Mars
11-18-04, 08:15 AM
Just based on observations in these forums.
View Full Version : I have a theory, please take my poll
vincenzosi
11-18-04, 08:28 AM
I picked #1, surprisingly enough. I don't agree 100% with Critical Mass, however, seeing what's going on in NYC's City Council right now, I'd have to say that it looks like the local government has it in for those guys.
That alone changed my mind.
As for helmets, I think it's a no-brainer. Everyone should wear one.
That alone changed my mind.
As for helmets, I think it's a no-brainer. Everyone should wear one.
late
11-18-04, 08:36 AM
Wouldn't surprise me if what NYC is doing is, in fact, retribution for CM rides.
You don't pick a fight with a 500 pound gorilla when you weigh 50 pounds. I don't mean cars, I mean city government. Anyone familiar with what cities actually do would tell you CM is going to be counterproductive. After you're done pissing someone off, you think they are going to go out of their way to be nice to you? Or the opposite? Kindergarten kids can give you the answer if it's too compicated.
You don't pick a fight with a 500 pound gorilla when you weigh 50 pounds. I don't mean cars, I mean city government. Anyone familiar with what cities actually do would tell you CM is going to be counterproductive. After you're done pissing someone off, you think they are going to go out of their way to be nice to you? Or the opposite? Kindergarten kids can give you the answer if it's too compicated.
Ebbtide
11-18-04, 08:37 AM
I think all cyclist should wear helmets but each cylclist should decide for themselves. But I voted the fourth option, CM hurts cycling at this point.
John E
11-18-04, 09:00 AM
I was not surprised to see my vote category, #4, winning. I think most serious bicyclists are pro-helmet and anti-helmet law. I concur with the objectives, but not the approach, of Critical Mass.
closetbiker
11-18-04, 09:13 AM
I was not surprised to see my vote category, #4, winning. I think most serious bicyclists are pro-helmet and anti-helmet law. I concur with the objectives, but not the approach, of Critical Mass.
Ditto!
Ditto!
boyze
11-18-04, 09:57 AM
There's a permutation missing. Pro-choice for helmets and haven't paid much attention to CM.
genec
11-18-04, 10:32 AM
There's a permutation missing. Pro-choice for helmets and haven't paid much attention to CM.
Wouldn't that be selection 4... as in "I don't support CM."
If you are not supporting it or in your case even aware of it, then obviously you must not be supporting it.
Wouldn't that be selection 4... as in "I don't support CM."
If you are not supporting it or in your case even aware of it, then obviously you must not be supporting it.
BeTheChange
11-18-04, 10:41 AM
I support CM (I guess it's the years of punk-rock in me). I think people should decide for themselves if they wear a helmet or not because they can't hurt anyone but themselves. I wear one any time I ride because it is stupid not to, but I'm not going to force my opinions on someone else if it doesn't affect my life. It's your life live it how you want to.
DieselDan
11-18-04, 11:09 AM
I've never chimed in about Critical Mass, as I live in an area where cycling is tolerated as cheap transportation, and there aren't enough cyclists who care enough to have a CM event.
I frimly believe in thinking of the next person while cycling. Some less then intellegent motorist may get held up by a CM event, making that person late or miss something. That motorist will then take it out on the next cyclist he/she sees.
I frimly believe in thinking of the next person while cycling. Some less then intellegent motorist may get held up by a CM event, making that person late or miss something. That motorist will then take it out on the next cyclist he/she sees.
MsMittens
11-18-04, 11:12 AM
Just based on observations in these forums.
If I may suggest, polls that are done here would be based entirely on cyclists here and not necessarily true of cyclists everywhere else or on other forums.
If I may suggest, polls that are done here would be based entirely on cyclists here and not necessarily true of cyclists everywhere else or on other forums.
Raiyn
11-18-04, 11:19 AM
I was not surprised to see my vote category, #4, winning. I think most serious bicyclists are pro-helmet and anti-helmet law. I concur with the objectives, but not the approach, of Critical Mass.
It doesn't say bubkus about a helmet law. If you think all cyclists SHOULD wear a helmet it doesn't always work out to full support of a mandatory helmet law.
It doesn't say bubkus about a helmet law. If you think all cyclists SHOULD wear a helmet it doesn't always work out to full support of a mandatory helmet law.
gcasillo
11-18-04, 12:10 PM
Folks, wear your helmets. Please.
ngateguy
11-18-04, 02:24 PM
So whats your theory?
