets are way less than ::::: 100% effective (there's serious question whether they reduce ::::: fatalities at all) and ridership studies have shown decreases in ::::: cycling of around 20 - 30% in response to mandatory helmet laws. ::::: So it would be expected that passage of a helmet law will result ::::: in the loss of far more person-years of life than are gained. ::: ::: I find the notion of 20-30% decrease in cycling to be very hard to ::: believe. I don't see how such could be the case among though who ::: enjoy cycling. ::: :: :: People who find things hard to believe are often easily convinced by :: the flimsiest of evidence (e.g. TRT and the ravings of pro MHL :: posters). :: :: www.cyclehelmets.org Nonsense.           Date: 14 Mar 2007 09:36:16 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Roger Zoul wrote: > jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >>> On Mon, 12 2007 22:16:05 -0400, "Roger Zoul" >>> <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> I find the notion of 20-30% decrease in cycling to be very hard to >>>> believe. I don't see how such could be the case among though who >>>> enjoy cycling. >>> People who find things hard to believe are often easily convinced by >>> the flimsiest of evidence (e.g. TRT and the ravings of pro MHL >>> posters). > Nonsense. Who are these "pro MHL posters"? Name one or two. I have Flailor plonked for just this kind of disingenuous crapola (AKA a standard tactic).       Date: 13 Mar 2007 02:47:37 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <12vc2bb44r3um95@news.supernews.com >, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote: > peter wrote: > :: Just A User wrote: > ::: jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > :::: On Mon, 12 2007 15:30:12 -0400, Matt O'Toole > :::: WA passed a law in 1990; NSW in 1991. By 1996 all parts of > :::: Australia had MHL's; a 1998 paper published in both _Injury > :::: Prevention_ and _The Australian Doctor_ begins with this bald > :::: statement: > :::: > :::: "This article shows that bicycle helmet laws have done more harm > :::: than good." > ::: Well that statement sounds silly. I can't understand how a helmet > ::: law would do more harm than good, unless SO many people gave up > ::: cycling rather than wear a head protection device. Which I really > ::: can't see happening, but I will admit that it's not impossible. > :: > :: Not hard to have that happen at all. A study published by the > :: British Medical Association indicated that the health benefits of > :: cycling outweighed the risks due to accidents by a ratio of 20 to 1. > :: I.e. for every person-year lost in a population of cyclists due to > :: an accident, there was a gain of 20 person-years from the health > :: benefits associated with their cycling. So even if helmets were > :: 100% effective in eliminating fatalities and as few as 5% of the > :: people who would otherwise cycle gave it up in response to a helmet > :: law the two effects would cancel each other out and there would be > :: no net gain. > :: > :: In practice it has been observed that helmets are way less than 100% > :: effective (there's serious question whether they reduce fatalities at > :: all) and ridership studies have shown decreases in cycling of around > :: 20 - 30% in response to mandatory helmet laws. So it would be > :: expected that passage of a helmet law will result in the loss of far > :: more person-years of life than are gained. > > I find the notion of 20-30% decrease in cycling to be very hard to believe. > I don't see how such could be the case among though who enjoy cycling. I'm virtually certain it's not so much the "core" riders as the ginal riders that disappear. Helmets increase the "friction" of cycling. Instead of being a case where you can grab a bike and roll down the street, now you have to have a helmet. Which means that you have to buy a helmet. Since you only rolled around the park or the neighborhood every few days anyways, getting a helmet is a hassle and an expense. And also, you mess your hair. This doesn't matter much to you or I, but you accept that helmet hair is part of riding, and I am on the precipice of my last haircut ever (I had a good 30 years. That's more than a lot of guys get). Everybody else considers a sweaty, mussed head an impediment to using a bike for most rides. Sure, your friend lives only ten minutes away by bike, but you'll wreck your hair. It certainly seems strange that such minor issues would have major effects, but they do. The stats are pretty compelling, and similar effects (which might be lumped in with the famous "broken windows" experiment) have been observed in many sorts of real-life circumstances. Economics blogs are good way to learn about these, since economists love this sort of non-rational (or at least unintentionally consequential) economic activity. -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos         Date: 13 Mar 2007 15:08:45 From: Cathy Kearns Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling "Ryan Cousineau" <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote in message news:rcousine-5D6145.19473712032007@news.telus.net... > In article <12vc2bb44r3um95@news.supernews.com>, > "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: >> I find the notion of 20-30% decrease in cycling to be very hard to >> believe. >> I don't see how such could be the case among though who enjoy cycling. > > I'm virtually certain it's not so much the "core" riders as the ginal > riders that disappear. Helmets increase the "friction" of cycling. > Instead of being a case where you can grab a bike and roll down the > street, now you have to have a helmet. Which means that you have to buy > a helmet. Since you only rolled around the park or the neighborhood > every few days anyways, getting a helmet is a hassle and an expense. > > And also, you mess your hair. This doesn't matter much to you or I, but > you accept that helmet hair is part of riding, and I am on the precipice > of my last haircut ever (I had a good 30 years. That's more than a lot > of guys get). Everybody else considers a sweaty, mussed head an > impediment to using a bike for most rides. Sure, your friend lives only > ten minutes away by bike, but you'll wreck your hair. > > It certainly seems strange that such minor issues would have major > effects, but they do. The stats are pretty compelling, and similar > effects (which might be lumped in with the famous "broken windows" > experiment) have been observed in many sorts of real-life circumstances. > Economics blogs are good way to learn about these, since economists love > this sort of non-rational (or at least unintentionally consequential) > economic activity. I have seen trend amongst the local teenage girls. As elementary school kids they rode bikes everywhere. They started dropping biking once they got to junior high. My eldest is a good example She wouldn't bike, and despite the distance of just over a mile, she preferred to walk. Biking messed her hair up for the whole day, and it just wasn't worth it to her. As she out grew her bike she didn't ask for a new one. Now, when looking at colleges she did say if she got into a college where biking was the way to get around (UCSB for example) she would consider taking up biking again, as now she's old enough to ride without a helmet. Yep, that was her one reason for dropping biking, helmets. Stupid as it sounds to guys that wander around all day with the ridges in their hair and one pant leg rolled up, it really is a reason people don't bike. If I am dressed in lycra, and planning on getting all sweaty anyway, I wear the helmet. When I'm on the back of the tandem it had kept me from getting my hair torn by branches my captain managed to duck in front of. It doesn't hurt. If that is the only type of cycling you do, a MHL will make no difference. When I'm wearing my skirt and heels and heading off to a teacher's conference on my town bike I don't wear a helmet. At that point my choices are take the bike without the helmet or drive the car. The bike gives me some exercise. The car adds to global warming. The risk of riding without a helmet versus the risk of a sedentary life style. For me it's worth the risk. I wouldn't move to an area where I couldn't (or wouldn't) run errands on my bike. I love the "groceries in my panniers" lifestyle. So for me MHL do make a difference.           Date: 13 Mar 2007 15:11:33 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Tue, 13 2007 15:08:45 GMT, "Cathy Kearns" <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com > wrote: >I have seen trend amongst the local teenage girls. As elementary school >kids they rode bikes everywhere. They started dropping biking once they got >to junior high. My eldest is a good example She wouldn't bike, and despite >the distance of just over a mile, she preferred to walk. Biking messed her >hair up for the whole day, and it just wasn't worth it to her. As she out >grew her bike she didn't ask for a new one. Now, when looking at colleges >she did say if she got into a college where biking was the way to get around >(UCSB for example) she would consider taking up biking again, as now she's >old enough to ride without a helmet. Yep, that was her one reason for >dropping biking, helmets. Stupid as it sounds to guys that wander around >all day with the ridges in their hair and one pant leg rolled up, it really >is a reason people don't bike. > >If I am dressed in lycra, and planning on getting all sweaty anyway, I wear >the helmet. When I'm on the back of the tandem it had kept me from getting >my hair torn by branches my captain managed to duck in front of. It doesn't >hurt. If that is the only type of cycling you do, a MHL will make no >difference. When I'm wearing my skirt and heels and heading off to a >teacher's conference on my town bike I don't wear a helmet. At that point >my choices are take the bike without the helmet or drive the car. The bike >gives me some exercise. The car adds to global warming. The risk of riding >without a helmet versus the risk of a sedentary life style. For me it's >worth the risk. I wouldn't move to an area where I couldn't (or wouldn't) >run errands on my bike. I love the "groceries in my panniers" lifestyle. So >for me MHL do make a difference. > Would you move away if an MHL were passed?             Date: 13 Mar 2007 22:56:03 From: Cathy Kearns Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message news:8tfdv2pouuome0huamgm9tludk67gnsfpm@4ax.com... > On Tue, 13 2007 15:08:45 GMT, "Cathy Kearns" > <cathy_kearns@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>I have seen trend amongst the local teenage girls. As elementary school >>kids they rode bikes everywhere. They started dropping biking once they >>got >>to junior high. My eldest is a good example She wouldn't bike, and >>despite >>the distance of just over a mile, she preferred to walk. Biking messed >>her >>hair up for the whole day, and it just wasn't worth it to her. As she out >>grew her bike she didn't ask for a new one. Now, when looking at colleges >>she did say if she got into a college where biking was the way to get >>around >>(UCSB for example) she would consider taking up biking again, as now she's >>old enough to ride without a helmet. Yep, that was her one reason for >>dropping biking, helmets. Stupid as it sounds to guys that wander around >>all day with the ridges in their hair and one pant leg rolled up, it >>really >>is a reason people don't bike. >> >>If I am dressed in lycra, and planning on getting all sweaty anyway, I >>wear >>the helmet. When I'm on the back of the tandem it had kept me from >>getting >>my hair torn by branches my captain managed to duck in front of. It >>doesn't >>hurt. If that is the only type of cycling you do, a MHL will make no >>difference. When I'm wearing my skirt and heels and heading off to a >>teacher's conference on my town bike I don't wear a helmet. At that point >>my choices are take the bike without the helmet or drive the car. The >>bike >>gives me some exercise. The car adds to global warming. The risk of >>riding >>without a helmet versus the risk of a sedentary life style. For me it's >>worth the risk. I wouldn't move to an area where I couldn't (or wouldn't) >>run errands on my bike. I love the "groceries in my panniers" lifestyle. >>So >>for me MHL do make a difference. >> > > Would you move away if an MHL were passed? Given the choice of retiring here, but stuck in a car, or retiring elsewhere, I'd retire elsewhere. But I find it unlikely that a MHL would be passed here, especially in this time of concerns about global warming. Helmets are seldom argued vigorously when everyone is thinking bicyclists are small children or those racer guys on bikes. But there you aren't talking about saving car trips. When you start talking about people running errands, riding to work, taking a car off the road, the conversation is different. One of the bigger differences is the cycling concerns jump from how do we keep these throngs of daring exercisers safe on our existing roadways, to how do we make people feel safe enough to ride 3 miles to the grocery/mall/theatre/restaurant/school. As much as those using cycling as exercise love the feel of the open road, and hate MUPs, those MUPs are the mainstay for folks just trying to live their lives without cars. When it's faster to get to the library on bike cut-thrus than it is to drive around on the roads, more people will take the bike/pedestrian cut-thrus. I can ride, mostly on MUPs, from my house to Stanford about 6 miles away. By bike it is over a mile shorter than by car. When I'm going to see a sporting event where parking on campus is expensive and inconvienent, I ride my bike. When trying to reach the Stanford Shopping Center (a large mall) on the busiest shopping day of the year, I ride my bike. The fastest way to my girls' high school or elementary school is on bike, for the junior high it is about a wash. (And if it's a nice night, I ride my bike anyway...) It's fun watching the responses to the question what are the best places for cycling. Some are answering as if the question was "where can I get the best cycling workout" which is asking for good climbs. Some are answering as if the question was "where can I ride the fastest", which picks out areas where there are lots of flat roads. Some are answering "If I like to cycle everywhere, where is the best place to live." Which then brings up bike friendly communities where all sorts of businesses are bicycle accessible. It is only that last question where MHLs come into play.   Date: 12 Mar 2007 15:12:38 From: Chalo Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling jtaylor wrote: > > Dane Buson wrote: > > > >Correction: Those laws are enforced, simply capriciously. You know, if > >you're doing something the police don't like but can't cite you for. Or > >they don't like the look of you in general. > > Perhaps an even better reason to campaign for their repeal. Here in Austin, over 90% of the citations for cycling without a helmet have gone to black and Hispanic kids. Draw your own conclusions. Chalo   Date: 12 Mar 2007 14:48:08 From: Chalo Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Pat wrote: > > Having ridden in North Texas for awhile, I think it has possibilities for > you. There are lots of rides--and sponsored paid rides, too--in the area. > There are large bicycling clubs in Fort Worth and Dallas. Ah, but there's a catch. You have to live in North Texas. I'm glad a lot of people seem to enjoy that. It keeps them from moving to Austin, for the most part. And quality of life isn't everything! I understand that cable TV is very good in the Metroplex-- and that there are lots of opportunities to see men moving a ball to and fro (if you are into men and their balls). Chalo   Date: 12 Mar 2007 13:28:34 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 12, 11:47 am, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu > wrote: > r15...