Cyclists Against Carlos Bertonatti
1.0.0 Normal Grey Cockatiel (Hikaru)
0.0.1 2005 Specialized Hardrock MTB
0.0.2 Albino Cory Cats
0.0.? Ghost Shrimp
0.0.3 Neon Tetras
1.0.0 Red Betta
2.10.0 Swordtail (fry)
0.0.1 G. rosea (Kirk)
0.0.1 A. avicularia (Pinkie)
0.1.0 Orange Tabby Cat (Little One)
0.0.1 2009 Giant Seek 2
Live Long and Prosper
The fish are spread out between several tanks.
Thanks for all the replys, but "Where's the Beef?" I thank prathman for setting me on to this a while back, and still nobody's delivered. I think the helmet requirement by bike clubs has done more harm than good. That's not saying that helmets don't usually work as designed, in the rare event that one makes a real difference, and many should probably be wearing them, but this "everybody, everywhere and always" is just plain WRONG.
A few laws get passed by left wing members of the PC idiocracy and lawyers start warping what can be considered "normal, reasonable precaution". Right. Then comes the fourth grade demonstration of gravity with a watermellon in front of all the Oprah watching Soccer Moms with no knowledge of or interest in statistics, much less risk analysis.
This "insurance requirement" excuse seems to be a meme. The rug under which bike clubs sweep their broken arguments for the need of helmets on "everybody, everywhere and always".
Any club will have some hammerheads who are primarily interested in speed and fancy equipment. But we also have lots of folks more interested in the social benefits of riding in groups, and in encouraging cycling in general. I've led rides that included a lady riding with a little dog in the front basket of her beach cruiser. The beach cruiser riders usually don't ride as far as those with more efficient bikes (there are exceptions) but we still want them to have fun and provide them full support.
Bruce Rosar used to ride with a toy animal-shaped squeeze horn on his handlebars, which he used to entertain cyclists and bystanders. On his memorial ride, we had lots of people riding with toy squeeze horns added to their bikes. It was sort of the opposite of a Ride of Silence. My squeeze horn is shaped like a dragon.
The same BS insurance requirement, and 'safety', are the cited reasons so many places with drive-up windows refuse to serve cyclists. Tired and lame then, and now.
When nearly EVERY bicycle sold comes with an owner's manual that has the required disclaimer that "bicycling is an inherently risky behavior", or words to that effect, you have to go some to prove ANY culpability on the part of a club, IMO. (I know, it's been done; but that's less a fact of reality than it is of legalistic interpretation.)
That said, you also have the personal freedom, as an adult, not to wear some accessory that has a LOT of indication of being a benefit. And if you choose not to do so, fall, and hurt your leg, well, it wouldn't have done you a bit of good. But if you choose not to do so, fall, and crack your skull on a curb, Y THE F SHOULD I AND MY FELLOW CITIZENS PAY YOUR MEDICAL BILLS, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY?
I am ALL FOR personal choice; I am also ALL FOR personal responsibility, something sadly lacking in society today.
Let's save the completely ridiculous argument of "Y THE F SHOULD I AND MY FELLOW CITIZENS PAY YOUR MEDICAL BILLS, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY?" for another thread, OK?
THIS thread is about the equally ridiculous excuse "Right - but this is purely a safety and liability concern". So Sqqoodri, ask at your club for a copy of their insurance policy and share with us the clause that shows their requirement for helmets.
Bicycling is a very safe thing to do. Always has been and is now. Helmets are unnecessary for the vast, vast majority of casual cyclists.
Helmets were first pushed in the late '70s as baby boomer Soccer moms hit the bike clubs with their kiddies in tow. "Pleeeeeeeeease, we have to protect the children" with doey-eyed skeptacism for the dangerous mechanical thing on the road with those big noisy cars. Then it was "Oh, can't you just wear it to make a good impression", meaning "I don't want to explain the difference between adults and kids to my kids, who must be my friends". Now, it's "safety and liability" pushed by politically correct peer pressure and lies.
This one came from the left. That doesn't mean those on the equally extreme right aren't equally malicious and wrong.
I'd say it's just as likely from the idiots on the right who would like to make cycling appear dangerous and impractical so they can continue to flaunt their hegemony of the roads in their stupid SUVs, pickups and trophy cars.
