Originally Posted by
njkayaker
What's bizarre is the implication that people shouldn't ride "fragile" racing bikes fast.
Really? I read it as: People that ride upright, solid bicycles at lower speeds tend to have fewer accidents than MAMILs that haven't bothered to acquire bike handling skills before they do high-speed descents.
Or are you questioning that a bicycle optimized for racing is more fragile than a gaspipe clunker?
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
It's interesting that you don't see the bias. It portrays "roadies" as reckless (the bikes are not particularly "fragile").
I take it then you've never actually raced?
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
Note, too, that a standard argument of the anti-helmet crowd is that all cycling is low risk and riders in the Netherlands are all exactly like the riders in the US.
Is it? I thought the argument was that the US and Australia and Canada are broadly similar in road rules, treatments and cycling populations and it's clear that those countries/provinces which have adopted MHLs can show no improvement in serious head injury..... just a decrease in the number of cyclists.
Whereas in Holland where there are fewer uptight people and better infrastructure the question doesn't even begin to arise.