Daily Commute
11-18-04, 02:37 PM
I think all cyclist should wear helmets but each cylclist should decide for themselves. But I voted the fourth option, CM hurts cycling at this point.
I agree. The poll's choices don't make sense, so I won't vote. I think cyclists should decide for themselves about helmets (although I'm still open to a good helmet law argument), but I also think that cyclists should wear helmets.
As to CM, it's mixed. The main problem is CM's refusal to define itself. What are CM's goals? Many CM'ers say it's whatever individual riders want. A movement that stands for everything stands for nothing, except being annoying.
I have no doubt that some CM'ers in some cities have done some good some place. My comments are about the movement as a whole.
I agree. The poll's choices don't make sense, so I won't vote. I think cyclists should decide for themselves about helmets (although I'm still open to a good helmet law argument), but I also think that cyclists should wear helmets.
As to CM, it's mixed. The main problem is CM's refusal to define itself. What are CM's goals? Many CM'ers say it's whatever individual riders want. A movement that stands for everything stands for nothing, except being annoying.
I have no doubt that some CM'ers in some cities have done some good some place. My comments are about the movement as a whole.
open air
11-18-04, 02:54 PM
Mars, You have a good question. There is no doubt IMHO that a helmet can only help a cyclist. It does not interfere with your ability to hear what's going on around you and can only benefit you (albite minimaly) in a crash. Anything that gives me a better chance of having another good day on the bike...I'm for it.
Re: Critical Mass. VERY IMPORTANT! most roadies do not understand that while we have every legal right to the road, most citizens of the US of A do not see us as a road friendly component. It is encumbent upon every roady to a) be courteous b) be visible and c) fight for you rights the correct way (It all comes down to Honey vs. Vinegar).
Just my 10 cents.
Thanks.
Re: Critical Mass. VERY IMPORTANT! most roadies do not understand that while we have every legal right to the road, most citizens of the US of A do not see us as a road friendly component. It is encumbent upon every roady to a) be courteous b) be visible and c) fight for you rights the correct way (It all comes down to Honey vs. Vinegar).
Just my 10 cents.
Thanks.
hi565
11-18-04, 02:59 PM
sorry but whats critical mass?
The Wanderer
11-18-04, 03:01 PM
Everyone SHOULD wear a helmet imho, however free choice reigns (similar to other 'moral' debates taking place in this country).
My support for Critical Mass is simple. Living in the bay area, I commute from the East Bay, through San Francisco, and into the North Bay. All three areas have similar road facilities for bicyclists (some bike lanes, decent shoulders, etc.) but San Francisco (with the most active CM movement) stands head and shoulders above the other two for drivers AWARENESS of my presence on a bike. This doesn't mean they like me any more, no less honks, but they SEE me and respond to my presence, which seems to be a primary reason why many choose to Critical Mass.
My support for Critical Mass is simple. Living in the bay area, I commute from the East Bay, through San Francisco, and into the North Bay. All three areas have similar road facilities for bicyclists (some bike lanes, decent shoulders, etc.) but San Francisco (with the most active CM movement) stands head and shoulders above the other two for drivers AWARENESS of my presence on a bike. This doesn't mean they like me any more, no less honks, but they SEE me and respond to my presence, which seems to be a primary reason why many choose to Critical Mass.
madhouse
11-18-04, 03:03 PM
I support CM (I guess it's the years of punk-rock in me). I think people should decide for themselves if they wear a helmet or not because they can't hurt anyone but themselves. I wear one any time I ride because it is stupid not to, but I'm not going to force my opinions on someone else if it doesn't affect my life. It's your life live it how you want to.
I’m a believer in Darwin’s evolution theory… therefore those to stupid to wear a helmet needn’t be around to reproduce. In this circumstance we don’t need a law interfering with evolution.
Don’t think for a moment that someone else not wearing a helmet doesn’t affect you. If you pay health insurance or pay taxes, you’re being affected.
I am not following CM and have no opinion on that issue.
I’m a believer in Darwin’s evolution theory… therefore those to stupid to wear a helmet needn’t be around to reproduce. In this circumstance we don’t need a law interfering with evolution.
Don’t think for a moment that someone else not wearing a helmet doesn’t affect you. If you pay health insurance or pay taxes, you’re being affected.
I am not following CM and have no opinion on that issue.
ngateguy
11-18-04, 03:18 PM
Re: Critical Mass. VERY IMPORTANT! most roadies do not understand that while we have every legal right to the road, most citizens of the US of A do not see us as a road friendly component. It is encumbent upon every roady to a) be courteous b) be visible and c) fight for you rights the correct way (It all comes down to Honey vs. Vinegar).
