|
Originally Posted by Six jours
(Post 16618574)
Well, no. I mean, pro-helmet folks may indeed want a world where every cyclist wears a helmet every time, but the "anti-helmet" crowd mostly just wants to be left alone.
So I respectfully submit my own version of your post: Pro-helmet: http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=371344 Anti-helmet: http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=371345 |
Why hate the British? After all they are the ones that invented the DF Safety bike.
|
Originally Posted by elcruxio
(Post 16619145)
Oh come on! That's funny! And it does drive home a pretty good point.
But who is the other dude? John Locke or what? Did anyone look at the link I provided to the Bicycling and Walking in the United States, Benchmarking Report 2012? Or the link to the street view I showed for that city in The Netherlands? John |
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
(Post 16619775)
Obviously, you have not held pieces of people during war if you think this is funny.
|
Originally Posted by elcruxio
(Post 16619145)
Oh come on! That's funny! And it does drive home a pretty good point.
... Is that point that nearly everyone here, on both "sides" is in favor of people having free choice to wear a helmet or not wear a helmet? There are plenty of participants in this thread who should be getting sized for a tin-foil hat; not a helmet. |
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
(Post 16619775)
Obviously, you have not held pieces of people during war if you think this is funny.
No but seriously you are taking this a bit seriously. The nazi card gets used from time to time in threads where imposing something mandatory on others is on the agenda. If you really want to nip it in the bud you should laugh rather than get or bad feely about it |
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
(Post 16619775)
Did anyone look at the link I provided to the Bicycling and Walking in the United States, Benchmarking Report 2012? Or the link to the street view I showed for that city in The Netherlands?
Didn't really need to see Gouda in the street view, although I did and it showed nothing special. I know where it is, and have visited and stayed in the city over a dozen times with my family. We used to stay in a B&B/Guest house in a 17th Century home and use Gouda as base for visiting The Hague, Rotterdam, Leiden, North Sea resorts, the tulip/hyacinth growing areas, and Amsterdam. Gouda itself is quite a wonderful city too. |
I concur with ILTB on the usefulness of the Benchmarking report with respect to helmet use, but I bookmarked it because it had a lot on interesting data.
|
Originally Posted by italktocats
(Post 16616685)
since it turned into a 'us vs them' thing ima jump the bandwagon for fun and giggles too
pro helmet wants this: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1QBsQvgWmP...0/IMAG0194.jpg anti-helmets want this: http://www.refdag.nl/polopoly_fs/bij...3511139873.jpg Concerning the benchmarking report, this is the type of benchmarking to work towards the infrastructure that allow the kind of participation you see in The Netherlands. My wife won't ride a bicycle because of a few bad experiences with hers (not falling, but because she has wrist problems). My daughter-in-law had an experience falling on one of her first rides, and won't get onto a bike again. These are situations that need infrastructure to help overcome the fear that bicycling can produce. Helmets are simply personal protection for your brain, and I wear mine all the time. Why? Because I cannot predict the behavior of drivers, I'm getting up there in age, and because on a two-wheeled vehicle falls are always a potential. Now, I have bike paths that allow me about ten miles of biking without interacting hardly at all with cars--this helps people use bicycles. John |
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
(Post 16620357)
If you'll look at the lower photograph, I doubt that any of the avid cyclists who feel that there's too much emphasis no helmets rides a bicycle like these. These are upright bicycles, with high handlebars, which allow someone to simply step off the bike at low speeds. I'll bet most of you ride drop handlebars, in a lower position, where if anything happens you are dropped to the ground on your head. These are types of engineering controls which help in an accident situation, just like my recumbant bike will put me on the ground on my rump rather than my head.
If not, what is all the noise about avid cyclists vis-à-vis other cyclists in NL or anywhere else? |
John, Why do you keep harping on infrastructure in a helmet thread? And unless the upright bike is a step through frame design, there is little difference in getting off a bike with upright bars and drop bars.
|
Originally Posted by howsteepisit
(Post 16620540)
John, Why do you keep harping on infrastructure in a helmet thread? And unless the upright bike is a step through frame design, there is little difference in getting off a bike with upright bars and drop bars.
