Advocacy & Safety - I wonder why...

Saw this story on CBC.ca about kids failing to pass the fitness grade.

Young Canadians get failing fitness grade (http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/04/27/physical-activity-children.html)

I think the accompanying photo gives a big clue as to why this is.

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/topstories/2010/01/10/tp-bike-helmet-cp-2830308.jpg

I think so many "safety advocates" seek out risks in so many things that are beneficial in spite of it's "risks" that they are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I've linked this before (in another thread) but it bears repeating here.

Cycling may not be a panacea for the ills of modern society but it addresses a huge number of them; health, obesity, pollution, congestion, global warming, noise, danger and social exclusion to name only the most obvious, and many of these are the subject of Government policy...

In health terms, one researcher has said that, if the benefits of cycling could be bottled, it would be the most popular drug in the world. (http://www.transportxtra.com/magazines/local_transport_today/news/?id=14073)

Sadly, some of cyclings "safety advocates" promote cycling as to be so dangerous and harmful that to ride without a helmet is to risk ones well being.

Perhaps if the risks of being afraid of what may happen while cycling were placed in context, our kids would not receive such a failing grade in fitness. A state that will no doubt have to be compensated for by those who choose to look at risks in context, deal with them in a responsible fashion, and to ride a bicycle in order to be fit.

Kids are not fit because they are spending the majority of their time sitting indoors watching TV, playing video games, and text messaging one another. It has nothing to do with helmets. Kids have to wear helmets to play American football and that doesn't deter participation one bit. Mandatory seatbelt laws have not lowered the amount of drivers on the road either. The simple fact is that parents in general are not pushing their kids to participate in physical activities, nor are the kids showing much interest in pursuing them! Most of modern western society has turned into sedentary zombies shuffling around waiting to be entertained by others.

I have a daughter, 8 years old. She has 1-2 hours of homework every night. When I was a kid that was play time.

Our kids are fat because our priorities are warped.

... It has nothing to do with helmets...

I think it is the way in which cycling is promoted.

Copenhaganize shows a number of examples in which cycling is promoted better than it is elsewhere.

Hungarian Bike to work campaign (http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/02/hungarian-bike-to-work-campaign.html)


If there were a World Championship for Promoting Cycling Positively, the Hungarians would be the bookmakers favourites to win every time...

Showing cycling as normal and accepted. Highlighting community.

Kids are not fit because they are spending the majority of their time sitting indoors watching TV, playing video games, and text messaging one another.

And eating 1,800 calorie snacks, mostly fast food.


It has nothing to do with helmets. Kids have to wear helmets to play American football and that doesn't deter participation one bit.

Being tackled isn't part of cycling. I don't think that's a fair analogy. From the little I've read on the subject, bike ridership does go down when mandatory helmet laws are introduced. I could be wrong, though, or reading poor sources. Still, if every person in America had a bike and no helmet, I don't think that would do much for the obesity problem in children or adults. It'd help a little, but I think it would be a drop in the bucket if it were the only change.


Mandatory seatbelt laws have not lowered the amount of drivers on the road either.

To be fair, the question isn't the sheer number of motorists, but their percentage of the pie. Your point probably still stands ... I get pedantic over semantics. ;)


The simple fact is that parents in general are not pushing their kids to participate in physical activities, nor are the kids showing much interest in pursuing them! Most of modern western society has turned into sedentary zombies shuffling around waiting to be entertained by others.

Now I think this is the real problem. We learn to spend our time on pleasurable activities that are sedentary, and so we don't burn all the added calories we've become accustomed to. A century ago people didn't have iPhones with text plans to worry about, but they also didn't have high fructose corn syrup, fries-with-that, and cheap iced cream. In combination, all these goodies we have to make life easier, add up to some kind of monster running out of our control.

And like the problem has many heads, the answer will, too. Bikes are one prong of how to fix all this.

I think it is the way in which cycling is promoted.

Copenhaganize shows a number of examples in which cycling is promoted better than it is elsewhere.

Hungarian Bike to work campaign (http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/02/hungarian-bike-to-work-campaign.html)

I wish I had the money to either buy a bike there or get a folder before I left to live there... :(

Some areas looked like they'd be really neat to bike around...