Just my 10 cents.
Thanks.
I think most roadies do understand. What CM doesn't seem to get is you do not make progress on getting respect or your rights on the road by pissing off those who's support you need to acomplish those goals. Just my $.02 worth
Just my 10 cents.
Thanks.
I think most roadies do understand. What CM doesn't seem to get is you do not make progress on getting respect or your rights on the road by pissing off those who's support you need to acomplish those goals. Just my $.02 worth
Dang
11-18-04, 05:23 PM
Folks, wear your helmets. Please.
No! Don't. We need your organs!
No! Don't. We need your organs!
catatonic
11-18-04, 06:01 PM
Just based on observations in these forums.
I picked option one. I don't like where CM is going lately though, and I think they need to keep the mass down in size a bit, but at the heart of it, it was a good idea.
As far as helmets, key word is should....everyone should wear helmets....however the decision is up to them...I am against a mandatory "helmet or ticket" style law, since that won't really fix anything. Either they will eventually go to a helmet, or they wont....if they dont wear a helmet, I am still thinking in my head "dude....why aren't you wearing a helmet...BAD BAD BAD!!!!" :)
I picked option one. I don't like where CM is going lately though, and I think they need to keep the mass down in size a bit, but at the heart of it, it was a good idea.
As far as helmets, key word is should....everyone should wear helmets....however the decision is up to them...I am against a mandatory "helmet or ticket" style law, since that won't really fix anything. Either they will eventually go to a helmet, or they wont....if they dont wear a helmet, I am still thinking in my head "dude....why aren't you wearing a helmet...BAD BAD BAD!!!!" :)
khuon
11-18-04, 06:05 PM
sorry but whats critical mass?
That's a very good question. The answer is: everything and nothing at all. That's also the problem.
That's a very good question. The answer is: everything and nothing at all. That's also the problem.
mcavana
11-18-04, 06:11 PM
wow... so it is safe to say most people on board do not support cm. cool!
LittleBigMan
11-18-04, 06:24 PM
I support wearing of helmets, but I think it should be a personal decision.
I also support critical mass's freedom to ride, but I think participants should exercise good judgement and self-control, since they represent the image of cyclists in general.
The more people exercise good judgement in their personal decisions, the less they incur the interference of government. Isn't less interference what most people want in their lives?
Of course, we can't always blame people's "bad decisions" for the unwarranted interference of government. Sometimes, government simply has no place in our personal choices.
(This was an essay question, right? ;) )
I also support critical mass's freedom to ride, but I think participants should exercise good judgement and self-control, since they represent the image of cyclists in general.
The more people exercise good judgement in their personal decisions, the less they incur the interference of government. Isn't less interference what most people want in their lives?
Of course, we can't always blame people's "bad decisions" for the unwarranted interference of government. Sometimes, government simply has no place in our personal choices.
(This was an essay question, right? ;) )
Rowan
11-18-04, 07:58 PM
CM relies on anarchy to get its message across, and attracts the reactionaries who have nothing better to do with their time than whinge, whine and protest about how they are marginalised (and generally cannot think for themselves, so have to be a part of a herd).
Ordinary cyclists (mainly commuters) who are out there in all weather and traffic conditions, do far more for "the cause" by their everyday presence on roads and paths.
Helmets are law here in Australia. Enforcement is ad hoc. The rider who crashes without a helmet might cost the community hundreds of thousands of dollars in the long-term care required of a brain-injured patient... so the concept that a non-helmet-wearer being the only one who might bear the potential cost is a fallacy.
Odd logic to bring CM and helmets together in a poll like this. The natural conclusion is CM, by its very nature, is very anti-helmet.
Ordinary cyclists (mainly commuters) who are out there in all weather and traffic conditions, do far more for "the cause" by their everyday presence on roads and paths.
Helmets are law here in Australia. Enforcement is ad hoc. The rider who crashes without a helmet might cost the community hundreds of thousands of dollars in the long-term care required of a brain-injured patient... so the concept that a non-helmet-wearer being the only one who might bear the potential cost is a fallacy.
Odd logic to bring CM and helmets together in a poll like this. The natural conclusion is CM, by its very nature, is very anti-helmet.
BeTheChange
11-18-04, 09:02 PM
Oh, and just something to do in the future. You have a hypothesis, not a theory. Too many people say "it's just a theory" cause people don't get the difference. I know it's trivial but I'm a scientist, it's what we do. Peace.