I keep harping on infrastructure because it is the best control for bicycling injuries, as evidenced in the graph I presented from the Bicycling and Walking Benchmark 2012 Report. This is why European countries have lower fatality rates that in the USA. Concerning the frame design, it has a lot to do with fall dynamics. Take a look at this photo: http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76...y/IMG_4461.jpg The woman to the left is starting off on an upright bike. If something goes wrong, she would probably fall to her left, first on her foot, then her leg, then her rear, followed by her side and shoulder. This is actually the dynamics of a Parachute Landing Fall (PLF) which is the best way to fall. This is also why we start kids out on an upright frame. I'll discuss more on fall dynamics later. John |
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
(Post 16618916)
I thought I'd capture this one before you change it...there is nothing respectful about this at all. It appears from the way you express yourself that you have never served in the military of the USA. Therefore, you really don't know what it is that you are implying; you have no concept of who Hitler was, and what he is a symbol of. I find it very repugnant and insulting.
John there is nothing more offensive, than not being allowed to say anything |
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
(Post 16618927)
I-Like-To-Bike,
I'd trade the bicycling infrastructure that is present in Gouda, The Netherlands for a helmet if I could. Instead, I must cope with a culture in the USA which promotes auto-mobility and crazy driving behavior. Since I am 68, I probably would still use a helmet when on my upright bikes, but with the recumbent and that infrastructure, a helmet would be less needed. I went to Google Maps to see where Gouda was, and got an interesting street view. John There is no difference really, if you ride your bike of this or that side of the pond, you can get hurt, it doesnt matter wich nationality you have or whether you use a helmet i know 'we' have a cycling heaven, but its not like there are no bad guys in heaven (the two most evil came from exactly there ;) ) the majority of the time when im cycling, i ride on the same road design the uk has, the exact same, i might even ride my roadbike, therefore i MUST use a helmet, shouldnt i? i must however correct you on the 'jumping off', there is no jumping off, you can put a foot down like or any other bike, but trying to jump off, will instantly result in a harder fall then not jumping off, i dont wont you to try it as i tried it many many times, it doesnt work secondly you pretty much dont ever fall, why WOULD you fall? the only moment when i see people fall is -either eldery taking a sunday tru the park and stopping at the lights and not putting a foot down -by a lady with too many grocerybags on the handlebars, but knowing this wont ride well, they will just walk, not try to keep riding; it doesnt work - roads frozen/extreme wind no helmet will help you in any of those cases you dont crash. |
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
(Post 16620758)
howsteepisit,
I keep harping on infrastructure because it is the best control for bicycling injuries, as evidenced in the graph I presented from the Bicycling and Walking Benchmark 2012 Report. This is why European countries have lower fatality rates that in the USA. Concerning the frame design, it has a lot to do with fall dynamics. Take a look at this photo: http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76...y/IMG_4461.jpg The woman to the left is starting off on an upright bike. If something goes wrong, she would probably fall to her left, first on her foot, then her leg, then her rear, followed by her side and shoulder. This is actually the dynamics of a Parachute Landing Fall (PLF) which is the best way to fall. This is also why we start kids out on an upright frame. I'll discuss more on fall dynamics later. John there is only ONE reason people are focused on safety that much; fear of cars! ( i could fill a whole new thread just about that..) ive quickly looked over that site but i couldnt see infrastructure as the main thing, yes i helps, yes it safer, yes its pretty, yes i want em, but it not what make dutch cycling safer, because noone has enough room to put those paths EVERYWHERE but ill play your game; the actual riding position, and getting on/off is very much the same, and the dutch bikes have absolute terrible handling, steering and braking power, and i still cannot understand why some thing they are great, they look great with pretty girls on them, but thats where it ends "if something goes wrong" well what on earth could or would go wrong on a 10meter wide cycling path in hong kong (?) IF anythign would go wrong, the people with a 'decent' bike would be able to steer/brake or whatever to avoid that thing thats going wrong, on them great 'upriders' youd just slam into it, depending on what that is.... even the term, fall dynamics, has a sound of 'you shouldnt be doing this' CMON ITS RIDING A DAMN BIKE, STOP OVERDOING IT |
ps
most people do NOT put their foot out to break the fall, if theyre falling they put their hand out, falling isnt a thing people even worry about it |
I would fall exactly the same way when starting out on my drop bar bike, because like most riders, I ride mainly on the hoods or the top of the bars. Very few ride on the drops especially when starting.