@aol.com wrote: Are there any groups in Seattle working to get this law repealed? > > Not that I'm aware of. There's a certain amount of grumbling from > various cyclists, but no organized effort. It does not help that > Cascade, the largest bicycle club is pro-MHL. Do most Seattle cyclists even realize that they have been singled out as particularly dangerous and unskilled, compared to others in the US? Do they assume that such laws are in place everywhere else? Don't they feel ridiculous when they strap on a helmet for a three-block cruise to the coffee shop in the morning? Don't they resent it? Relative to other cities of similar size, there seems to be very little casual low-income cycling going on in Seattle. Seems like the vast majority of transportational cyclists there are decked out in a few thousand dollars worth of shiny new equipment. Probably a combo of weather, terrain, and the MHL. Robert     Date: 13 Mar 2007 02:12:41 From: Claire Petersky Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling <r15757@aol.com > wrote in message news:1173731314.084612.173190@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com... > Do most Seattle cyclists even realize that they have [enormous snip] I can't speak for all Seattle cyclists, but I can speak for myself. I don't give a flying fuck one way of the other. I can think of 30 trillion other things, really, that worry me a lot more than a MHL. Obviously, it's a bfd for you, which is why you feel obligated to tediously post about it. -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky       Date: 12 Mar 2007 23:00:06 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Claire Petersky wrote: > <r15757@aol.com> wrote in message > news:1173731314.084612.173190@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com... > >> Do most Seattle cyclists even realize that they have > > [enormous snip] > > I can't speak for all Seattle cyclists, but I can speak for myself. I > don't give a flying fuck one way of the other. I can think of 30 > trillion other things, really, that worry me a lot more than a MHL. > Obviously, it's a bfd for you, which is why you feel obligated to > tediously post about it. Claire breaks it DOWN! LOL Bill "yessssssssss" S.   Date: 12 Mar 2007 11:00:02 From: gds Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 12, 10:47 am, Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net > wrote: > gds wrote: > > On 12, 8:57 am, Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: > >> gds wrote: > >>> On 9, 2:55 pm, Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: > >>>> I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is > >>>> important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas > >>>> west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for > >>>> cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found > >>>> that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about > >>>> regular road riding? > >>>> Ken > >>> Well it may not work for you but if you see where a huge number of > >>> pros and top amateurs come to ride (and often stay) Tucson is high on > >>> the list. Great roads, many classic climbs, and good weather all year. > >>> Yep a bit toasty in the summer but you'll see the roads full of > >>> cyclists at 6 a.m. a folks are all done by 10. It is seldom much above > >>> 80 at that time. > >> Well the one AZ city that's currently on my list is Scottsdale. But I am > >> open minded. I have long wanted to live in the desert, why I am not > >> completely sure. I visited Phoenix a few years back, in January, and > >> thought the weather was great. As far as riding goes, I ride here in > >> Florida in the summer in the early morning hours as well, usually done > >> by 10 or 11. So that is similar. > > >> Ken- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > The Phoenix area is huge. Scottsdale is nice but if you looked at the > > roads from a cycling perspective I think you'd find them quite crowded > > as the population density is high and getting higher. > > Also, Phoenix is a great area for employment as it is a major metro > > area. But traffic is terrible and summer temps are very much higher > > with higher humididty than further south. > > Well yeah Phoenix is huge. Much larger than where I live now, south > Florida town of 17,000 but I have lived in larger cities before, Tampa > FL, Little Rock AR, Roanoke VA, Springfield MA, Providence RI so big > cities don't exactly scare me. But I am looking at cities with over > 100,000 but less than 500,000 > > Ken- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - So, how how would you consider Scottsdale. Scottsdale is part of Metro Phoenix and you are looking at ~4 million population.     Date: 12 Mar 2007 14:30:55 From: Just A User Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling gds wrote: > On 12, 10:47 am, Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >> gds wrote: >>> On 12, 8:57 am, Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >>>> gds wrote: >>>>> On 9, 2:55 pm, Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >>>>>> I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is >>>>>> important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas >>>>>> west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for >>>>>> cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found >>>>>> that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about >>>>>> regular road riding? >>>>>> Ken >>>>> Well it may not work for you but if you see where a huge number of >>>>> pros and top amateurs come to ride (and often stay) Tucson is high on >>>>> the list. Great roads, many classic climbs, and good weather all year. >>>>> Yep a bit toasty in the summer but you'll see the roads full of >>>>> cyclists at 6 a.m. a folks are all done by 10. It is seldom much above >>>>> 80 at that time. >>>> Well the one AZ city that's currently on my list is Scottsdale. But I am >>>> open minded. I have long wanted to live in the desert, why I am not >>>> completely sure. I visited Phoenix a few years back, in January, and >>>> thought the weather was great. As far as riding goes, I ride here in >>>> Florida in the summer in the early morning hours as well, usually done >>>> by 10 or 11. So that is similar. >>>> Ken- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> The Phoenix area is huge. Scottsdale is nice but if you looked at the >>> roads from a cycling perspective I think you'd find them quite crowded >>> as the population density is high and getting higher. >>> Also, Phoenix is a great area for employment as it is a major metro >>> area. But traffic is terrible and summer temps are very much higher >>> with higher humididty than further south. >> Well yeah Phoenix is huge. Much larger than where I live now, south >> Florida town of 17,000 but I have lived in larger cities before, Tampa >> FL, Little Rock AR, Roanoke VA, Springfield MA, Providence RI so big >> cities don't exactly scare me. But I am looking at cities with over >> 100,000 but less than 500,000 >> >> Ken- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > So, how how would you consider Scottsdale. Scottsdale is part of Metro > Phoenix and you are looking at ~4 million population. > Well the site I got my info from doesn't have it listed as the metro area and population as about 226,000. But now I am sure that is within the Scottsdale city limits. So this may be taken off my list. I would much prefer to be in a slightly smaller area. Ken   Date: 12 Mar 2007 10:04:31 From: gds Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 12, 8:57 am, Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net > wrote: > gds wrote: > > On 9, 2:55 pm, Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: > >> I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is > >> important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas > >> west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for > >> cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found > >> that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about > >> regular road riding? > > >> Ken > > > Well it may not work for you but if you see where a huge number of > > pros and top amateurs come to ride (and often stay) Tucson is high on > > the list. Great roads, many classic climbs, and good weather all year. > > Yep a bit toasty in the summer but you'll see the roads full of > > cyclists at 6 a.m. a folks are all done by 10. It is seldom much above > > 80 at that time. > > Well the one AZ city that's currently on my list is Scottsdale. But I am > open minded. I have long wanted to live in the desert, why I am not > completely sure. I visited Phoenix a few years back, in January, and > thought the weather was great. As far as riding goes, I ride here in > Florida in the summer in the early morning hours as well, usually done > by 10 or 11. So that is similar. > > Ken- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The Phoenix area is huge. Scottsdale is nice but if you looked at the roads from a cycling perspective I think you'd find them quite crowded as the population density is high and getting higher. Also, Phoenix is a great area for employment as it is a major metro area. But traffic is terrible and summer temps are very much higher with higher humididty than further south.     Date: 12 Mar 2007 13:47:03 From: Just A User Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling gds wrote: > On 12, 8:57 am, Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >> gds wrote: >>> On 9, 2:55 pm, Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >>>> I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is >>>> important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas >>>> west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for >>>> cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found >>>> that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about >>>> regular road riding? >>>> Ken >>> Well it may not work for you but if you see where a huge number of >>> pros and top amateurs come to ride (and often stay) Tucson is high on >>> the list. Great roads, many classic climbs, and good weather all year. >>> Yep a bit toasty in the summer but you'll see the roads full of >>> cyclists at 6 a.m. a folks are all done by 10. It is seldom much above >>> 80 at that time. >> Well the one AZ city that's currently on my list is Scottsdale. But I am >> open minded. I have long wanted to live in the desert, why I am not >> completely sure. I visited Phoenix a few years back, in January, and >> thought the weather was great. As far as riding goes, I ride here in >> Florida in the summer in the early morning hours as well, usually done >> by 10 or 11. So that is similar. >> >> Ken- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > The Phoenix area is huge. Scottsdale is nice but if you looked at the > roads from a cycling perspective I think you'd find them quite crowded > as the population density is high and getting higher. > Also, Phoenix is a great area for employment as it is a major metro > area. But traffic is terrible and summer temps are very much higher > with higher humididty than further south. > Well yeah Phoenix is huge. Much larger than where I live now, south Florida town of 17,000 but I have lived in larger cities before, Tampa FL, Little Rock AR, Roanoke VA, Springfield MA, Providence RI so big cities don't exactly scare me. But I am looking at cities with over 100,000 but less than 500,000 Ken   Date: 12 Mar 2007 08:15:30 From: gds Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 9, 2:55 pm, Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net > wrote: > I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is > important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas > west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for > cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found > that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about > regular road riding? > > Ken Well it may not work for you but if you see where a huge number of pros and top amateurs come to ride (and often stay) Tucson is high on the list. Great roads, many classic climbs, and good weather all year. Yep a bit toasty in the summer but you'll see the roads full of cyclists at 6 a.m. a folks are all done by 10. It is seldom much above 80 at that time.     Date: 12 Mar 2007 11:57:20 From: Just A User Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling gds wrote: > On 9, 2:55 pm, Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >> I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is >> important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas >> west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for >> cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found >> that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about >> regular road riding? >> >> Ken > > Well it may not work for you but if you see where a huge number of > pros and top amateurs come to ride (and often stay) Tucson is high on > the list. Great roads, many classic climbs, and good weather all year. > Yep a bit toasty in the summer but you'll see the roads full of > cyclists at 6 a.m. a folks are all done by 10. It is seldom much above > 80 at that time. > Well the one AZ city that's currently on my list is Scottsdale. But I am open minded. I have long wanted to live in the desert, why I am not completely sure. I visited Phoenix a few years back, in January, and thought the weather was great. As far as riding goes, I ride here in Florida in the summer in the early morning hours as well, usually done by 10 or 11. So that is similar. Ken   Date: 12 Mar 2007 08:11:16 From: gds Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 9, 7:06 pm, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On Fri, 09 2007 16:55:06 -0500, Just A User > > <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: > >I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is > >important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas > >west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for > >cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found > >that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about > >regular road riding? > > >Ken > > Arizona, California, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, > Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin > all have mandatory helmet laws in part or the whole of the state (so > does Alaska, but although that is "west of the Great Lakes" I presume > it was not under consideration). > > The above list may not include all states; MHL's are becoming more and > more popular with American governments, and there may have been more > passed since last time I checked. Uhh! Arizona does not have a MHL for adults. Don't know about the others you list.     Date: 12 Mar 2007 17:19:56 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 12 2007 08:11:16 -0700, "gds" <gary_jill@msn.com > wrote: >On 9, 7:06 pm, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> On Fri, 09 2007 16:55:06 -0500, Just A User >> >> <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >> >I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is >> >important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas >> >west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for >> >cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found >> >that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about >> >regular road riding? >> >> >Ken >> >> Arizona, California, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, >> Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin >> all have mandatory helmet laws in part or the whole of the state (so >> does Alaska, but although that is "west of the Great Lakes" I presume >> it was not under consideration). >> >> The above list may not include all states; MHL's are becoming more and >> more popular with American governments, and there may have been more >> passed since last time I checked. > >Uhh! Arizona does not have a MHL for adults. True, they do not. Yet.   