Last edited by randya; 09-22-09 at 12:40 AM.
I put up a chronology and you respond with a grand conspiracy theory. Can you add something on topic, or are you limited to smirking insults from the cheap seats just like Mr. Beck?
Can you show us a bike club insurance policy requiring helmets?
They typically did not wear helents, when they were forced to they brought whatever gear they had laying around that morning. Buying a $30 helmet in advance is not typically part of the fun.
My guess is many people do sneak in and attempt to blend in with the crowd, they are unnoticed.
2000 Montague CX, I do not recommend it, but still ride it.
Strida 3, I recommend it for rides < 10mi wo steep hills.
2006 Rowbike 720 Sport, I recommend it as an exercise bike.
1996 Birdy, Recommend.
Wieleder CARiBIKE (folding), decent frame.
http://www.thepelotonproject.com/ We are currently developing content for the site, including a best practices guide, and will be working with local law enforcement to help them prioritize safety education, encouragement, and enfocement activities to do the best good and promote good relations with cyclists. We are getting endorsements from virtually all the respected group ride leaders.
Last edited by sggoodri; 09-22-09 at 06:56 AM.
BTW, I am not surprised that the most competitive "serious" road cyclists across multiple clubs and groups display the worst behavior. Maybe they believe their helmet wear neutralizes their incompetent cycling.
The bad side of that is lawyers have gotten their noses into inherently dangerous sports that should be "at your own risk" like dirt jumping BMX, skate parks etc., creating a market for expensive insurance that often makes a profitable business model impossible to create.
I remember an article in a Louisiana newspaper about a fellow who dove from a pier located in the Bonnet Carre Spillway owned by the US Government just up river from New Orleans. The water was shallow and the man got badly hurt. A neck injury I think. He sued and was awarded $500,000 because there were no signs warning him of the shallow water! Private land owners are subject to lawsuits too if people wander onto their property and hurt themselves. So the vacant lot that my little friends and I turned into a cyclecross track back in the 1970s was posted and off limits, even though the owner of the land didn't give two hoots if we used it. Some kid broke his arm, his parents sued - and won - no more cyclecross.
People in the USofA really suck. So in Paris, if you CHOOSE to ride your bike on a club ride and crash on a slippery manhole cover or cross someone's wheel in the dark of night within the reasonable scope of normal activity, it's YOUR problem. If you sneak into an industrial park with your skateboard, grind some handrails and break your neck - YOUR problem. It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. We don't have that here in the US, unless like myself, we impose it upon ourselves i.e., if I hurt myself on your property jumping ramps on my skateboard and broke my @55, my parents would not sue you, and I as an adult would not even dream of suing you unless you purposely set a trap to hurt me.
"For all we know his skills may be excellent, allowing him to ride like an idiot without actually being one." - FBinNY
You won't have to pay any extra taxes for all the medical care that would require, I'm quite sure.
People are stupid. And no, I'm not talking about people that ride without helmets.
[QUOTE=randya;9716136]If I had been hit on my bike in Paris I would've gotten some of that free public health care.
Great thought, Randy. Our go-it-on-your-own economic and social system make lawsuits an unfortunate necessity of survival for many injured people. Want fewer lawsuits? Then stop thinking of welfare and socialized medicine as bad things.
If you want to decrease frivilous lawsuits, like when bicyclists who crash because of stupid riding decisions and sue a driver or club instead of taking personal responsibility, then make it "loser pays".
Temporary social assistance is a good thing, generational welfare is a terrible thing.
Again, where's the insurance policy?
The LAB basic club insurance coverage premium is less than $1.50 per member per year. Sure it'd be nice if we didn't need it at all, but it's hardly a major burden for our club or most others. Given this annual premium it seems that there aren't all that many lawsuits brought against bike clubs - which is as it should be.
It's quite possible that the the "pains in the asses" constituted a small percentage of people who snuck in. I doubt that you have any real data to be able to tell much about the population.
It's interesting that the insurance policies appear not to require helmets. It might even be that it is basically unreasonable/unnecessary for clubs to require them.
Last edited by njkayaker; 09-22-09 at 01:12 PM.
Þæs ofereode, ðisses swa mæg. ("That passed away, this also can.")
from Deor, in the Exeter Book (folios 100r-100v)