|
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
(Post 16618916)
I thought I'd capture this one before you change it...there is nothing respectful about this at all. It appears from the way you express yourself that you have never served in the military of the USA. Therefore, you really don't know what it is that you are implying; you have no concept of who Hitler was, and what he is a symbol of. I find it very repugnant and insulting.
John Signed, An old man who majored in history. |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by Six jours
(Post 16622712)
I have no intention of changing it. It's funny, to people with a sense of humor. And to people without, well, it's a chance to post some manufactured outrage and puffery.
Signed, An old man who majored in history. John |
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
(Post 16622959)
You know, Six jours, I have a test for appropriateness. My Mom used to say, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." (I know, it's an old saying, but being a history major I thought you'd enjoy it.) What would your reaction be if I were to post the photo below as what people promotion helmet use would want, and a picture of this man or that man as what anti-helmet people want? Would you have felt that to be funny? I somehow don't think so.
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
(Post 16622959)
I therefore called your post inappropriate, and a distraction from the discussion of helmets.
<edit> In a fit of brilliance, I realized I could click the highlighted words in your post, and no, I don't think it's funny, mostly because you obviously don't mean it to be. I'm still not going to pretend to be all outraged over it, though... |
Oh, and hey, you should know I once worked a train wreck. It was actually kind of an ugly scene - plenty of "pieces of people" to go around, for those who like to brag about such things - and yet somehow I've managed to avoid going all PTSD every time someone posts the :trainwreck: smiley.
|
Response to Hitler analogy
Originally Posted by Six jours
(Post 16623527)
Oh, and hey, you should know I once worked a train wreck. It was actually kind of an ugly scene - plenty of "pieces of people" to go around, for those who like to brag about such things - and yet somehow I've managed to avoid going all PTSD every time someone posts the :trainwreck: smiley.
I have seen as bloody and bad injuries on our highways as I have in the combat zone as an EMT/Paramedic for Eugene-Springfield Ambulance; at one point, we transported a baby who's parents had just been killed with the drunk driver that had made the baby an orphan to McKenzie-Willamette Hospital in Springfield, Oregon. I put a nice IV line into that driver using a an 18 gauge needle, only to have it removed by the ER physician who then said, "Oh, it was a large-gauge needle." The ER physician spent the next half-hour trying to re-do the IV, poking the guy up to his elbow on both arms (he was in a bit of shock) until he got it established. And at that point, I didn't care. Concerning mandatory helmet laws, there are new studies out saying that they actually work: J Pediatr. 2013 Sep;163(3):726-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.03.073. Epub 2013 May 24. Bicycle helmet laws are associated with a lower fatality rate from bicycle-motor vehicle collisions. Meehan WP 3rd1, Lee LK, Fischer CM, Mannix RC. Author information Abstract OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between bicycle helmet legislation and bicycle-related deaths sustained by children involved in bicycle-motor vehicle collisions. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional study of all bicyclists aged 0-16 years included in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System who died between January 1999 and December 2010. We compared fatality rates in age-specific state populations between states with helmet laws and those without helmet laws. We used a clustered Poisson multivariate regression model to adjust for factors previously associated with rates of motor vehicle fatalities: elderly driver licensure laws, legal blood alcohol limit (<0.08% vs ≥ 0.08%), and household income. RESULTS: A total of 1612 bicycle-related fatalities sustained by children aged <16 years were evaluated. There were no statistically significant differences in median household income, the proportion of states with elderly licensure laws, or the proportion of states with a blood alcohol limit of >0.08% between states with helmet laws and those without helmet laws. The mean unadjusted fatality rate was lower in states with helmet laws (2.0/1,000,000 vs 2.5/1,000,000; P = .03). After adjusting for potential confounding factors, lower fatality rates persisted in states with mandatory helmet laws (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-0.98). CONCLUSION: Bicycle helmet safety laws are associated with a lower incidence of fatalities in child cyclists involved in bicycle-motor vehicle collisions.Bicycle helmet laws are associated with a lower fa... [J Pediatr. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI J Med Ethics. 2013 Jun 26. [Epub ahead of print] In defence of mandatory bicycle helmet legislation: response to Hooper and Spicer. Biegler P1, Johnson M. Author information Abstract We invoke a triple rationale to rebut Hooper and Spicer's argument against mandatory helmet laws. First, we use the laws of physics and empirical studies to show how bicycle helmets afford substantial protection to the user. We show that Hooper and Spicer erroneously downplay helmet utility and that, as a result, their attack on the utilitarian argument for mandatory helmet laws is weakened. Next, we refute their claim that helmet legislation comprises unjustified paternalism. We show the healthcare costs of bareheaded riding to pose significant third party harms. It follows, we argue, that a utilitarian case for helmet laws can be sustained by appeal to Mill's Harm Principle. Finally, we reject Hooper and Spicer's claim that helmet laws unjustly penalise cyclists for their own health-affecting behaviour. Rather, we show their argument to suffer by disanalogy with medical cases where injustice may be more evident, for example, denial of bypass surgery to smokers. We conclude that mandatory helmet laws offer substantial utility and are entirely defensible within the framework of a liberal democracy. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23760577 |
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
(Post 16625276)
...
Concerning mandatory helmet laws, there are new studies out saying that they actually work: There are also write-ups giving the ethical reasoning as to why mandatory helmet laws can be used in our society: ... I was going to issue an apology to the BHB, since a poster in this thread now appears to be arguing for MHLs. However, you've only given them fuel in this thread. They can and should descend upon you, regarding this MHLs. |
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
(Post 16625276)
To find something repugnant and insulting does not mean outraged. The three are slightly different. It is a copout to bring up Post Traumatic Stress Disorder when someone calls you on a post which was inappropriate too, as that has not happened to me. You need to understand that some people's experiences will bring about a somewhat different response to things you feel are "funny." You bring up Hitler as a symbol of lock-step adherence to infringements on rights, without the thought of the Holocaust that he also symbolizes. You may have studied history, but I'm not sure you have learned from history.
And then a bunch of other stuff about how much better I am than everyone else, apropos of nothing. |
Six jours,
You above put into a quote of mine something I never wrote. Could you remove it from the "quote" and put it into your text (that last sentence, which was written by you)? The other stuff is just plain weird. MMach 5, The two studies are an attempt to get this thread back to discussing helmets; I am in favor of MHLs for kids, and that is what the study was about. Adults can decide on their own. The ethics discussion about MHLs has to do with whether this is an infringement on personal choice, or a case where personal choice can create substantial "...third-party harms." Our society in the USA has decided that alcohol and tobacco should be restricted from kids. When I was in the fifth or sixth grade, I came home on my bike with a neighbor, and we decided to race down Evergreen Avenue in Salem, Oregon to home. I was on the outside, and caught a pothole wrong, resulting in a crash with subsequent head contact with the gravel. The whole right side of my face was raw scrapes. I went back to school, but had to be dismissed early due to headache and my first migraine (which I did not know what it was at the time). Had I been wearing a helmet, that injury would not have occurred. But this was in about 1955, and helmets really did not exist at that time. John |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:28 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.