Date: 11 Mar 2007 22:12:10 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 10, 11:32 pm, Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net > wrote: > jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > > On Sat, 10 2007 07:14:26 -0500, Just A User > > <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: > > >> jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >>> On Fri, 09 2007 16:55:06 -0500, Just A User > >>> <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: > > >>>> I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is > >>>> important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas > >>>> west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for > >>>> cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found > >>>> that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about > >>>> regular road riding? > > >>>> Ken > >>> Arizona, California, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, > >>> Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin > >>> all have mandatory helmet laws in part or the whole of the state (so > >>> does Alaska, but although that is "west of the Great Lakes" I presume > >>> it was not under consideration). > > >>> The above list may not include all states; MHL's are becoming more and > >>> more popular with American governments, and there may have been more > >>> passed since last time I checked. > >> Thats an interesting point one that I had not even thought of, here in > >> Florida, there is no such law, that I know of anyway. > > > Something in excess of three million residents of Florida must by law > > wear a helmet if they choose to cycle. > > > Florida passed an under-16 state-wide MHL in 1997; currently it allows > > counties to opt out, and some (3) did so, but reports are that they > > have all now rescinded. > > Yeah but that law is for those under 16 years of age, I am in my 30's. > > Ken- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I've been riding with MHLs in Australia since 1975. Once you are used to it, it's not a bother - except for having to buy a helmet every few years. In fact, when I forget to take my helmet, it feels wrong and I go home to get it. One side benefit is weather protection - sun or cold. I usually hang it on the bars for a long climb. So OK, fight MHLs if you like, but don't change where you live on that basis. That would be losing proportion. Donga     Date: 12 Mar 2007 15:30:12 From: Matt O'Toole Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Sun, 11 2007 22:12:10 -0700, idomybestworkonabike wrote: > I've been riding with MHLs in Australia since 1975. Once you are used to > it, it's not a bother - except for having to buy a helmet every few > years. In fact, when I forget to take my helmet, it feels wrong and I go > home to get it. One side benefit is weather protection - sun or cold. I > usually hang it on the bars for a long climb. So OK, fight MHLs if you > like, but don't change where you live on that basis. That would be > losing proportion. Where in Australia have they had MHLs since 1975? I lived in Sydney '78-81, and there was certainly no such thing. As a high school student it was rare to meet anyone who even owned a bike. Bikes weren't even on anyone's radar, let alone helmets. Matt O.       Date: 12 Mar 2007 19:52:03 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Mon, 12 2007 15:30:12 -0400, Matt O'Toole <mattotoole@letterboxes.org > wrote: >On Sun, 11 2007 22:12:10 -0700, idomybestworkonabike wrote: > >> I've been riding with MHLs in Australia since 1975. Once you are used to >> it, it's not a bother - except for having to buy a helmet every few >> years. In fact, when I forget to take my helmet, it feels wrong and I go >> home to get it. One side benefit is weather protection - sun or cold. I >> usually hang it on the bars for a long climb. So OK, fight MHLs if you >> like, but don't change where you live on that basis. That would be >> losing proportion. > >Where in Australia have they had MHLs since 1975? I lived in Sydney >'78-81, and there was certainly no such thing. As a high school >student it was rare to meet anyone who even owned a bike. Bikes weren't >even on anyone's radar, let alone helmets. > Yes, that was a bit odd, seeing as it's commonly (and correctly) stated that the US was the first place where an MHL was passed in 1987. WA passed a law in 1990; NSW in 1991. By 1996 all parts of Australia had MHL's; a 1998 paper published in both _Injury Prevention_ and _The Australian Doctor_ begins with this bald statement: "This article shows that bicycle helmet laws have done more harm than good."         Date: 12 Mar 2007 15:56:26 From: Just A User Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On Mon, 12 2007 15:30:12 -0400, Matt O'Toole > <mattotoole@letterboxes.org> wrote: > >> On Sun, 11 2007 22:12:10 -0700, idomybestworkonabike wrote: >> >>> I've been riding with MHLs in Australia since 1975. Once you are used to >>> it, it's not a bother - except for having to buy a helmet every few >>> years. In fact, when I forget to take my helmet, it feels wrong and I go >>> home to get it. One side benefit is weather protection - sun or cold. I >>> usually hang it on the bars for a long climb. So OK, fight MHLs if you >>> like, but don't change where you live on that basis. That would be >>> losing proportion. >> Where in Australia have they had MHLs since 1975? I lived in Sydney >> '78-81, and there was certainly no such thing. As a high school >> student it was rare to meet anyone who even owned a bike. Bikes weren't >> even on anyone's radar, let alone helmets. >> > > Yes, that was a bit odd, seeing as it's commonly (and correctly) > stated that the US was the first place where an MHL was passed in > 1987. > > WA passed a law in 1990; NSW in 1991. By 1996 all parts of Australia > had MHL's; a 1998 paper published in both _Injury Prevention_ and _The > Australian Doctor_ begins with this bald statement: > > "This article shows that bicycle helmet laws have done more harm than > good." Well that statement sounds silly. I can't understand how a helmet law would do more harm than good, unless SO many people gave up cycling rather than wear a head protection device. Which I really can't see happening, but I will admit that it's not impossible. Ken           Date: 12 Mar 2007 23:09:36 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Mon, 12 2007 15:56:26 -0400, Just A User <ken@up-yours-spammer.net > wrote: >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> On Mon, 12 2007 15:30:12 -0400, Matt O'Toole >> <mattotoole@letterboxes.org> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 11 2007 22:12:10 -0700, idomybestworkonabike wrote: >>> >>>> I've been riding with MHLs in Australia since 1975. Once you are used to >>>> it, it's not a bother - except for having to buy a helmet every few >>>> years. In fact, when I forget to take my helmet, it feels wrong and I go >>>> home to get it. One side benefit is weather protection - sun or cold. I >>>> usually hang it on the bars for a long climb. So OK, fight MHLs if you >>>> like, but don't change where you live on that basis. That would be >>>> losing proportion. >>> Where in Australia have they had MHLs since 1975? I lived in Sydney >>> '78-81, and there was certainly no such thing. As a high school >>> student it was rare to meet anyone who even owned a bike. Bikes weren't >>> even on anyone's radar, let alone helmets. >>> >> >> Yes, that was a bit odd, seeing as it's commonly (and correctly) >> stated that the US was the first place where an MHL was passed in >> 1987. >> >> WA passed a law in 1990; NSW in 1991. By 1996 all parts of Australia >> had MHL's; a 1998 paper published in both _Injury Prevention_ and _The >> Australian Doctor_ begins with this bald statement: >> >> "This article shows that bicycle helmet laws have done more harm than >> good." > >Well that statement sounds silly. I can't understand how a helmet law >would do more harm than good, unless SO many people gave up cycling >rather than wear a head protection device. Which I really can't see >happening, but I will admit that it's not impossible. > You, it appears (like so many) think that wearing a helmet will reduce your chances of serious injury. The statistics do not support this; there are quite a few completely sensible explanations for why this is so; and if you continue to think so, it is not the statements of the people who actually look at the data that appear silly. Some pro-helmet zealots go so far as to proudly proclaim that they ignore the data, instead considering their own distorted view of cycling is the truth, studies be dammed. Such statements are silly, in public, at the top of one's voice.             Date: 13 Mar 2007 08:01:19 From: Just A User Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On Mon, 12 2007 15:56:26 -0400, Just A User > <ken@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: > >> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >>> On Mon, 12 2007 15:30:12 -0400, Matt O'Toole >>> <mattotoole@letterboxes.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 11 2007 22:12:10 -0700, idomybestworkonabike wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've been riding with MHLs in Australia since 1975. Once you are used to >>>>> it, it's not a bother - except for having to buy a helmet every few >>>>> years. In fact, when I forget to take my helmet, it feels wrong and I go >>>>> home to get it. One side benefit is weather protection - sun or cold. I >>>>> usually hang it on the bars for a long climb. So OK, fight MHLs if you >>>>> like, but don't change where you live on that basis. That would be >>>>> losing proportion. >>>> Where in Australia have they had MHLs since 1975? I lived in Sydney >>>> '78-81, and there was certainly no such thing. As a high school >>>> student it was rare to meet anyone who even owned a bike. Bikes weren't >>>> even on anyone's radar, let alone helmets. >>>> >>> Yes, that was a bit odd, seeing as it's commonly (and correctly) >>> stated that the US was the first place where an MHL was passed in >>> 1987. >>> >>> WA passed a law in 1990; NSW in 1991. By 1996 all parts of Australia >>> had MHL's; a 1998 paper published in both _Injury Prevention_ and _The >>> Australian Doctor_ begins with this bald statement: >>> >>> "This article shows that bicycle helmet laws have done more harm than >>> good." >> Well that statement sounds silly. I can't understand how a helmet law >> would do more harm than good, unless SO many people gave up cycling >> rather than wear a head protection device. Which I really can't see >> happening, but I will admit that it's not impossible. >> > > You, it appears (like so many) think that wearing a helmet will reduce > your chances of serious injury. The statistics do not support this; > there are quite a few completely sensible explanations for why this is > so; and if you continue to think so, it is not the statements of the > people who actually look at the data that appear silly. > > Some pro-helmet zealots go so far as to proudly proclaim that they > ignore the data, instead considering their own distorted view of > cycling is the truth, studies be dammed. Such statements are silly, > in public, at the top of one's voice. > I don't wear a helmet, I have never even put on on my cranium. But can't see how they could cause harm by wearing one. And I am not going to explore the /data/ thanks but I have better things to do with my time. Ken               Date: 13 Mar 2007 09:32:26 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Just A User wrote: > jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> You, it appears (like so many) think that wearing a helmet will >> reduce your chances of serious injury. The statistics do not >> support this; there are quite a few completely sensible explanations >> for why this is so; and if you continue to think so, it is not the >> statements of the people who actually look at the data that appear >> silly. > I don't wear a helmet, I have never even put on on my cranium. But > can't see how they could cause harm by wearing one. And I am not > going to explore the /data/ thanks but I have better things to do > with my time. Bear in mind that you're arguing with an hyterical zealot who just a day or two ago said that helmets don't save lives "except on rare occasions", and now says they can't even reduce the /chance/ of serious injury. Flailor's a liar who'll say anything. ENJOY! LOL                 Date: 13 Mar 2007 16:43:30 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Tue, 13 2007 09:32:26 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote: >Just A User wrote: >> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > >>> You, it appears (like so many) think that wearing a helmet will >>> reduce your chances of serious injury. The statistics do not >>> support this; there are quite a few completely sensible explanations >>> for why this is so; and if you continue to think so, it is not the >>> statements of the people who actually look at the data that appear >>> silly. > >> I don't wear a helmet, I have never even put on on my cranium. But >> can't see how they could cause harm by wearing one. And I am not >> going to explore the /data/ thanks but I have better things to do >> with my time. > >Bear in mind that you're arguing with an hyterical zealot who just a day or >two ago said that helmets don't save lives "except on rare occasions", and >now says they can't even reduce the /chance/ of serious injury. > >Flailor's a liar who'll say anything. > You've had trouble with attributions before; and this is the second time you have done so with this particular quote - perhaps it's just that you will, um, "...say anything". The part you quote came from a post by "landotter". And as for not saving lives, you could just go read the data that you have repeatedly told us you'd rather ignore... www.cyclehelmets.org               Date: 13 Mar 2007 10:09:58 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Just A User wrote: >>>> On Mon, 12 2007 15:30:12 -0400, Matt O'Toole >>>> <mattotoole@letterboxes.org> wrote: >>>> WA passed a law in 1990; NSW in 1991. By 1996 all parts of Australia >>>> had MHL's; a 1998 paper published in both _Injury Prevention_ and _The >>>> Australian Doctor_ begins with this bald statement: >>>> >>>> "This article shows that bicycle helmet laws have done more harm than >>>> good." Well that statement sounds silly. I can't understand how a helmet law would do more harm than good, unless SO many people gave up cycling rather than wear a head protection device. Which I really can't see happening, but I will admit that it's not impossible. and I don't wear a helmet, I have never even put on on my cranium. But can't see how they could cause harm by wearing one. And I am not going to explore the /data/ thanks but I have better things to do with my time. Ken Yea. Why bother with knowledge of real data from a large population when ignorance, folk intuition, and anecdotal evidence is so much easier. Wayne                 Date: 13 Mar 2007 10:21:18 From: Just A User Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Wayne Pein wrote: > Just A User wrote: > > >>>>> On Mon, 12 2007 15:30:12 -0400, Matt O'Toole >>>>> <mattotoole@letterboxes.org> wrote: > >>>>> WA passed a law in 1990; NSW in 1991. By 1996 all parts of Australia >>>>> had MHL's; a 1998 paper published in both _Injury Prevention_ and _The >>>>> Australian Doctor_ begins with this bald statement: >>>>> >>>>> "This article shows that bicycle helmet laws have done more harm than >>>>> good." > > > Well that statement sounds silly. I can't understand how a helmet law > would do more harm than good, unless SO many people gave up cycling > rather than wear a head protection device. Which I really can't see > happening, but I will admit that it's not impossible. > > > and > > > I don't wear a helmet, I have never even put on on my cranium. But can't > see how they could cause harm by wearing one. And I am not going to > explore the /data/ thanks but I have better things to do with my time. > > Ken > > > Yea. Why bother with knowledge of real data from a large population when > ignorance, folk intuition, and anecdotal evidence is so much easier. > > Wayne > Well now that is why I avoid all these head / cranium protection device threads. They get all blown way out of proportion. Enough said. Ken               Date: 13 Mar 2007 14:08:02 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Tue, 13 2007 08:01:19 -0400, Just A User <ken@up-yours-spammer.net > wrote: >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> On Mon, 12 2007 15:56:26 -0400, Just A User >> <ken@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >> >>> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >>>> On Mon, 12 2007 15:30:12 -0400, Matt O'Toole >>>> <mattotoole@letterboxes.