Laika
11-18-04, 09:19 PM
CM relies on anarchy to get its message across, and attracts the reactionaries who have nothing better to do with their time than whinge, whine and protest about how they are marginalised (and generally cannot think for themselves, so have to be a part of a herd).
Ordinary cyclists (mainly commuters) who are out there in all weather and traffic conditions, do far more for "the cause" by their everyday presence on roads and paths.
Helmets are law here in Australia. Enforcement is ad hoc. The rider who crashes without a helmet might cost the community hundreds of thousands of dollars in the long-term care required of a brain-injured patient... so the concept that a non-helmet-wearer being the only one who might bear the potential cost is a fallacy.
Odd logic to bring CM and helmets together in a poll like this. The natural conclusion is CM, by its very nature, is very anti-helmet.
My experience of CM could not be more different. You seem to be very angry about it. I for one am a pro helmet CM rider.
Ordinary cyclists (mainly commuters) who are out there in all weather and traffic conditions, do far more for "the cause" by their everyday presence on roads and paths.
Helmets are law here in Australia. Enforcement is ad hoc. The rider who crashes without a helmet might cost the community hundreds of thousands of dollars in the long-term care required of a brain-injured patient... so the concept that a non-helmet-wearer being the only one who might bear the potential cost is a fallacy.
Odd logic to bring CM and helmets together in a poll like this. The natural conclusion is CM, by its very nature, is very anti-helmet.
My experience of CM could not be more different. You seem to be very angry about it. I for one am a pro helmet CM rider.
vincenzosi
11-18-04, 09:25 PM
My experiences at CM haven't been great. I always feel grossly out of place. However, I can put all that aside and my solidarity with other cyclists will be my motivation for showing up next Friday.
I'm not the biggest fan either, but we're all we've got. It's nice to say commuters are the heart and soul of the cycling community. To an extent, that's correct. But unless you speak your voices will never be heard.
I for one think this CM is critical. Coming off the one from Brooklyn and the two since the RNC, it'll be interesting to see how police use the excuse of "the busiest shopping day of the year" to crack some heads.
I hope I'm proven wrong. Either way, I'll have my vidcam with me, so you all will know soon enough.
I'm not the biggest fan either, but we're all we've got. It's nice to say commuters are the heart and soul of the cycling community. To an extent, that's correct. But unless you speak your voices will never be heard.
I for one think this CM is critical. Coming off the one from Brooklyn and the two since the RNC, it'll be interesting to see how police use the excuse of "the busiest shopping day of the year" to crack some heads.
I hope I'm proven wrong. Either way, I'll have my vidcam with me, so you all will know soon enough.
N_C
11-18-04, 09:26 PM
I choose the 3rd option. I do think all cyclists should always wear a helmet at all times when riding.
I decided to err on the side of caution regarding critical mass. I have never witnessed nor taken part in a critical mass event. In fact I have never even heard of a critical mass even happening in Iowa. I think I'm "on the fence" when it comes to critical mass.
On one hand I think it does little to benefit the rights of cyclists & serves no real purpose except to piss off motorists & the city council & other govt. agency's responsible for writting the traffic code & law. And as a result of that the law makers make it harder for cyclists to have any rights at all.
On the other hand maybe critical mass does serve a good purpose in getting the attention of the law makers and says hey pay attention to us we need to come to a better solution then what you are proposing.
Honestly I just don't know. Are there any statistics on how critical mass has had a positive affect on the rights of cyclists? How about statistics on what kind of negative impact it has had?
I decided to err on the side of caution regarding critical mass. I have never witnessed nor taken part in a critical mass event. In fact I have never even heard of a critical mass even happening in Iowa. I think I'm "on the fence" when it comes to critical mass.
On one hand I think it does little to benefit the rights of cyclists & serves no real purpose except to piss off motorists & the city council & other govt. agency's responsible for writting the traffic code & law. And as a result of that the law makers make it harder for cyclists to have any rights at all.
On the other hand maybe critical mass does serve a good purpose in getting the attention of the law makers and says hey pay attention to us we need to come to a better solution then what you are proposing.
Honestly I just don't know. Are there any statistics on how critical mass has had a positive affect on the rights of cyclists? How about statistics on what kind of negative impact it has had?
Rowan
11-18-04, 10:02 PM
My experience of CM could not be more different. You seem to be very angry about it. I for one am a pro helmet CM rider.
Anger? Interesting interpretation... but not unexpected from a CM supporter.