(And yes, there are a freaking ton of cyclists there)

wow. what a stretch. helmets are now responsible for obesity. glad that's solved.:rolleyes:

normalize cycling. Throwing Canadian schoolchildren onto autocentric streets is no way to care for the kids!

change the way north america designs transportation infrastructure. TEMPO 30 zones, "greenwave" arterials, ample road space for bikes, preferably separated or at least huge. better enforcement and prosecution of dangerous road users, and much better vulnerable road user laws and liability would do a lot to drive cyclist participation and safety.

people could even still buy helmets if they wanted to wear them, heck!

wow. what a stretch. helmets are now responsible for obesity. glad that's solved.:rolleyes:

It's not just that. It's creating an unjustified fear of something that's good for us. Not looking at the big picture and making things worse.

normalize cycling.

There you go. Treat cyclists with the respect due to them (just like you would any other - you know - the golden rule)

Kids are not fit because they are spending the majority of their time sitting indoors watching TV, playing video games, and text messaging one another. It has nothing to do with helmets. Kids have to wear helmets to play American football and that doesn't deter participation one bit.
It's certainly not the only factor, but I do think it is a contributor. Looking at the school bike parking areas there was a substantial drop in usage right after helmets became mandatory in this state. And talking to a few area bike shop owners indicates that they saw a big decline in sales of kid's bikes right at the time that helmet legislation came in and there was lots of media coverage on the dangers of cycling.

As to football, I don't see that much participation in the tackle form of the game where helmets are required. Half the population doesn't participate to a significant extent at all, and even among boys it tends to be only those on organized sports teams. Most pick-up football is touch or flag where helmets aren't usually used. I know that my parents would have been opposed to my participation in tackle football and I never did - but I did sometimes play the flag version without a helmet.

If we consider helmets, it's not the helmets per se that scare kids away from bicycling, but it's the "helicopter parents" who think letting their kids walk 2 blocks to and from school is child abuse. I live right next to a school, and I know my neighborhood is relatively safe, but that doesn't stop parents from driving their cars 2 blocks over to pick their kids up. It is ridiculous.

That said, I do agree there is a subtext to helmet laws that may suggest to some people that there is risk in riding a bicycle. However, like mentioned above "normalizing cycling" would be the best way to advocate for bicycling... In all reality, it is probably just as dangerous if not more dangerous to ride in a car than it is to ride a bicycle, especially considering the amount of miles most people spend in a car -- just guessing they'd be much more likely to get seriously injured in a car wreck than seriously injured riding their bike (but that's just a guess on my part).

I do think that thinking too much about helmets is missing the big picture as it is probably a minor obstacle to getting more people out there. It's more likely that people are not biking simply because it doesn't fit into their worldview of happily being sedated by the opiates of modern "entertainment" and dreaming of the lottery dropping a million bucks in their laps... :)

It's not just that. It's creating an unjustified fear of something that's good for us. Not looking at the big picture and making things worse.


I'm struggling to take you seriously on this one.

It's amazing what a leap of logic you're making to draw this conclusion and expecting others to go with you. Back it up with one valid study that the use of safety equipment dissuades children from participation in sports. Has football been discouraged by requiring helmets and protective gear? Baseball due to hard shelled hats? Hockey due to helmets and kneepads? And maybe, maybe, I'd give this ridiculous notion a bit more consideration.

When my friends and I played football, baseball or hockey we never wore a helmet but school sponsored participation required protective gear. I never once heard a kid say that was the reason they wouldn't continue with the sport.

There you go. Treat cyclists with the respect due to them (just like you would any other - you know - the golden rule)

thats' not how communities normalize cycling ,brad. There's a host of societal interventions like vast improvements in transportation infrastructure and vulnerable user laws that are necessary elements in normalizing cycling.


Simplistically asking cyclists to be treated with 'respect' an the golden rule is really an incredibly paltry assessment of what its' going to take to normalize cycling in north american cities.

... but it's the "helicopter parents" who think letting their kids walk 2 blocks to and from school is child abuse. I live right next to a school, and I know my neighborhood is relatively safe, but that doesn't stop parents from driving their cars 2 blocks over to pick their kids up. It is ridiculous...
Last year my 7 year old and I decided she was old enough to walk home from the bus stop all by herself (2 very quiet suburban blocks). Mommy freaked out! She's just sure there's a kidnapper behind every bush.