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 11 2007 22:12:10 -0700, idomybestworkonabike wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I've been riding with MHLs in Australia since 1975. Once you are used to >>>>>> it, it's not a bother - except for having to buy a helmet every few >>>>>> years. In fact, when I forget to take my helmet, it feels wrong and I go >>>>>> home to get it. One side benefit is weather protection - sun or cold. I >>>>>> usually hang it on the bars for a long climb. So OK, fight MHLs if you >>>>>> like, but don't change where you live on that basis. That would be >>>>>> losing proportion. >>>>> Where in Australia have they had MHLs since 1975? I lived in Sydney >>>>> '78-81, and there was certainly no such thing. As a high school >>>>> student it was rare to meet anyone who even owned a bike. Bikes weren't >>>>> even on anyone's radar, let alone helmets. >>>>> >>>> Yes, that was a bit odd, seeing as it's commonly (and correctly) >>>> stated that the US was the first place where an MHL was passed in >>>> 1987. >>>> >>>> WA passed a law in 1990; NSW in 1991. By 1996 all parts of Australia >>>> had MHL's; a 1998 paper published in both _Injury Prevention_ and _The >>>> Australian Doctor_ begins with this bald statement: >>>> >>>> "This article shows that bicycle helmet laws have done more harm than >>>> good." >>> Well that statement sounds silly. I can't understand how a helmet law >>> would do more harm than good, unless SO many people gave up cycling >>> rather than wear a head protection device. Which I really can't see >>> happening, but I will admit that it's not impossible. >>> >> >> You, it appears (like so many) think that wearing a helmet will reduce >> your chances of serious injury. The statistics do not support this; >> there are quite a few completely sensible explanations for why this is >> so; and if you continue to think so, it is not the statements of the >> people who actually look at the data that appear silly. >> >> Some pro-helmet zealots go so far as to proudly proclaim that they >> ignore the data, instead considering their own distorted view of >> cycling is the truth, studies be dammed. Such statements are silly, >> in public, at the top of one's voice. >> >I don't wear a helmet, I have never even put on on my cranium. But can't >see how they could cause harm by wearing one. And I am not going to >explore the /data/ thanks but I have better things to do with my time. > And how will you argue with people when they start advocating that an MHL be passed in your jurisdiction? www.cyclehelmets.org                 Date: 13 Mar 2007 10:19:33 From: Just A User Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On Tue, 13 2007 08:01:19 -0400, Just A User > <ken@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: > >> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >>> On Mon, 12 2007 15:56:26 -0400, Just A User >>> <ken@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >>> >>>> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 12 2007 15:30:12 -0400, Matt O'Toole >>>>> <mattotoole@letterboxes.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 11 2007 22:12:10 -0700, idomybestworkonabike wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I've been riding with MHLs in Australia since 1975. Once you are used to >>>>>>> it, it's not a bother - except for having to buy a helmet every few >>>>>>> years. In fact, when I forget to take my helmet, it feels wrong and I go >>>>>>> home to get it. One side benefit is weather protection - sun or cold. I >>>>>>> usually hang it on the bars for a long climb. So OK, fight MHLs if you >>>>>>> like, but don't change where you live on that basis. That would be >>>>>>> losing proportion. >>>>>> Where in Australia have they had MHLs since 1975? I lived in Sydney >>>>>> '78-81, and there was certainly no such thing. As a high school >>>>>> student it was rare to meet anyone who even owned a bike. Bikes weren't >>>>>> even on anyone's radar, let alone helmets. >>>>>> >>>>> Yes, that was a bit odd, seeing as it's commonly (and correctly) >>>>> stated that the US was the first place where an MHL was passed in >>>>> 1987. >>>>> >>>>> WA passed a law in 1990; NSW in 1991. By 1996 all parts of Australia >>>>> had MHL's; a 1998 paper published in both _Injury Prevention_ and _The >>>>> Australian Doctor_ begins with this bald statement: >>>>> >>>>> "This article shows that bicycle helmet laws have done more harm than >>>>> good." >>>> Well that statement sounds silly. I can't understand how a helmet law >>>> would do more harm than good, unless SO many people gave up cycling >>>> rather than wear a head protection device. Which I really can't see >>>> happening, but I will admit that it's not impossible. >>>> >>> You, it appears (like so many) think that wearing a helmet will reduce >>> your chances of serious injury. The statistics do not support this; >>> there are quite a few completely sensible explanations for why this is >>> so; and if you continue to think so, it is not the statements of the >>> people who actually look at the data that appear silly. >>> >>> Some pro-helmet zealots go so far as to proudly proclaim that they >>> ignore the data, instead considering their own distorted view of >>> cycling is the truth, studies be dammed. Such statements are silly, >>> in public, at the top of one's voice. >>> >> I don't wear a helmet, I have never even put on on my cranium. But can't >> see how they could cause harm by wearing one. And I am not going to >> explore the /data/ thanks but I have better things to do with my time. >> > > > And how will you argue with people when they start advocating that an > MHL be passed in your jurisdiction? > > www.cyclehelmets.org Well I guess I will just have to deal with that when that time arrives. Ken     Date: 12 Mar 2007 12:08:27 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 11 2007 22:12:10 -0700, idomybestworkonabike@hotmail.com wrote: >I've been riding with MHLs in Australia since 1975. Isn't that where following the introduction of the MHL a) the sudden change in the % of helmet weraing had no effect on injury rates; and b) cycling dropped kedly?   Date: 11 Mar 2007 20:55:41 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Claire Petersky wrote: > >>> The only significant MHLs for adults that I know of are > >>> King County, Washington (Seattle metro) and Dallas. > >>> Fair reason for a cyclist to avoid moving to those areas, imo, > > To me, this would be a bizzare reason not to move to some place, but to each > his own. To me, it would be bizarre to live in one of the only places in the country where adults are mandated to wear bicycle helmets. Are there any groups in Seattle working to get this law repealed? Robert     Date: 12 Mar 2007 10:47:41 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling r15757@aol.com wrote: > > To me, it would be bizarre to live in one of the only places in the country > where adults are mandated to wear bicycle helmets. > > Are there any groups in Seattle working to get this law repealed? Not that I'm aware of. There's a certain amount of grumbling from various cyclists, but no organized effort. It does not help that Cascade, the largest bicycle club is pro-MHL. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org "The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire." -Voltaire     Date: 12 Mar 2007 08:20:02 From: Roger Zoul Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling r15757@aol.com wrote: :: Claire Petersky wrote: :: :::::: The only significant MHLs for adults that I know of are :::::: King County, Washington (Seattle metro) and Dallas. :::::: Fair reason for a cyclist to avoid moving to those areas, imo, ::: ::: To me, this would be a bizzare reason not to move to some place, ::: but to each his own. :: :: To me, it would be bizarre to live in one of the :: only places in the country where adults are mandated :: to wear bicycle helmets. You mean adults are forced to walk/drive/run/swim in bike helmets? While moving inside their homes, too? Yes, that would be very bizarre.       Date: 12 Mar 2007 13:28:24 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Mon, 12 2007 08:20:02 -0400, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote: >r15757@aol.com wrote: >:: Claire Petersky wrote: >:: >:::::: The only significant MHLs for adults that I know of are >:::::: King County, Washington (Seattle metro) and Dallas. >:::::: Fair reason for a cyclist to avoid moving to those areas, imo, >::: >::: To me, this would be a bizzare reason not to move to some place, >::: but to each his own. >:: >:: To me, it would be bizarre to live in one of the >:: only places in the country where adults are mandated >:: to wear bicycle helmets. > >You mean adults are forced to walk/drive/run/swim in bike helmets? While >moving inside their homes, too? Yes, that would be very bizarre. > > There was a time when children wore helmets while walking (to school) in Japan; they found that, like cycling, there was no effect on injury rates, so they stopped it. Unlike the USofA, which a) had the first MHL; and b) has more MHL's than anyplace in the world.       Date: 12 Mar 2007 09:21:00 From: Just A User Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Roger Zoul wrote: > r15757@aol.com wrote: > :: Claire Petersky wrote: > :: > :::::: The only significant MHLs for adults that I know of are > :::::: King County, Washington (Seattle metro) and Dallas. > :::::: Fair reason for a cyclist to avoid moving to those areas, imo, > ::: > ::: To me, this would be a bizzare reason not to move to some place, > ::: but to each his own. > :: > :: To me, it would be bizarre to live in one of the > :: only places in the country where adults are mandated > :: to wear bicycle helmets. > > You mean adults are forced to walk/drive/run/swim in bike helmets? While > moving inside their homes, too? Yes, that would be very bizarre. > > > How about while engaging in /energetic/ sexual intercourse? That would be bizarre. Ken   Date: 11 Mar 2007 06:08:43 From: Qui si parla Campagnolo Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 10, 11:48 am, r15...@aol.com wrote: > Just A User wrote: > > Well I am moving to get away from the over crowded feeling of the east > > coast and to get away from the excessive humidity that is here in > > Florida and a certain mold spore that is more prevelent in the southeast. > > The Colorado Front Goathead Preserve > is plenty crowded, imo, but I'm just going > to throw this out there -- Fort Collins. Small-mid > university city, about an hour north of > Denver. If you want to go car free or at > least use your bike as your priy > transportation, the Fort would be very > hard to beat. It is incredibly easy to ride > a bike around that town. They have created > and continue to create a rekable > infrastructure for transportational cycling. > The road riding in surrounding areas varies > from fantastic to ho-hum -- if recreational > cycling is your main thing you might consider > Boulder, which is the home base for many of > the great road rides in Colorado. Boulder is > expensive, and hard to take in many ways, > however. 50 square miles surrounded by reality....I wouldn't have it any other way. I wouldn't live anyplace else except for maybe SoCal...for the weather, after getting snowed under this winter but ..70 degrees Monday!! Boulder is a decidedly blue section of CO surrounded by 'red' politics. Stay away from Colorado Springs unless 'Focus on 'your' Family' is your 'thing'. Fort Collins is more low-key. > > Oh yeah -- Bring some REMA patchkits, and > follow the directions in the box. > > Robert   Date: 10 Mar 2007 21:49:16 From: oilfreeandhappy Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling +1 on Colorado. The towns mentioned are great. But don't count out Denver either. They have some great bike trails that extend all the way through the city in a number directions. They continue to expand their Light Rail as well. ---- Jim Gagnepain http://home.comcast.net/~oil_free_and_happy/ On 10, 10:48 am, r15...@aol.com wrote: > Just A User wrote: > > Well I am moving to get away from the over crowded feeling of the east > > coast and to get away from the excessive humidity that is here in > > Florida and a certain mold spore that is more prevelent in the southeast. > > The Colorado Front Goathead Preserve > is plenty crowded, imo, but I'm just going > to throw this out there -- Fort Collins. Small-mid > university city, about an hour north of > Denver. If you want to go car free or at > least use your bike as your priy > transportation, the Fort would be very > hard to beat. It is incredibly easy to ride > a bike around that town. They have created > and continue to create a rekable > infrastructure for transportational cycling. > The road riding in surrounding areas varies > from fantastic to ho-hum -- if recreational > cycling is your main thing you might consider > Boulder, which is the home base for many of > the great road rides in Colorado. Boulder is > expensive, and hard to take in many ways, > however. Fort Collins is more low-key. > > Oh yeah -- Bring some REMA patchkits, and > follow the directions in the box. > > Robert   Date: 10 Mar 2007 20:11:21 From: Veloise Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Ken wrote: > I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is > important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas > west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for > cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found > that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about > regular road riding? What you got against the Great Lakes?? Michigan has a ten-cent bottle deposit law. Many of us resident riders notice that flats are more prevalent in unenlightened commonwealths, and it's fun to collect and cash them in near state lines. HTH --Karen D. in Grand Rapids     Date: 11 Mar 2007 08:10:29 From: Pat Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling > > Michigan has a ten-cent bottle deposit law. Many of us resident riders > notice that flats are more prevalent in unenlightened commonwealths, > and it's fun to collect and cash them in near state lines. > > HTH > > --Karen D. > in Grand Rapids Did you just mean to say that you collect bottle while riding a bicycle? Pat in TX > >   Date: 10 Mar 2007 12:14:18 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Just A User wrote: > Well the only city in CO thats on my list so far if Colorado Springs. CS is my hometown, born and raised. Beautiful setting. Good road riding, great trail riding. Lots of solar radiation. Not terribly expensive. Some would say there are too many wacky right-wingers there. There are also plenty of old hippies, witches and Sons of Silence. The path system is awful compared to the useful MUPs in Denver. IMO the nice parts of town are central and west; old CS is surrounded on three sides by the worst sort of suburban hell which is to be avoided at all costs. Ghettoes in the suburbs, it surely is the wave of the future. Good luck, whatever you decide. And if you decide to come to Colorado, welcome. Robert   Date: 10 Mar 2007 09:48:41 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Just A User wrote: > Well I am moving to get away from the over crowded feeling of the east > coast and to get away from the excessive humidity that is here in > Florida and a certain mold spore that is more prevelent in the southeast. The Colorado Front Goathead Preserve is plenty crowded, imo, but I'm just going to throw this out there -- Fort Collins. Small-mid university city, about an hour north of Denver. If you want to go car free or at least use your bike as your priy transportation, the Fort would be very hard to beat. It is incredibly easy to ride a bike around that town. They have created and continue to create a rekable infrastructure for transportational cycling. The road riding in surrounding areas varies from fantastic to ho-hum -- if recreational cycling is your main thing you might consider Boulder, which is the home base for many of the great road rides in Colorado. Boulder is expensive, and hard to take in many ways, however. Fort Collins is more low-key. Oh yeah -- Bring some REMA patchkits, and follow the directions in the box. Robert     Date: 10 Mar 2007 12:55:36 From: Just A User Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling r15757@aol.com wrote: > Just A User wrote: > >> Well I am moving to get away from the over crowded feeling of the east >> coast and to get away from the excessive humidity that is here in >> Florida and a certain mold spore that is more prevelent in the southeast. > > The Colorado Front Goathead Preserve > is plenty crowded, imo, but I'm just going > to throw this out there -- Fort Collins. Small-mid > university city, about an hour north of > Denver. If you want to go car free or at > least use your bike as your priy > transportation, the Fort would be very > hard to beat. It is incredibly easy to ride > a bike around that town. They have created > and continue to create a rekable > infrastructure for transportational cycling. > The road riding in surrounding areas varies > from fantastic to ho-hum -- if recreational > cycling is your main thing you might consider > Boulder, which is the home base for many of > the great road rides in Colorado. Boulder is > expensive, and hard to take in many ways, > however. Fort Collins is more low-key. > > Oh yeah -- Bring some REMA patchkits, and > follow the directions in the box. > > Robert > Well the only city in CO thats on my list so far if Colorado Springs. But my list is still evolving so some cities that are on there now are going to go away, while others will probably be added, so those you mentioned may yet make my list. Ken   Date: 10 Mar 2007 09:35:57 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Just A User wrote: > Yeah but that law is for those under 16 years of age, I am in my 30's. And it's not like these laws are enforced anyway. The only significant MHLs for adults that I know of are King County, Washington (Seattle metro) and Dallas. Fair reason for a cyclist to avoid moving to those areas, imo, even though Seattle is otherwise a sort of Disneyland for cyclists, with some of the more considerate drivers to be found in the US. Robert     Date: 11 Mar 2007 06:12:12 From: catzz66 Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling r15757@aol.com wrote: > Just A User wrote: > > >>Yeah but that law is for those under 16 years of age, I am in my 30's. > > > And it's not like these laws are enforced anyway. > > The only significant MHLs for adults that I know of are > King County, Washington (Seattle metro) and Dallas. > Fair reason for a cyclist to avoid moving to those areas, imo, > even though Seattle is otherwise a sort of Disneyland > for cyclists, with some of the more considerate drivers > to be found in the US. > > Robert > I live in Dallas, and if there is a helmet law, it does not seem to be enforced. I see a fair amount of people without. I wear a lid anyway and always have, so it is no big deal to me one way or the other. I would check it out if that is a concern for you. I think most of the big bike groups and all organized rides I have done require some kind of lid. Weather in North Texas is good for riding all year round, if you can tolerate temps into the twentys and over 100. It is usually fair and there are plenty of places to ride especially if you don't mind going solo which is what I do all but three or four times a year. I ride nearly every day and am grateful for the mild weather we have most of the time.     