Cynical from experience would have been accurate.
Anger? Interesting interpretation... but not unexpected from a CM supporter.
Cynical from experience would have been accurate.
Laika
11-18-04, 10:06 PM
Anger? Interesting interpretation... but not unexpected from a CM supporter.
Cynical from experience would have been accurate.
describing CM riders as "whinging" and "whining" seems to come from a place of anger, not cynicism. perhaps there's a language gap amonst us former colonials. no offense meant, and I would hope none taken. I'm sure of nothing beyond my own absolute stupidity and so may well have spoken unwisely, offensively or out of turn.
Cynical from experience would have been accurate.
describing CM riders as "whinging" and "whining" seems to come from a place of anger, not cynicism. perhaps there's a language gap amonst us former colonials. no offense meant, and I would hope none taken. I'm sure of nothing beyond my own absolute stupidity and so may well have spoken unwisely, offensively or out of turn.
closetbiker
11-19-04, 09:01 AM
The rider who crashes without a helmet might cost the community hundreds of thousands of dollars in the long-term care required of a brain-injured patient... so the concept that a non-helmet-wearer being the only one who might bear the potential cost is a fallacy.
Now really, this point has been gone over time and again. It's a very poor argument for a number of reasons.
1. you have to prove the incidence of head injury for cyclists is greater than for other non helmeted road users. (it's the same rate)
2. you have to consider the collateral damage in an accident. Motor vehicles can kill or injure far more than just the driver in an accident. Often passengers, other vehicle occupants, pedestrians and cyclists too, are injured. There is a far smaller incidence of collateral damage when a cyclist has an accident. It is most often just the cyclist that is injured whereas, in a car or truck, there are several injuries (and thus, far more of a cost to society)
3. you must consider the benefits, as well as the liabilities, in comparisons to health (or injury) with motor vehicles. Cycling, we all know, has tremendous preventative, benefits whereas driving has none. Cycling is something prescribed by doctors to improve health and therefore, a cyclist lowers the costs of health to society. The BMA, as I'm sure you know, produced a study that puts the benefits to the risks of cycling at a rate of 20 to 1 and therefore came out against a proposed mandatory helmet law because they felt it would discourage cycling and as as their study proved, the overall health of the nation would decrease.
I really don't get why people use that tremendously lame argument when it is so obvious that, despite it's risks, cycling is beneficial to everybody weather you wear a helmet or not.
Now really, this point has been gone over time and again. It's a very poor argument for a number of reasons.
1. you have to prove the incidence of head injury for cyclists is greater than for other non helmeted road users. (it's the same rate)
2. you have to consider the collateral damage in an accident. Motor vehicles can kill or injure far more than just the driver in an accident. Often passengers, other vehicle occupants, pedestrians and cyclists too, are injured. There is a far smaller incidence of collateral damage when a cyclist has an accident. It is most often just the cyclist that is injured whereas, in a car or truck, there are several injuries (and thus, far more of a cost to society)
3. you must consider the benefits, as well as the liabilities, in comparisons to health (or injury) with motor vehicles. Cycling, we all know, has tremendous preventative, benefits whereas driving has none. Cycling is something prescribed by doctors to improve health and therefore, a cyclist lowers the costs of health to society. The BMA, as I'm sure you know, produced a study that puts the benefits to the risks of cycling at a rate of 20 to 1 and therefore came out against a proposed mandatory helmet law because they felt it would discourage cycling and as as their study proved, the overall health of the nation would decrease.
I really don't get why people use that tremendously lame argument when it is so obvious that, despite it's risks, cycling is beneficial to everybody weather you wear a helmet or not.
Ebbtide
11-19-04, 10:51 AM
Now really, this point has been gone over time and again. It's a very poor argument for a number of reasons.
1. you have to prove the incidence of head injury for cyclists is greater than for other non helmeted road users. (it's the same rate)
2. you have to consider the collateral damage in an accident. Motor vehicles can kill or injure far more than just the driver in an accident. Often passengers, other vehicle occupants, pedestrians and cyclists too, are injured. There is a far smaller incidence of collateral damage when a cyclist has an accident. It is most often just the cyclist that is injured whereas, in a car or truck, there are several injuries (and thus, far more of a cost to society)
3. you must consider the benefits, as well as the liabilities, in comparisons to health (or injury) with motor vehicles. Cycling, we all know, has tremendous preventative, benefits whereas driving has none. Cycling is something prescribed by doctors to improve health and therefore, a cyclist lowers the costs of health to society. The BMA, as I'm sure you know, produced a study that puts the benefits to the risks of cycling at a rate of 20 to 1 and therefore came out against a proposed mandatory helmet law because they felt it would discourage cycling and as as their study proved, the overall health of the nation would decrease.