I told her "if you don't think it's safe for her to walk 2 blocks in our own neighborhood, then we need to move." She agreed with the logic, but now Grandma meets her at the bus every day. Oh well. Next year there's no bus service and her school is 6 miles away with no safe route (none) for her to ride her bike. Looks like we'll be "helicopter parents" soon.

thats' not how communities normalize cycling ,brad. There's a host of societal interventions like vast improvements in transportation infrastructure and vulnerable user laws that are necessary elements in normalizing cycling.


Simplistically asking cyclists to be treated with 'respect' an the golden rule is really an incredibly paltry assessment of what its' going to take to normalize cycling in north american cities.

Yeah. American cities. Sheesh. And here I thought we were all people and that, do unto others as you would expect they should do unto you" was universal.

I'm sooo naive.

I'm struggling to take you seriously on this one.

It's amazing what a leap of logic you're making to draw this conclusion and expecting others to go with you. Back it up with one valid study that the use of safety equipment dissuades children from participation in sports. Has football been discouraged by requiring helmets and protective gear? Baseball due to hard shelled hats? Hockey due to helmets and kneepads? And maybe, maybe, I'd give this ridiculous notion a bit more consideration.

When my friends and I played football, baseball or hockey we never wore a helmet but school sponsored participation required protective gear. I never once heard a kid say that was the reason they wouldn't continue with the sport.

Hard not to laugh at this, but I'll try and take it that you just don't get it.

Yeah. American cities. Sheesh. And here I thought we were all people and that, do unto others as you would expect they should do unto you" was universal.

I'm sooo naive.

hey, a little introspection will do you good! what's with calling america out, you posted the picture of the mountie scaring a child.

please, is a little integrity amidst all the whatever point you are trying to make too much to ask?

hey, a little introspection will do you good! what's with calling america out, you posted the picture of the mountie scaring a child.

What I see is a mountie, as afraid as a child.

Back to different approaches to cycling promotion.

The Hungarian Cyclists Federation:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DA2e-vbyFY

the LA DOT:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXCF_RylneY

Hands up, how many people would rather hear this dialogue:

"The average car weighs 6000 lbs. The average bicycle with user weighs 210 lbs."

"A typical car travelling 35 mph has 220 times the momentum, or energy, than a bicycle travelling at 10 mph."

"The car has the capacity to kill any cyclist or pedestrian it hits. That's why the L.A. DoT is lowering the speed limits for cars, implementing traffic calming measures to benefit our pedestrians and cyclists as well as building safe, separated infrastructure for bicycle users."

"The car is an important part of our daily lives, but we're dedicated to drastically lowering the chances that a car will kill you as well as increasing fines for drivers who break the law."

"We're clamping down on motorists who don't Drive Right, Stop at the Light or Watch the Road".

Hands up... who's in? (http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/01/ignoring-bull-in-los-angeles-la-dot-psa.html)

Back to different approaches to cycling promotion.

The Hungarian Cyclists Federation:

the LA DOT:

Hands up... who's in?

Mine,

the Hungarian one is spot on, love it!

But I have to say that the LA DOT one serves a purpose too. Would be nice if it was balanced with one that you scripted, or alternatively something about driver awareness.

I am just putting two and two together....are you the quoted individual in the article in the other thread?

... I am just putting two and two together....are you the quoted individual in the article in the other thread?

yup.

Keep fighting, good luck.

Might not agree with all your positions and opinions, but this one I do.

Keep fighting, good luck.

Might not agree with all your positions and opinions, but this one I do.

Thanks. I'm just trying to keep things in perspective.


"We are the safest and healthiest human beings who ever lived, and yet irrational fear is growing, with deadly consequences — such as the 1,595 Americans killed when they made the mistake of switching from planes to cars after September 11. In part, this irrationality is caused by those — politicians, activists, and the media — who promote fear for their own gain."

Dan Gardner, Canadian author of "Risk"

I have a daughter, 8 years old. She has 1-2 hours of homework every night. When I was a kid that was play time.