Date: 10 Mar 2007 10:56:21 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling r15757@aol.com wrote: > Just A User wrote: > >> Yeah but that law is for those under 16 years of age, I am in my 30's. > > And it's not like these laws are enforced anyway. Correction: Those laws are enforced, simply capriciously. You know, if you're doing something the police don't like but can't cite you for. Or they don't like the look of you in general. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains of slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!!" -Patrick Henry       Date: 10 Mar 2007 19:26:03 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Sat, 10 2007 10:56:21 -0800, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu > wrote: >r15757@aol.com wrote: >> Just A User wrote: >> >>> Yeah but that law is for those under 16 years of age, I am in my 30's. >> >> And it's not like these laws are enforced anyway. > >Correction: Those laws are enforced, simply capriciously. You know, if >you're doing something the police don't like but can't cite you for. Or >they don't like the look of you in general. Perhaps an even better reason to campaign for their repeal.       Date: 10 Mar 2007 14:25:29 From: Just A User Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Dane Buson wrote: > r15757@aol.com wrote: >> Just A User wrote: >> >>> Yeah but that law is for those under 16 years of age, I am in my 30's. >> And it's not like these laws are enforced anyway. > > Correction: Those laws are enforced, simply capriciously. You know, if > you're doing something the police don't like but can't cite you for. Or > they don't like the look of you in general. > Yeah or if the cop is bored enough from doughnuts and needs something to keep them awake and sees a cyclist without a helmet and thinks well it's stupid but it gives me something to do. Ken         Date: 11 Mar 2007 08:08:40 From: Pat Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling >> > Yeah or if the cop is bored enough from doughnuts and needs something to > keep them awake and sees a cyclist without a helmet and thinks well it's > stupid but it gives me something to do. > > Ken I don't believe this would happen for a second! When I was living in yland, I used to see numerous cars with only one headlight. Sometimes, I would count 23 and up just driving home! Finally, I asked a local cop if it wasn't illegal to only have one headlight. He said, "Yeah, but I don't see them unless they are going the other direction, and it's too much trouble to turn around." bicycle laws? no way! If they were going to enforce them, they would start with the wrong-way riding or the crossing against the light or the sidewalk riding. But helmets? not in a jillion years! Pat in TX           Date: 12 Mar 2007 08:22:17 From: Roger Zoul Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Pat wrote: ::: Yeah or if the cop is bored enough from doughnuts and needs ::: something to keep them awake and sees a cyclist without a helmet ::: and thinks well it's stupid but it gives me something to do. ::: ::: Ken :: :: I don't believe this would happen for a second! When I was living in :: yland, I used to see numerous cars with only one headlight. :: Sometimes, I would count 23 and up just driving home! Finally, I :: asked a local cop if it wasn't illegal to only have one headlight. :: He said, "Yeah, but I don't see them unless they are going the other :: direction, and it's too much trouble to turn around." :: :: bicycle laws? no way! If they were going to enforce them, they :: would start with the wrong-way riding or the crossing against the :: light or the sidewalk riding. But helmets? not in a jillion years! :: :: Pat in TX If I were a cop and bored, and a cute girl came by on a bike with no helmet, I'd stop her. I wouldn't ticket her but I'd suggest she consider wearing a helmet. :)           Date: 11 Mar 2007 13:52:25 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Pat <Pat@faraway.com > wrote: > > bicycle laws? no way! If they were going to enforce them, they would start > with the wrong-way riding or the crossing against the light or the sidewalk > riding. But helmets? not in a jillion years! I know multiple people who have received helmet tickets. At least one person has collected two. I only know one person who has received a red-light ticket. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org I went into the business for the money, and the art grew out of it. If people are disillusioned by that rek, I can't help it. It's the truth. -- Charlie Chaplin             Date: 11 Mar 2007 16:00:28 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Dane Buson wrote: > Pat <Pat@faraway.com> wrote: >> >> bicycle laws? no way! If they were going to enforce them, they >> would start with the wrong-way riding or the crossing against the >> light or the sidewalk riding. But helmets? not in a jillion years! > > I know multiple people who have received helmet tickets. At least one > person has collected two. I only know one person who has received a > red-light ticket. Unfortunately for your side, personal anecdotes are not admissable evidence of anything. (Just ask anyone who submits that a lid saved him or her a few stitches or a concussion, much less more.)               Date: 11 Mar 2007 18:02:14 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me > wrote: > Dane Buson wrote: >> >> I know multiple people who have received helmet tickets. At least one >> person has collected two. I only know one person who has received a >> red-light ticket. > > Unfortunately for your side, personal anecdotes are not admissable evidence > of anything. (Just ask anyone who submits that a lid saved him or her a few > stitches or a concussion, much less more.) I wasn't aware I had a side, much less one of my very own. Perhaps I should think up a fetching name for it, perhaps buy it a nice outfit for long rides in the country. More seriously, do you understand the difference between assertion of fact versus supposition? -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org An ancient proverb summed it up: when a wizard is tired of looking for broken glass in his dinner, it ran, he is tired of life. -- Terry Pratchett, "The Light Fantastic"                 Date: 11 Mar 2007 18:38:25 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Dane Buson wrote: > Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote: >> Dane Buson wrote: >>> >>> I know multiple people who have received helmet tickets. At least >>> one person has collected two. I only know one person who has >>> received a red-light ticket. >> >> Unfortunately for your side, personal anecdotes are not admissable >> evidence of anything. (Just ask anyone who submits that a lid saved >> him or her a few stitches or a concussion, much less more.) > > I wasn't aware I had a side, much less one of my very own. Perhaps I > should think up a fetching name for it, perhaps buy it a nice outfit > for long rides in the country. > > More seriously, do you understand the difference between assertion of > fact versus supposition? Knowing a few people who allegedly received citations is not proof that some regulation (obscure or not) is strictly enforced. As for the "side" business, I should not have assumed you're an AHZ. My apologies. BS                   Date: 11 Mar 2007 21:20:59 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me > wrote: > Dane Buson wrote: >> Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote: >>> Dane Buson wrote: >>>> >>>> I know multiple people who have received helmet tickets. At least >>>> one person has collected two. I only know one person who has >>>> received a red-light ticket. >>> >>> Unfortunately for your side, personal anecdotes are not admissable >>> evidence of anything. (Just ask anyone who submits that a lid saved >>> him or her a few stitches or a concussion, much less more.) >> >> I wasn't aware I had a side, much less one of my very own. Perhaps I >> should think up a fetching name for it, perhaps buy it a nice outfit >> for long rides in the country. >> >> More seriously, do you understand the difference between assertion of >> fact versus supposition? > > Knowing a few people who allegedly received citations is not proof that some > regulation (obscure or not) is strictly enforced. If you wander back up thread, I never said it was strictly enforced. I said it was *capriciously* enforced. Considering the statement I was responding to was that helmet laws would *never* be enforced, I don't think stating I know multiple people who've received them is much of a logical leap. > As for the "side" business, I should not have assumed you're an AHZ. My > apologies. Meh, I don't have much ego invested in the issue. I wear one most of the time priily since the Mercer Island and Bellevue police tend to hassle helmetless cyclists (Seattle PD doesn't seem to care for the most part). -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org "Ladies may have a fit upstairs." -Outside a Hong Kong tailor shop                     Date: 11 Mar 2007 20:58:50 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Dane Buson wrote: > Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote: >> Dane Buson wrote: >>> Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote: >>>> Dane Buson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I know multiple people who have received helmet tickets. At least >>>>> one person has collected two. I only know one person who has >>>>> received a red-light ticket. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately for your side, personal anecdotes are not admissable >>>> evidence of anything. (Just ask anyone who submits that a lid >>>> saved him or her a few stitches or a concussion, much less more.) >>> >>> I wasn't aware I had a side, much less one of my very own. Perhaps >>> I should think up a fetching name for it, perhaps buy it a nice >>> outfit for long rides in the country. >>> >>> More seriously, do you understand the difference between assertion >>> of fact versus supposition? >> >> Knowing a few people who allegedly received citations is not proof >> that some regulation (obscure or not) is strictly enforced. > > If you wander back up thread, I never said it was strictly enforced. > I said it was *capriciously* enforced. Considering the statement I > was responding to was that helmet laws would *never* be enforced, I > don't think stating I know multiple people who've received them is > much of a logical leap. OK, my only /intended/ point was that anti-liddites scoff at any personal experience or anecdotes by pro-liddites, always lauding their vaunted "whole population statistics" as the only valid source. By that logic (decidely faulty), your friends' experience gettting tickets would have no bearing. You're right, though -- I came in mid-thread and didn't check for full context or content. >> As for the "side" business, I should not have assumed you're an AHZ. >> My apologies. > > Meh, I don't have much ego invested in the issue. I wear one most of > the time priily since the Mercer Island and Bellevue police tend to > hassle helmetless cyclists (Seattle PD doesn't seem to care for the > most part). I wear one because it might do me some good should I take a fall. Bill S.           Date: 11 Mar 2007 17:33:04 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Sun, 11 2007 08:08:40 -0600, "Pat" <Pat@faraway.com > wrote: > >>> >> Yeah or if the cop is bored enough from doughnuts and needs something to >> keep them awake and sees a cyclist without a helmet and thinks well it's >> stupid but it gives me something to do. >> >> Ken > >I don't believe this would happen for a second! When I was living in >yland, I used to see numerous cars with only one headlight. Sometimes, I >would count 23 and up just driving home! Finally, I asked a local cop if it >wasn't illegal to only have one headlight. He said, "Yeah, but I don't see >them unless they are going the other direction, and it's too much trouble to >turn around." > >bicycle laws? no way! If they were going to enforce them, they would start >with the wrong-way riding or the crossing against the light or the sidewalk >riding. But helmets? not in a jillion years! > The fines for not wearing a helmet (which ARE applied in places, abeit sometimes capriciously), can be onerous. I'm sure that were you to be fined for this offense, you would not be so cavalier.     Date: 10 Mar 2007 12:42:55 From: Just A User Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling r15757@aol.com wrote: > Just A User wrote: > >> Yeah but that law is for those under 16 years of age, I am in my 30's. > > And it's not like these laws are enforced anyway. > > The only significant MHLs for adults that I know of are > King County, Washington (Seattle metro) and Dallas. > Fair reason for a cyclist to avoid moving to those areas, imo, > even though Seattle is otherwise a sort of Disneyland > for cyclists, with some of the more considerate drivers > to be found in the US. > > Robert > Yeah thats what my quick research seemed to indicate. Bellevue WA is on my list of cities I am considering. Ken       Date: 27 Mar 2007 08:27:36 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 27, 8:42 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On 27, 2:35 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > > > > > ...there are so many > > other things to take into consideration. For example, > > how many of those places you tout as having more riders/ > > less MHL also have <gasp> cycling infrastructure? > > > Maybe it's not /always/ or /simply/ about helmets? > > I'm not aware of anyone saying it's "/always/ or /simply/ about > helmets". I guess this means that Frank Krygowski *doesn't* read his own drivel! Now, the question is, does this indicate a lack of self-awareness on Krygowski's part, or does it indicate a kind of low animal cunning? ;-)       Date: 27 Mar 2007 07:42:59 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 27, 2:35 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > > ...there are so many > other things to take into consideration. For example, > how many of those places you tout as having more riders/ > less MHL also have <gasp> cycling infrastructure? > > Maybe it's not /always/ or /simply/ about helmets? I'm not aware of anyone saying it's "/always/ or /simply/ about helmets". Certainly, other influences exist. Certainly, you'd expect more cycling in certain places than in others, due to climate, terrain, local culture, density of development, infrastructure differences, etc. Any of those could tend to encourage or discourage cycling. And any of them would have _some_ individuals bucking the trend - say, using their bike despite lots of disincentives, or not using their bike in ideal situations. The question is, what are the effects of helmet promotion and helmet laws? Do they tend to encourage or discourage cycling? - Frank Krygowski         Date: 27 Mar 2007 15:36:09 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 27 2007 07:42:59 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >On 27, 2:35 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >> >> ...there are so many >> other things to take into consideration. For example, >> how many of those places you tout as having more riders/ >> less MHL also have <gasp> cycling infrastructure? >> >> Maybe it's not /always/ or /simply/ about helmets? > >I'm not aware of anyone saying it's "/always/ or /simply/ about >helmets". > >Certainly, other influences exist. Certainly, you'd expect more >cycling in certain places than in others, due to climate, terrain, >local culture, density of development, infrastructure differences, >etc. Any of those could tend to encourage or discourage cycling. And >any of them would have _some_ individuals bucking the trend - say, >using their bike despite lots of disincentives, or not using their >bike in ideal situations. > >The question is, what are the effects of helmet promotion and helmet >laws? Do they tend to encourage or discourage cycling? > >- Frank Krygowski Aw, c'mon, Frank. Send an easy one over, won't you? If there is a _single_ instance of MHLs encouraging cycling it is yet to make an appearance on this newsgroup, or on any of the rational helmet websites.       