I really don't get why people use that tremendously lame argument when it is so obvious that, despite it's risks, cycling is beneficial to everybody weather you wear a helmet or not.
Don't forget #4: Dead cyclist cost tax payers nothing.
I'm not saying that to be funny, but cigarette smokers have the same argument. If I'd smoke a pack a day for 40 years and drop dead of a heart attack at 60 it is cheaper than living until I'm 70, 80 or even 90. Plus, I've paid more than $150,000 in added taxes when I bought the smokes. Everybody dies of something, eventually, and no matter the cause it undoubtedly cost society about the same regardless if you smoked, drank, drove drunk, w/o a seat belt, or even a helmet.
1. you have to prove the incidence of head injury for cyclists is greater than for other non helmeted road users. (it's the same rate)
2. you have to consider the collateral damage in an accident. Motor vehicles can kill or injure far more than just the driver in an accident. Often passengers, other vehicle occupants, pedestrians and cyclists too, are injured. There is a far smaller incidence of collateral damage when a cyclist has an accident. It is most often just the cyclist that is injured whereas, in a car or truck, there are several injuries (and thus, far more of a cost to society)
3. you must consider the benefits, as well as the liabilities, in comparisons to health (or injury) with motor vehicles. Cycling, we all know, has tremendous preventative, benefits whereas driving has none. Cycling is something prescribed by doctors to improve health and therefore, a cyclist lowers the costs of health to society. The BMA, as I'm sure you know, produced a study that puts the benefits to the risks of cycling at a rate of 20 to 1 and therefore came out against a proposed mandatory helmet law because they felt it would discourage cycling and as as their study proved, the overall health of the nation would decrease.
I really don't get why people use that tremendously lame argument when it is so obvious that, despite it's risks, cycling is beneficial to everybody weather you wear a helmet or not.
Don't forget #4: Dead cyclist cost tax payers nothing.
I'm not saying that to be funny, but cigarette smokers have the same argument. If I'd smoke a pack a day for 40 years and drop dead of a heart attack at 60 it is cheaper than living until I'm 70, 80 or even 90. Plus, I've paid more than $150,000 in added taxes when I bought the smokes. Everybody dies of something, eventually, and no matter the cause it undoubtedly cost society about the same regardless if you smoked, drank, drove drunk, w/o a seat belt, or even a helmet.
closetbiker
11-19-04, 11:09 AM
Everybody dies of something, eventually, and no matter the cause it undoubtedly cost society about the same regardless if you smoked, drank, drove drunk, w/o a seat belt, or even a helmet.
Everybody most certainly does die of something, particularily motorists dying at the same rate as cyclists from head injuries, but cyclists most definitely die at a lower rates than motorists due to the very nature of riding a bike.
Everybody most certainly does die of something, particularily motorists dying at the same rate as cyclists from head injuries, but cyclists most definitely die at a lower rates than motorists due to the very nature of riding a bike.
Rambo
11-19-04, 11:17 AM
#4 here, but no suprise. I like to bike with a few people just for the company. I don't like to impose my belifes on anyone either.
CM from my viewpoint is the oposite of why I bike. I do it to get away from people.
CM from my viewpoint is the oposite of why I bike. I do it to get away from people.
SoonerBent
11-19-04, 03:22 PM
I will agree that helmets (bike or motorcycle) along with seatbelts, etc. should be by choice when all those who chose not to use them also agree to waive all rights to insurance coverage and government assistance associated with any injuries or disabilities caused by not using available, proven safety devices.
As far as CM. Try to step back and see CM from a non-riders point of view. News coverage of a bunch of cyclists slowing traffic, blocking streets and making a general nuisance of themselves. Doesn't show cyclists in a very positive light. The problem (at least around here) is not so much a matter of cyclists rights as drivers taking their frustrations out on us. I can't see how ticking drivers off helps the situation any.
SS
As far as CM. Try to step back and see CM from a non-riders point of view. News coverage of a bunch of cyclists slowing traffic, blocking streets and making a general nuisance of themselves. Doesn't show cyclists in a very positive light. The problem (at least around here) is not so much a matter of cyclists rights as drivers taking their frustrations out on us. I can't see how ticking drivers off helps the situation any.
SS
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.