Our kids are fat because our priorities are warped.

Education is a 'warped priority'? Don't you want your daughter to get into a good college, or to get a good job?

What I see is a mountie, as afraid as a child.

That's silly... Just because somebody wears a helmet or a seatbelt doesn't make them afraid of riding a bike or driving a car! By that logic, anybody who wears clothes is afraid of freezing to death... :rolleyes:

That's silly... Just because somebody wears a helmet or a seatbelt doesn't make them afraid of riding a bike or driving a car! By that logic, anybody who wears clothes is afraid of freezing to death... :rolleyes:

Well to be fair, I'm sure the mountie is required to wear the helmet and it's most likely the parents who are the ones fearful of their child receiving a head injury and placed the helmet on the child but, for one to be convinced it's important to wear a helmet at certain times rather than at those other times when one doesn't wear a helmet (such as, at any other time), one has to afraid of an elevated risk of head injury - over and above that of the other activities where he/she doesn't wear a helmet - to wear a helmet.

Wearing helmets is based on fear. In the case of cycling, most often, it is an unjustified fear.

Just a couple of other quotes that help keep fear in perspective:


"We're more afraid of shark attacks than heart attacks and statistically that's wrong.

The more awful the manner of death, the more likely we are to be afraid of it, but it leads us to make statistically riskier choices -- to drive instead of fly, to buy guns for personal protection, to take powerful antibiotics when we don't really need them.

The flip side of the phenomenon is the whole range of potentially fatal hazards we should be worried about but downplay, like the flu, medical errors, skin cancer and traffic accidents.




Virtually everything is risky and risks are almost always a matter of probabilities rather than certainties.

Risk management requires 2 things; a modicum of common sense and information about character and magnitude of the risks we may be running.

Unless someone can tell you what level of risk is associated with a given activity, then they have no business telling you it is risky to begin with.


some of us can make a good profit from exploiting fears. So, car makers would like you to believe to, buy that car and stay off that bike because you'll be "safer". But it isn't true.

Education is a 'warped priority'?

Education is good. The idea that more education = better education is flawed. When more education gets in the way of the joy of youth, then I believe it is a warped priority. The focus should be on better education while retaining a balanced lifestyle.. for kids that means playtime. It may be as simple as having separated classwork in elementary, so the kids that can excel are given the opportunity. Yes, the parent of C student Joe Smith might be upset by this. But maybe Joe is really destined for blue collar work and won't go onto college. There's no shame in that, it is still possible to have technical training and make a decent living doing blue collar work (although not a plentiful as it once was).

I can agree that barriers to entry can cause less kids to ride a bike and thus perhaps contribute to their obesity, but I think trying to make a direct connection between helmets and obesity is a stretch that would prevent serious discussion of the root issues - barriers to entry to physical activity.

But let's put things in perspective here too...I've been riding a bike since I was 4 years old...continuously, I'm not one of those people who quit riding when they got their driver's license then only rediscovered the joy of cycling in middle age. I'm also overweight, have been for at least a couple of decades. Just riding a bike does not prevent obesity.

hey closetbiker, if you can see the guy is a mountie, what in the heck are you doing complaining about america?

journalistic integrity takes a step back north of the border......

I can agree that barriers to entry can cause less kids to ride a bike and thus perhaps contribute to their obesity, but I think trying to make a direct connection between helmets and obesity is a stretch that would prevent serious discussion of the root issues - barriers to entry to physical activity.

But let's put things in perspective here too...I've been riding a bike since I was 4 years old...continuously, I'm not one of those people who quit riding when they got their driver's license then only rediscovered the joy of cycling in middle age. I'm also overweight, have been for at least a couple of decades. Just riding a bike does not prevent obesity.

As I've said a few times, it's not so much about helmets as it is about some people creating a sense of fear around something that is good for us. Exploiting fears that results in a net drop in health.

Helmets are one example, but there are others too. Parents not letting kids play because they are worried over an unlikely event, resulting an a condition that is likely to occur.

... journalistic integrity takes a step back north of the border......