Date: 19 Mar 2007 18:24:10 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 19, 5:42 pm, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On Mon, 19 2007 15:52:54 -0700, "greggery peccary" > > >who is Thompson, Rivara? > > Thompson, Riviera, and Thompson, the authors of the science > paper that has become the lynchpin of pro-helmet ; their statistic of helmets > preventing 85% of head injuries has become gospel. > > If you don't know about TRT, you _really_ don't know much about cycle > helmets. :-)       Date: 10 Mar 2007 18:31:54 From: greggery peccary Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling "Just A User" <ken@up-yours-spammer.net > wrote in message news:eJKdnc7fXre_c2_YnZ2dnUVZ_vjinZ2d@giganews.com... > r15757@aol.com wrote: >> Just A User wrote: >> >>> Yeah but that law is for those under 16 years of age, I am in my 30's. >> >> And it's not like these laws are enforced anyway. >> >> The only significant MHLs for adults that I know of are >> King County, Washington (Seattle metro) and Dallas. >> Fair reason for a cyclist to avoid moving to those areas, imo, >> even though Seattle is otherwise a sort of Disneyland >> for cyclists, with some of the more considerate drivers >> to be found in the US. >> >> Robert >> > Yeah thats what my quick research seemed to indicate. Bellevue WA is on my > list of cities I am considering. > > Ken i think the seattle area is great for cyclists and will be even more so in the future because the cars cant move. there are way too many of them for an area hemmed in by water and political gridlock. but be informed except for the climate, Bellevue (east side) is not seattle, in fact culturally it's more like Scottsdale, AZ or Ft Lauderdale, FL.         Date: 11 Mar 2007 18:02:19 From: Claire Petersky Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling "greggery peccary" <dinkylittleoffice@bigswifty.com > wrote in message news:esvpmq$q5b$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu... > > "Just A User" <ken@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote in message > news:eJKdnc7fXre_c2_YnZ2dnUVZ_vjinZ2d@giganews.com... >> r15757@aol.com wrote: >>> The only significant MHLs for adults that I know of are >>> King County, Washington (Seattle metro) and Dallas. >>> Fair reason for a cyclist to avoid moving to those areas, imo, To me, this would be a bizzare reason not to move to some place, but to each his own. >>> even though Seattle is otherwise a sort of Disneyland >>> for cyclists, with some of the more considerate drivers >>> to be found in the US. >> Yeah thats what my quick research seemed to indicate. Bellevue WA is on >> my list of cities I am considering. Downtown Bellevue is not bicycle-friendly, but the rest of the city is OK. > i think the seattle area is great for cyclists and will be even more so in > the future because the cars cant move. there are way too many of them for > an area hemmed in by water and political gridlock. but be informed except > for the climate, Bellevue (east side) is not seattle, in fact culturally > it's more like Scottsdale, AZ or Ft Lauderdale, FL. Bellevue's the 'burbs, but more diverse than say, Sammamish. -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky           Date: 20 Mar 2007 02:15:44 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <9l7vv292n2tsqko2sb7glke8kc6hnpvq48@4ax.com >, jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: > On Mon, 19 2007 22:08:18 -0800, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) > wrote: > >> >>I nevertheless question the guessing that increased >>helmet use and MHLs results in decreased ridership. >> > > It's not "guessing"; it's been measured. You've been measured, too. You're a little short. Between you 'n me, a little screechy, too. -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca           Date: 19 Mar 2007 05:39:39 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Warning! WMB* was Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 19, 4:48 am, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On 18 2007 21:36:07 -0700, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > >For some, thinking is boring, and math is incomprehensible. They > >won't be able to learn. > > For some, math is impossible - even _with_ a calculator. How are things coming along with posting a link to the post wherein I "went on record" as being "pro-MHL", liar? Embarrassed? Or just an ass?           Date: 11 Mar 2007 18:54:47 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Claire Petersky <cpetersky@mouse-potato.com > wrote: > "greggery peccary" <dinkylittleoffice@bigswifty.com> wrote: >> "Just A User" <ken@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >>> r15757@aol.com wrote: > >>>> The only significant MHLs for adults that I know of are >>>> King County, Washington (Seattle metro) and Dallas. >>>> Fair reason for a cyclist to avoid moving to those areas, imo, > > To me, this would be a bizzare reason not to move to some place, but to each > his own. That was my thought. >>>> even though Seattle is otherwise a sort of Disneyland >>>> for cyclists, with some of the more considerate drivers >>>> to be found in the US. > >>> Yeah thats what my quick research seemed to indicate. Bellevue WA is on >>> my list of cities I am considering. > > Downtown Bellevue is not bicycle-friendly, but the rest of the city is OK. Eh, a lot of the rest of it does have that terrible superblock grid setup. Living near Crossroads, I grew to loathe it in pretty short order. Would it have killed them to make it possible for pedestrians and cyclists to cut through? -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org "I eat to ride, I ride to eat. At the best of moments, I can achieve a perfect balance, consuming just the right amount of calories as I fill up at bakeries, restaurants, or ice cream parlors. On the road, I can get about twelve miles to the quart of milk and a piece of baker's apple tart." -Daniel Behrman, The Man Who Loved Bicycles (1973)             Date: 12 Mar 2007 14:38:04 From: Claire Petersky Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu > wrote in message news:7goec4-mpd.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... > Eh, a lot of the rest of it does have that terrible superblock grid > setup. Living near Crossroads, I grew to loathe it in pretty short > order. Would it have killed them to make it possible for pedestrians > and cyclists to cut through? Mid-60s - mid-70s development. Was there anything more auto-centric? -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky               Date: 12 Mar 2007 15:53:48 From: Matt O'Toole Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Mon, 12 2007 14:38:04 +0000, Claire Petersky wrote: > "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message > news:7goec4-mpd.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... >> Eh, a lot of the rest of it does have that terrible superblock grid >> setup. Living near Crossroads, I grew to loathe it in pretty short >> order. Would it have killed them to make it possible for pedestrians >> and cyclists to cut through? > Mid-60s - mid-70s development. Was there anything more auto-centric? 2000s development in the Southeast, consisting of individual, unconnected pods branching off arterial roads with narrow lanes, no shoulders, and 50mph-plus traffic. Even superblocks would be preferable. Huntington Beach, CA, is all superblocks, but the main streets all have 14' lanes with 4' bike lanes in addition. While it's ugly and boring, it is bikeable. For those in the PNW, Huntington Beach looks a lot like Richmond, BC. Matt O.                 Date: 12 Mar 2007 23:03:14 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Mon, 12 2007 15:53:48 -0400, Matt O'Toole <mattotoole@letterboxes.org > wrote: >On Mon, 12 2007 14:38:04 +0000, Claire Petersky wrote: > >> "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message >> news:7goec4-mpd.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... > >>> Eh, a lot of the rest of it does have that terrible superblock grid >>> setup. Living near Crossroads, I grew to loathe it in pretty short >>> order. Would it have killed them to make it possible for pedestrians >>> and cyclists to cut through? > >> Mid-60s - mid-70s development. Was there anything more auto-centric? > >2000s development in the Southeast, consisting of individual, unconnected >pods branching off arterial roads with narrow lanes, no shoulders, and >50mph-plus traffic. Even superblocks would be preferable. > >Huntington Beach, CA, is all superblocks, but the main streets all >have 14' lanes with 4' bike lanes in addition. While it's ugly and >boring, it is bikeable. For those in the PNW, Huntington Beach looks a >lot like Richmond, BC. > >Matt O. Good god. Richmond was and is the most boring place to cycle north of the 49th parallel. Dead flat, and there were only two or three (can't remember) curved sections of road, if you don't count the highways.                   Date: 13 Mar 2007 03:34:55 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <j0nbv2pr7m3o3c5hv4v2jaloddsu8p4s1g@4ax.com >, jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On Mon, 12 2007 15:53:48 -0400, Matt O'Toole > <mattotoole@letterboxes.org> wrote: > > >On Mon, 12 2007 14:38:04 +0000, Claire Petersky wrote: > > > >> "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message > >> news:7goec4-mpd.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... > > > >>> Eh, a lot of the rest of it does have that terrible superblock grid > >>> setup. Living near Crossroads, I grew to loathe it in pretty short > >>> order. Would it have killed them to make it possible for pedestrians > >>> and cyclists to cut through? > > > >> Mid-60s - mid-70s development. Was there anything more auto-centric? > > > >2000s development in the Southeast, consisting of individual, unconnected > >pods branching off arterial roads with narrow lanes, no shoulders, and > >50mph-plus traffic. Even superblocks would be preferable. > > > >Huntington Beach, CA, is all superblocks, but the main streets all > >have 14' lanes with 4' bike lanes in addition. While it's ugly and > >boring, it is bikeable. For those in the PNW, Huntington Beach looks a > >lot like Richmond, BC. > > > >Matt O. > > Good god. > > Richmond was and is the most boring place to cycle north of the 49th > parallel. Dead flat, and there were only two or three (can't > remember) curved sections of road, if you don't count the highways. If you can't enjoy the vistas in Richmond, where are you riding? Most club rides in Vancouver head through Richmond, because the roads are nearly ideal for large groups. You can ride along within view of the shoreline at numerous points around the island, and the western two thirds are largely agricultural, and look a little like rural Belgium much of the year (I always envision participating in some _kermis_ or other as I roll through the fields). How many cranberry fields are there in Huntington Beach? -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos               Date: 12 Mar 2007 10:45:36 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Claire Petersky <cpetersky@mouse-potato.com > wrote: > "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message > news:7goec4-mpd.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... > >> Eh, a lot of the rest of it does have that terrible superblock grid >> setup. Living near Crossroads, I grew to loathe it in pretty short >> order. Would it have killed them to make it possible for pedestrians >> and cyclists to cut through? > > Mid-60s - mid-70s development. Was there anything more auto-centric? Oh, I know you're right. 'King Car' certainly was the impetus for the way the area was built. I've certainly seen worse though. I'm not looking forward to my trip to Cincinnati this summer. Ick. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org handshaking protocol, n: A process employed by hostile hardware devices to initate a terse but civil dialogue, which, in turn, is characterized by occasional misunderstanding, sulking, and name-calling.   Date: 10 Mar 2007 05:26:21 From: Qui si parla Campagnolo Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 9, 7:06 pm, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On Fri, 09 2007 16:55:06 -0500, Just A User > > <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: > >I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is > >important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas > >west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for > >cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found > >that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about > >regular road riding? > > >Ken > > Arizona, California, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, > Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin > all have mandatory helmet laws in part or the whole of the state (so > does Alaska, but although that is "west of the Great Lakes" I presume > it was not under consideration). > > The above list may not include all states; MHL's are becoming more and > more popular with American governments, and there may have been more > passed since last time I checked. Might want to expand on this list. Most have ages attached, none that I know of are for adults, most for kids or kid passenegrs.     Date: 10 Mar 2007 08:35:17 From: Just A User Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote: > On 9, 7:06 pm, jtay...@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> On Fri, 09 2007 16:55:06 -0500, Just A User >> >> <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >>> I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is >>> important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas >>> west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for >>> cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found >>> that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about >>> regular road riding? >>> Ken >> Arizona, California, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, >> Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin >> all have mandatory helmet laws in part or the whole of the state (so >> does Alaska, but although that is "west of the Great Lakes" I presume >> it was not under consideration). >> >> The above list may not include all states; MHL's are becoming more and >> more popular with American governments, and there may have been more >> passed since last time I checked. > > Might want to expand on this list. Most have ages attached, none that > I know of are for adults, most for kids or kid passenegrs. > Yeah I did a really quick search and found a site that seems to indicate that most of the cycling helmet laws apply to those under 18, 16 or even lower in some places. I don't have much too worry about I am 34, but will probably avoid moving into an area that requires me to wear a head protection device. Ken   Date: 10 Mar 2007 02:07:26 From: Roger Zoul Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Just A User wrote: :: I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is :: important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in :: areas west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas :: for cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and :: found that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so :: how about regular road riding? :: :: Ken Why so far away? SC & NC are great places for cycling. As is GA.     