Hey. Weren't you the one who said a magazine like Momentum had journalistic integrity?

you are not a magazine you are an writer good sir.

get off the high horse -


you're grousing about canadian bike safety campaigns, aren't you? cute pic of the mountie and all that?

ya, off to the tim hortons eh.

you are not a magazine you are an author good sir...

Yeah, but that magazine with integrity sought me out to write for them. What does that suggest?

Education is good. The idea that more education = better education is flawed. When more education gets in the way of the joy of youth, then I believe it is a warped priority. The focus should be on better education while retaining a balanced lifestyle.. for kids that means playtime. It may be as simple as having separated classwork in elementary, so the kids that can excel are given the opportunity. Yes, the parent of C student Joe Smith might be upset by this. But maybe Joe is really destined for blue collar work and won't go onto college. There's no shame in that, it is still possible to have technical training and make a decent living doing blue collar work (although not a plentiful as it once was).

I agree, children mature mentally and physically at different rates, and to now require a 10 year old to do the work that was an elective for a 17 to 18 year old 40 years ago is a definite set up for an early educational falter that could last a lifetime.

Yeah, but that magazine with integrity sought me out to write for them. What does that suggest?


it really suggests very little.

~but your petty conflation of canadan bike safety campaigns with america show an obvious lack of journalistic integrity as far as your commentary in THIS public media outlet is concerned.

:rolleyes:

nice pic though.

you're grousing about canadian bike safety campaigns, aren't you?

I'm complaining about fearful people for whom nothing is safe enough. These fearful people who form organizations and discourage active play though scare tactics to the detriment of youths health.

it really suggests very little, but your petty conflation of canada bike safety campaigns with america show an obvious lack of journalistic integrity as far as your posts to THIS public media outlet is concerned.

:rolleyes:

You're the best Bek. Just the best

:roflmao:

:yawn:

:yawn:

I guess you can do it in your sleep huh?

Another quote that applies from Roger Geffen of Britains, CTC:


The idea that it is somehow 'dangerous' and 'irresponsible' to cycle without a helmet is a total myth. It merely puts people off cycling and contributes to the increase in the level of obesity and other inactivity-related illnesses, which kill tens of thousands of people every year. If we are to encourage people to take up cycling – with all its benefits for our health, our streets, our environment and our wallets – then we need to promote it as a safe and enjoyable way to get around for day-to-day travel, wearing normal clothes.

Kind of echos Richard Burtons quote in the op:


In health terms, one researcher has said that, if the benefits of cycling could be bottled, it would be the most popular drug in the world.

It even echos Bek when he says:


normalize cycling

the LA DOT:



dont bring them up, they dont do anything.

Well to be fair, I'm sure the mountie is required to wear the helmet and it's most likely the parents who are the ones fearful of their child receiving a head injury and placed the helmet on the child but, for one to be convinced it's important to wear a helmet at certain times rather than at those other times when one doesn't wear a helmet (such as, at any other time), one has to afraid of an elevated risk of head injury - over and above that of the other activities where he/she doesn't wear a helmet - to wear a helmet.

Wearing helmets is based on fear. In the case of cycling, most often, it is an unjustified fear.

I know this is getting away from the original post about obesity, but to continue along the lines of "advocacy"...

So if I use a rear blinky, a rear reflector, or reflective clothing when I ride, then that is out of an unjustified fear and I am scaring people away from riding a bike? Because the odds that I will have a "user-error" accident crashing my bike are much higher than the odds I will get hit from behind, so really using a rear light is a matter of fear, isn't it...?

I don't believe people and kids do not ride bikes out of fear. They do not ride because modern western culture is fundamentally flawed and encourages laziness and sloth -- the easiest way with the least work and whatever you can get away with are the rule of the day. Even if "god" came out of the sky and told people they would never be injured riding a bike, I doubt it would raise ridership any substantial amount.

I agree with chipcom's post...

... to continue along the lines of "advocacy"...

... modern western culture is fundamentally flawed and encourages laziness and sloth -- the easiest way with the least work and whatever you can get away with are the rule of the day...

I believe modern western culture is based on economics and nothing sells like fear.

You can make lots of money by selling willing dupes stuff they don't need and stuff that may even harm them (as evidenced by little, lazy, round kids that are "safe and sound" inside, far away from some risks but closer to other risks).