Date: 10 Mar 2007 07:12:08 From: Just A User Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Roger Zoul wrote: > Just A User wrote: > :: I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is > :: important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in > :: areas west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas > :: for cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and > :: found that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so > :: how about regular road riding? > :: > :: Ken > > Why so far away? SC & NC are great places for cycling. As is GA. > > Well I am moving to get away from the over crowded feeling of the east coast and to get away from the excessive humidity that is here in Florida and a certain mold spore that is more prevelent in the southeast. Ken       Date: 10 Mar 2007 21:12:42 From: greggery peccary Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling "Just A User" <ken@up-yours-spammer.net > wrote in message news:sr2dnUbqGskGPW_YnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@giganews.com... > Roger Zoul wrote: >> Just A User wrote: >> :: I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is >> :: important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in >> :: areas west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas >> :: for cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and >> :: found that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so >> :: how about regular road riding? >> :: >> :: Ken >> >> Why so far away? SC & NC are great places for cycling. As is GA. > Well I am moving to get away from the over crowded feeling of the east > coast and to get away from the excessive humidity that is here in Florida > and a certain mold spore that is more prevelent in the southeast. > > Ken if you wanna get away from mold, i would count the NW out.   Date: 10 Mar 2007 02:06:25 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Fri, 09 2007 16:55:06 -0500, Just A User <ken@up-yours-spammer.net > wrote: >I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is >important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas >west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for >cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found >that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about >regular road riding? > >Ken Arizona, California, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin all have mandatory helmet laws in part or the whole of the state (so does Alaska, but although that is "west of the Great Lakes" I presume it was not under consideration). The above list may not include all states; MHL's are becoming more and more popular with American governments, and there may have been more passed since last time I checked.     Date: 10 Mar 2007 10:42:27 From: Pat Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling > > Arizona, California, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, > Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin > all have mandatory helmet laws in part or the whole of the state (so > does Alaska, but although that is "west of the Great Lakes" I presume > it was not under consideration). > > The above list may not include all states; MHL's are becoming more and > more popular with American governments, and there may have been more > passed since last time I checked. I wasn't aware Texas had a mandatory helmet law FOR ADULTS. That's the important part. Besides, cops in Texas don't enforce ANY bicycle laws so why should they all of a sudden start enforcing a helmet law? Pat in TX       Date: 11 Mar 2007 12:35:39 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Sat, 10 2007 10:42:27 -0600, "Pat" <Pat@faraway.com > wrote: > >> >> Arizona, California, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, >> Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin >> all have mandatory helmet laws in part or the whole of the state (so >> does Alaska, but although that is "west of the Great Lakes" I presume >> it was not under consideration). >> >> The above list may not include all states; MHL's are becoming more and >> more popular with American governments, and there may have been more >> passed since last time I checked. > >I wasn't aware Texas had a mandatory helmet law FOR ADULTS. It doesn't. Yet.     Date: 10 Mar 2007 15:21:54 From: Cathy Kearns Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling <jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com > wrote in message news:cg44v2p7mjv5ieddvqtuh0rkeciolfteeb@4ax.com... > On Fri, 09 2007 16:55:06 -0500, Just A User > <ken@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: > >>I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is >>important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas >>west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for >>cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found >>that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about >>regular road riding? >> >>Ken > > Arizona, California, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, > Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin > all have mandatory helmet laws in part or the whole of the state (so > does Alaska, but although that is "west of the Great Lakes" I presume > it was not under consideration). Which part of California has MHL for adults? I know it's not the SF bay area.     Date: 10 Mar 2007 07:14:26 From: Just A User Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On Fri, 09 2007 16:55:06 -0500, Just A User > <ken@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: > >> I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is >> important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas >> west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for >> cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found >> that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about >> regular road riding? >> >> Ken > > Arizona, California, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, > Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin > all have mandatory helmet laws in part or the whole of the state (so > does Alaska, but although that is "west of the Great Lakes" I presume > it was not under consideration). > > The above list may not include all states; MHL's are becoming more and > more popular with American governments, and there may have been more > passed since last time I checked. Thats an interesting point one that I had not even thought of, here in Florida, there is no such law, that I know of anyway. Ken       Date: 20 Mar 2007 09:56:23 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 20, 1:19 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: [snip] > Seattle suffers immensely from car traffic congestion. > I mean, just look at this: > http://www.answers.com/topic/traffic-congestion-map > > Seattle /could/ be a Bicycle Utopia, if only they > could just get rid of their Car Hades. > > I submit Seattle's cycling ridership would be increased > more by increased accessibility, than by repealment of > their MHL. I think Seattle is just a hard place to ride > around in, unless you really know your way around. [snip for propaganda purposes] Dear Tom, I submit that Seattle's cycling ridership would be increased more by moving south to California, where the light and weather are better. I'm not sure that "increased accessibility" would bring out hordes of Seattle riders in rain capes, eager to test their lighting systems. :) That traffic map is for 5:30pm, rush hour on 20 December 2005: http://www.answers.com/topic/seattle-traffic-map-heavy-gif Sunrise in Seattle that day was at 7:53am. Sunset was at 4:20pm. It was raining. http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KBFI/2005/12/20/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA For those curious about the missing scale, King County streets are laid out on a numbered grid, with about ten blocks to the mile. Thus my friend who lives on 190th Avenue in Issaquah on the lower right of the map is about 19 miles east of downtown Seattle on the left. (Microsoft is in the upper right at Redmond.) To be fair, Seattle has nice weather and long days in summer. But traffic will always be a mess if you build a large city in a tangle of lakes and bays. Cheers, Carl Fogel       Date: 20 Mar 2007 08:04:40 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Tom Keats wrote: > Seattle suffers immensely from car traffic congestion. > I mean, just look at this: > http://www.answers.com/topic/traffic-congestion-map > > Seattle /could/ be a Bicycle Utopia, if only they > could just get rid of their Car Hades. > > I submit Seattle's cycling ridership would be increased > more by increased accessibility, than by repealment of > their MHL. I think Seattle is just a hard place to ride > around in, unless you really know your way around. I didn't find it very difficult to navigate around Seattle on a bike. I mean, it's a confusing city geographically, but that's another matter. With all that water to deal with there are some pinch points. Congestion is considerable but not a real impediment to cycling in a city with lots of useful bike routes, bike lanes, wol's, and other access, not to mention some of the most considerate drivers to be found in the lower 48. The main MUP used by transportational cyclists in Seattle could use some improvement; it's a fairly rough asphalt surface, and crosses a load of driveways and intersections. There are a few laughable bike lanes but for the most part they do a good job with bike lanes there. New bike lanes in Seattle and Denver have been placed out of door zones in their entirety, for instance. Note when I talk about casual transportational cycling I am not talking about 'serious commuters' but short trips to the store, bar, coffeeshop, concerts, etc. And some people may not care about this at all, but the low-income population in Seattle does not use bicycles the way they are used in many other cities, all of which must contribute significantly to traffic congestion. Robert > I retain the rest of your post unedited, for contextual and > honesty purposes (unlike certain propagandist idea-logs.) > > > cheers, > Tom > > > > Totally different worlds. Compared to almost > > everywhere in the US for that matter. > > That .7% is surprisingly low -- I would've > > guessed at least twice that, closer to > > other top US cycling cities. > > > > Robert > > > > -- > Nothing is safe from me. > Above address is just a spam midden. > I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca       Date: 20 Mar 2007 07:44:56 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Tom Keats wrote: > In article <1174369456.248572.76540@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > r15757@aol.com writes: > > Tom Keats wrote: > > > >> Why are cyclists so often our own worst enemies? > > > > How could one cyclist say to another "see you > > at harborview (i might even get to see neurosurg > > do a crani on you!)" if they had ever had any > > real experience with such horror as that? > > I (semi-)recall my first & last serious incident. > It was like being born with some understanding of > the English language. There were a number of fades > in-&-out of consciousness. Going through the MRI > with that ka-CHUNK! ka-CHUNK! noise getting closer > and closer felt like I was gonna be lopped up into > sausages or something. I think that time I just > fainted from the freakiness of the experience. > > I also recall being rushed down the hospital corridors > on a gurney and coming-to enough to look up at the ceiling > lights rushing by, reminding me of PF's "The Wall", of which > I made mention. > > The first time I woke up, there was a cop asking me a bunch > of questions to which I answered: "I can't remember. Where's > my bike?" I made careful note that he replied that it was > safely stowed in the impound lot, ready for claiming and > pick-up. I'm still riding that hit-head-on frame, but I > had to swap out the fork. Eleven stitches and a sleepless > night later, I retrieved my stalwart steed. > > It all happened during a late January night, coming home from > the GF's place. Wee hours, rain turning to snow, me noticing > the wiring had somehow popped out of my headlight just before > everything went blank. > > I must've lain in a puddle for a long while before I got > scooped up by the ERT (even though I was practically right > in front of their ambulance/fire hall.) When the hospital > let me go in the morning, they gave me back a doggy-bag of > my swampy, bilaterally dissected clothing, including my > reflective vest. Some custodian with a German accent and > a highly reproachful tone begrudgingly gave me a pair of > pants to go home in. I later turned those navy blue gabardines > into a pair of cycling cutoffs, but eventually wore holes > in the ass end of them. > > I was involved in a head-on collision with a car, I was > dutifully wearing a helmet, and I got torpedo-launched > over the handlebar, into a windshield. As I admittedly > vaguely recall it, I was waiting for a break to cross > a certain, local, problematic intersection, and got > rammed-into by a corner-cutting, left-turning driver while > I was dutifully leaving space to my right for upcoming > right-turners. > > In retrospect, the street I was on was really too narrow > to do that. > > Apparently I got that windshield real good. > > Getting clobbered sucks, and nobody should have to endure it. Left turners are the worst. It is like being attacked by a fire breathing dragon when they come down on you like that, or being scooped up in the talons of a giant pteradactyl. In a shocking instant the realization of the inequality of the cyclist's situation hits, the powerlessness, the ease at which one could be snuffed out, with just a moment of distraction or a flick of the wheel from a driver. Glad you are still with us. Sounds like it could have gone either way. Robert       Date: 10 Mar 2007 12:41:41 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Sat, 10 2007 07:14:26 -0500, Just A User <ken@up-yours-spammer.net > wrote: >jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >> On Fri, 09 2007 16:55:06 -0500, Just A User >> <ken@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >> >>> I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is >>> important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas >>> west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for >>> cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found >>> that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about >>> regular road riding? >>> >>> Ken >> >> Arizona, California, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, >> Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin >> all have mandatory helmet laws in part or the whole of the state (so >> does Alaska, but although that is "west of the Great Lakes" I presume >> it was not under consideration). >> >> The above list may not include all states; MHL's are becoming more and >> more popular with American governments, and there may have been more >> passed since last time I checked. >Thats an interesting point one that I had not even thought of, here in >Florida, there is no such law, that I know of anyway. > Something in excess of three million residents of Florida must by law wear a helmet if they choose to cycle. Florida passed an under-16 state-wide MHL in 1997; currently it allows counties to opt out, and some (3) did so, but reports are that they have all now rescinded.         