I believe modern western culture is based on economics and nothing sells like fear...

well, I ain't afraid of no picture of a Canadian Mountie talking to a little kid on a bicycle and both of them are wearing bike helmets. Doesn't scare me one bit- no matter how much you tell me it should!:p

But the controversy you generate with all your fear mongering about how bike helmets are the death of bicycling could certainly sell a magazine.

You've got more than 7000 posts on bike forums and about 90% of them are fear based accounts of how helmets will create a false sense of safety, cause people to stop bicycling, have the government breathing down our necks, make children fat, break our necks, make our craniums swell like melons in the event of a collision, make drivers pass us more closely and on and on and on and on...:rolleyes:

I know this is getting away from the original post about obesity, but to continue along the lines of "advocacy"...

So if I use a rear blinky, a rear reflector, or reflective clothing when I ride, then that is out of an unjustified fear and I am scaring people away from riding a bike? Because the odds that I will have a "user-error" accident crashing my bike are much higher than the odds I will get hit from behind, so really using a rear light is a matter of fear, isn't it...?

I don't believe people and kids do not ride bikes out of fear. They do not ride because modern western culture is fundamentally flawed and encourages laziness and sloth -- the easiest way with the least work and whatever you can get away with are the rule of the day. Even if "god" came out of the sky and told people they would never be injured riding a bike, I doubt it would raise ridership any substantial amount.

I agree with chipcom's post...I don't buy Closetbiker's argument here either. I went to his favorite website (Copenhagenize or something like that) and they were encouraging people to ride 15km in street clothes. I wear bike/running clothes because street clothes would make me a sweaty mess after 15km (my normal commute).

And I don't want to be some kind of political activist. I just want to ride my bike. Why should I throw away my reflective vest and helmet for some unsubstantiated political principal?

I'm the only person going my way on a bike on my commute in a "Bronze Medal" bike city. If I don't have bright lights and reflectors I'm taking a risk. I have a family to come home to. Let some other idiot make the political argument.

...the controversy you generate with all your fear mongering about how bike helmets are the death of bicycling could certainly sell a magazine.

You've got more than 7000 posts on bike forums and about 90% of them are fear based accounts of how helmets will ...blah blah blah...

Once again, it's not just about bike helmets. It's about the general publics emotions being manipulated. Just like how parents are petrified of child abduction when it is extremely rare. Fear of strangers when more harm comes from closer to home.

If you would check before you posted, you would see that although the helmet issue is near and dear to me, my posts on the topic come nowhere near what you think. I think it's ironic that some are focusing specifically on helmet use when the argument is larger than that. The helmet issue is simply symptomatic of the problem.

The culture of fear is a best seller. There's a reason for that.

...The culture of fear is a best seller. There's a reason for that.

I agree but I also think you need to look more closely at what you post and the impressions you are making. You are creating a culture of fear around helmet wearing. In doing battle against what you seem to perceive as some great injustice being perpetrated on cyclists you have had to paint the picture of it as some monster lurking, waiting to take our rights away, lull us into complacency when we ride and reduce our numbers as a group.

This thread is a good example of a kind of extremism- you see a picture of a cop talking to a little kid and both of them are wearing bike helmets and you extrapolate that into an indictment of helmets and "safety nannies". It's just as much "fear mongering" as someone who incessantly does the opposite- and is there any one member who regularly posts as many times as you insisting that people wear helmets? Certainly there are lots of posts about "how my helmet saved my life" but that's a lot of individuals not one person constantly beating the drum.

And, to be honest, the constant controversy you create gets you certain amount of attention and I'm sure there's satisfaction in that but whether you're doing the cycling community any real service with your campaign is, at least for me, questionable.

Needless to say, on an entertainment level your writing is pretty good and the discussions are sometimes entertaining- I just can't take these threads all that seriously but sometimes feel the need to speak up when I just can't help myself.:o

If you would check before you posted, you would see that although the helmet issue is near and dear to me, my posts on the topic come nowhere near what you think.

Just to give you a sense of your perspective- out of curiosity I did as you advised I went back and looked at your last 100 posts. 88 were helmet related out of the 100- in my book that's pretty close to "about 90%".