Date: 12 Mar 2007 20:29:44 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <j0nbv2pr7m3o3c5hv4v2jaloddsu8p4s1g@4ax.com >, jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com writes: >>Huntington Beach, CA, is all superblocks, but the main streets all >>have 14' lanes with 4' bike lanes in addition. While it's ugly and >>boring, it is bikeable. For those in the PNW, Huntington Beach looks a >>lot like Richmond, BC. >> >>Matt O. > > Good god. > > Richmond was and is the most boring place to cycle north of the 49th > parallel. Dead flat, and there were only two or three (can't > remember) curved sections of road, if you don't count the highways. Richmond (BC), on the Fraser River delta's Lulu Island, really needs a velodrome. If you know the right people you can score some good, fresh fish and shrimp right off the boat, down in Steveston. There used to be some good 2nd-hand stores there, but since the place has been gentrified, the old rag-&-bone shops have graduated to being "antique" shops. They're still fun for window-shopping and looking at stuff. There are some nice U-pick berry farms in east Richmond. Of course anyone with tastebuds would prefer upland, wild blueberries and red huckleberries to those water-fattened domestic versions grown in Richmond. But Lulu Island strawberries and raspberries are good enough to provide a destination for a cycling excursion on a summer weekend. It's the nearest place to me where I can experience anything resembling a big sky on a sunny day -- the kind of big sky where you take a deep breath and suddenly realize you've been living with your shoulders all scrunched up all week from being hemmed in on all sides by hills, mountains, trees, traffic and buildings. A place that looks desolate or uninteresting at first blush can still harbour interesting, secret, easily overlooked little nooks & crannies. I derive much more pleasure from seeking out and exploring such places than from straightforward, relentless out-&-back rides. If you want serious terrain, the North Shore and the Western Cordillera mountain range is just a hop, skip and a jump away. But if ya don't feel like poundin', a flatland cruise can hit the spot. There are some good thinkin' spots down along the South Arm. Richmond just contributes to our local diversity of cycling environments. Southwest Richmond (north of Steveston) is the place to avoid. That's all cookie-cutter townhouse developments and labyrinthine, sidewalk-less, Cul-de-Sac Hell. But Richmond isn't /all/ like that, nor is it all like No. 3 Road or Bridgeport Road. Yet. Maybe Huntington Beach has a good fish 'n chips joint that nobody knows about. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca         Date: 10 Mar 2007 08:32:26 From: Just A User Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: > On Sat, 10 2007 07:14:26 -0500, Just A User > <ken@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: > >> jtaylor@NOSPAM.hfx.andara.com wrote: >>> On Fri, 09 2007 16:55:06 -0500, Just A User >>> <ken@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >>> >>>> I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is >>>> important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas >>>> west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for >>>> cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found >>>> that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about >>>> regular road riding? >>>> >>>> Ken >>> Arizona, California, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, >>> Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin >>> all have mandatory helmet laws in part or the whole of the state (so >>> does Alaska, but although that is "west of the Great Lakes" I presume >>> it was not under consideration). >>> >>> The above list may not include all states; MHL's are becoming more and >>> more popular with American governments, and there may have been more >>> passed since last time I checked. >> Thats an interesting point one that I had not even thought of, here in >> Florida, there is no such law, that I know of anyway. >> > > Something in excess of three million residents of Florida must by law > wear a helmet if they choose to cycle. > > Florida passed an under-16 state-wide MHL in 1997; currently it allows > counties to opt out, and some (3) did so, but reports are that they > have all now rescinded. > Yeah but that law is for those under 16 years of age, I am in my 30's. Ken           Date: 26 Mar 2007 22:35:31 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling In article <1174970455.702006.7930@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >, frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > On 27, 1:35 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >> In article <NXENh.17669$Jl.7...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >> "Claire Petersky" <cpeter...@mouse-potato.com> writes: >> >> >> Seattle rates a recent (early 2000's) 0.7% modal share of >> >> bicycle working trips, >> >> > The 2000 U.S. Census found 1.8 percent of adults in Seattle commute by >> > bicycle. >> >> Well anyway, it's good to know that Seattle cycle-commuters >> aren't giving up in droves because of any MHL.... > > Or rather, that even if they already did, there are enough others to > produce the 1.8% figure. > > Now, without the MHL, would it be more like 2.4%? Beats 0.5% Tucson's 2.2% sounds pretty good, doesn't it? I don't believe Seattle endures as much rain or snow as Tucson. And Seattle ain't exactly a flat ironing board. > Remember, worldwide, the places with the most cyclists have the fewest > MHLs, and vice versa. Not always. > Is there a cause & effect relationship? That's a good question, because there are so many other things to take into consideration. For example, how many of those places you tout as having more riders/ less MHL also have <gasp > cycling infrastructure? Maybe it's not /always/ or /simply/ about helmets? But okay. Don't move to Seattle. 1.8% is a pretty crummy modal share. More Captain Ivar's seafood for those who dare to habituate, visit or linger. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca             Date: 27 Mar 2007 14:18:44 From: Claire Petersky Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:jvdaue.ot11.ln@bud.garden.local... > In article <1174970455.702006.7930@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > frkrygow@gmail.com writes: >> On 27, 1:35 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >>> In article <NXENh.17669$Jl.7...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >>> "Claire Petersky" <cpeter...@mouse-potato.com> writes: >>> >>> >> Seattle rates a recent (early 2000's) 0.7% modal share of >>> >> bicycle working trips, >>> >>> > The 2000 U.S. Census found 1.8 percent of adults in Seattle commute by >>> > bicycle. > Beats 0.5% Tucson's 2.2% sounds pretty good, doesn't it? > I don't believe Seattle endures as much rain or snow as > Tucson. And Seattle ain't exactly a flat ironing board. > because there are so many > other things to take into consideration. For example, > how many of those places you tout as having more riders/ > less MHL also have <gasp> cycling infrastructure? This is why I brought out the next post about the census tracts that have 10% of the entire state's bicycle commuters. While I was pedaling to work yesterday, I thought about it. These census tracts are more or less near the University, so that accounts for some of it. But the other factor may be that these census tracts are also near the Burke-Gilman, a non-motorway. About a month ago, I was riding on the BG after dark, and it was in the upper 30s and raining. The section I rode, from the U-Village mall to Montlake, is one of the more heavily used sections, but even so, I was really struck by the number of bikes coming the other way. People are not recreationally cycling when it's that cold and dark, in February. People were using the BG transportationally: balancing shopping bags on their handlebars, toting their briefcase or books in a messenger bag -- that sort of thing. Unlike some other rail-trails, the Burke Gilman goes to useful places: major employers like the University, Children's Hospital, and Adobe; to shopping destinations like U-Village; to transportation hubs (like me, that evening, pedaling to the Montlake Freeway Station); through many residential neighborhoods. I wonder to what extent the BG is a factor in people's decisions to ride to work. -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky               Date: 29 Mar 2007 15:24:17 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Claire Petersky <cpetersky@mouse-potato.com > wrote: > > Unlike some other rail-trails, the Burke Gilman goes to useful places: major > employers like the University, Children's Hospital, and Adobe; to shopping > destinations like U-Village; to transportation hubs (like me, that evening, > pedaling to the Montlake Freeway Station); through many residential > neighborhoods. I wonder to what extent the BG is a factor in people's > decisions to ride to work. I hadn't thought about it, but you are definitely right. The only problem is that it gets so crowded in the nicer months it's less pleasant for fast commuters to use it. C'est la vie. I wonder about how much of a factor it is in people's decisions to buy property. I know the fact that the 90 trail is two blocks away was a really large decision in my factor to buy my house. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org You know it's going to be a bad day when you want to put on the clothes you wore home from the party and there aren't any.             Date: 27 Mar 2007 07:42:14 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Mon, 26 2007 22:35:31 -0800, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >> Remember, worldwide, the places with the most cyclists have the fewest >> MHLs, and vice versa. > >Not always. Cite please...           Date: 26 Mar 2007 21:40:55 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On 27, 1:35 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > In article <NXENh.17669$Jl.7...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > "Claire Petersky" <cpeter...@mouse-potato.com> writes: > > >> Seattle rates a recent (early 2000's) 0.7% modal share of > >> bicycle working trips, > > > The 2000 U.S. Census found 1.8 percent of adults in Seattle commute by > > bicycle. > > Well anyway, it's good to know that Seattle cycle-commuters > aren't giving up in droves because of any MHL.... Or rather, that even if they already did, there are enough others to produce the 1.8% figure. Now, without the MHL, would it be more like 2.4%? Remember, worldwide, the places with the most cyclists have the fewest MHLs, and vice versa. Is there a cause & effect relationship? - Frank Krygowski   Date: 09 Mar 2007 21:05:02 From: David L. Johnson Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Just A User wrote: > I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is > important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas > west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for > cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found > that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about > regular road riding? Most if not all states west of the Great Lakes are pretty big, so a generalization about a whole state would be hard to make. Certainly there are great areas for riding in California, but that does not mean you will find that to be the case if you move to downtown LA. I have lived in the San Francisco Bay area, and I grew up in central California. I also did a stint in College Station, Texas, and Houston. Of those, clearly, the Bay area is the best riding. Houston is the worst. But I would suggest that Fresno is worse for riding than College Station (and both are pretty bad, especially in August). -- David L. Johnson "Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!" --Dickens,   Date: 09 Mar 2007 18:45:26 From: Matt O'Toole Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling On Fri, 09 2007 16:55:06 -0500, Just A User wrote: > I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is > important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas > west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for > cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found > that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about > regular road riding? This depends too much on what kinds of terrain, climate, and culture you like, and whether you prefer major metro areas or small towns. Which places are you considering already? It's hard to say which state is most bike-friendly in terms of state law and policy. A strong bike culture can override that somewhat. But when we (local bike advocates and officials) are looking for examples of best practices, "how they do it in Oregon" seems to come up a lot. Matt O.   Date: 09 Mar 2007 17:28:15 From: Pat Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling >I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is > important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas > west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for cycling, > I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found that some of > the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about regular road > riding? > > Ken Having ridden in North Texas for awhile, I think it has possibilities for you. There are lots of rides--and sponsored paid rides, too--in the area. There are large bicycling clubs in Fort Worth and Dallas. The winter weather is not so bad, although I didn't ride in much of January and February because I decided not to ride when the temps are below 40 degrees F. I think we got snow once this year. We get wind in the Spring and Fall, but maybe that is offset by the lack of a lot of big hills. We do have hills, but not like in Connecticut, for example. It seems as if we hardly have any rain, too. There are lots of little farm to ket type roads. Of course, what kind of work you do could be an important factor in your selection. Pat in TX     Date: 09 Mar 2007 18:33:46 From: Just A User Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Pat wrote: >> I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is >> important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas >> west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for cycling, >> I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found that some of >> the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about regular road >> riding? >> >> Ken > > Having ridden in North Texas for awhile, I think it has possibilities for > you. There are lots of rides--and sponsored paid rides, too--in the area. > There are large bicycling clubs in Fort Worth and Dallas. The winter weather > is not so bad, although I didn't ride in much of January and February > because I decided not to ride when the temps are below 40 degrees F. I > think we got snow once this year. We get wind in the Spring and Fall, but > maybe that is offset by the lack of a lot of big hills. We do have hills, > but not like in Connecticut, for example. It seems as if we hardly have any > rain, too. There are lots of little farm to ket type roads. > > Of course, what kind of work you do could be an important factor in your > selection. > > Pat in TX > > Well I don't have any Texas cities on my list(yet). Ken   Date: 09 Mar 2007 22:21:09 From: Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling Just A User <ken@up-yours-spammer.net > wrote: > I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is > important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas > west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for > cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found > that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about > regular road riding? I've only ridden in a handful of states, but I'll venture a comment that it isn't just the roads and drivers that make a place pleasant to ride in, but also the climate. Interpret that as you wish; to me it means I'll never move where the winters are too long, or where it's humid. Bill --------------------------------------------     Date: 09 Mar 2007 17:56:17 From: Just A User Subject: Re: Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling D_Frumious_B@ndersnat.ch wrote: > Just A User <ken@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >> I am giving very serious consideration to re-locating and this is >> important to me. So the questions is for those that have lived in areas >> west of the Great Lakes, which states provide the best areas for >> cycling, I have already checked on the rails to trails site and found >> that some of the areas I am considering have local trails, so how about >> regular road riding? > > I've only ridden in a handful of states, but I'll venture a comment > that it isn't just the roads and drivers that make a place pleasant to > ride in, but also the climate. Interpret that as you wish; to me it means > I'll never move where the winters are too long, or where it's humid. > > > Bill > Well I don't know about riding in the winter, but I know about humidity from living here in Florida. And less humidity is a very important consideration for me. Ken > > -------------------------------------------- >