View Poll Results: Helmet wearing habits?
I've never worn a bike helmet
178
10.66%
I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped
94
5.63%
I've always worn a helmet
648
38.80%
I didn't wear a helmet, but now do
408
24.43%
I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions
342
20.48%
Voters: 1670. You may not vote on this poll
The helmet thread
06-25-14, 01:24 PM
#8076
Str*t*gic *quivoc*tor
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
More statistics and debunking of the helmets don't work crowd:
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html
Originally Posted by link rekmeyata provided
Other types of evidence do not generally support helmet effectiveness
As early as 1988 Rodgers studied 8 million cases of injury or death to cyclists in the USA over 15 years - the largest survey of its kind ever undertaken. He concluded that there was no evidence that hard shell helmets had reduced head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, he found that helmeted riders were more likely to be killed....
So far as can be determined, nowhere in the world has an increase in helmet use resulted in a fall in head or brain injuries relative to cycle use.
The effect of enforced helmet laws: less cycling and no effect on the proportion of head injuries
The [Australian] report concluded that the law had not been cost-effective. New Zealand followed Australia with a mandatory helmet law. This law was also found not to have been cost effective and the head injury rate did not decrease more than for the population at large.
In Canada, too, in those provinces where helmet laws have been enforced, no benefit is apparent. In British Columbia and Nova Scotia there was no change in the proportion of cyclists suffering head injuries post-law, although cycle use fell markedly. In Alberta, the helmet law reduced cycling by children by around 56% while the absolute number of injuries went up.
A conflict of evidence
There is a stark conflict between the predictions of widely-publicised pro-helmet research, which suggests that helmets can deliver savings in head injuries of 65% to 90%, and data from other sources that suggest no benefit at all at a population level from cycle helmet use....
Elvik (2011), applying robust statistical tests, found evidence of bias in one meta analysis that resulted in the benefits of helmets being greatly overstated. He noted that more recent research shows no net benefit from wearing a helmet. He also finds that the authors of the Cochrane Review had a conflict of interest, which was not declared, and he criticises the narrow selection criteria used for evidence considered by the Review.
The importance of researchers keeping an open mind
One research project that aimed to justify a helmet law found that helmet use made no difference to head injury rates. However, a strong link was discovered between head injury rates and the consumption of alcohol or drugs by people cycling. It just so happened that many of these cyclists did not wear helmets.
This was an important finding that could easily have been overlooked. It raises the question as to whether other research has confused the effects of alcohol (and other differences in behaviour) and not wearing helmets
Epidemiological research – an area of increasing controversy
Cycle helmet research is not the only area of research where such conflicts exist, as evidenced by an increasing number of papers in epidemiological journals drawing attention to this problem. There have been issues with studies of the effect of hormone replacement therapy on heart disease, vitamin supplements, cannabis and schizophrenia, antibiotics and the MMR triple vaccine. Findings that had appeared robust subsequently turned out to be unreliable or simply wrong.
The parallels between these other areas and cycle helmets are considerable, as is the 'snowball effect' that takes place whereby weak research is cross-referenced and becomes the conventional wisdom. A particular problem with helmets is that much of the helmet sceptic data and research come from outside the medical sector and is little known inside it.
Ethics
As well as the poor methodology used in some cycle helmet research, there are also ethical issues of concern.
Medical research into helmets has assumed that cycling is comparatively risky; there never was any significant risk assessment completed to justify helmet promotion. This represents a serious failure of due diligence.
… but, a helmet saved my life!
Powerful support for cycle helmets comes from people who believe that a helmet has already saved them – or a relative or friend – from serious injury.
This is a very common experience, very much more common than the actual number of life-threatening injuries suffered by bare-headed cyclists. As there is no evidence that helmets save lives or serious injury at all across cyclists as a whole, most of these perceptions of helmet benefit must be exaggerated.
People often assume that a helmet has been beneficial because it has broken. However, it is common in these circumstances for the foam liner not to have compressed, indicating that the force towards the head was small. In many of these instances there may have been no impact at all without a helmet.
Adverse effects of cycle helmets
The apparently large proportion of helmeted cyclists who claim that a helmet has 'saved their life' suggests that helmeted riders are disproportionately more likely to suffer head-contact crashes compared with bare-headed riders. This is one of several hypotheses deserving of further investigation.
A tragic and little known outcome of helmet advocacy is the small number of young children (14 known cases world-wide) who have died through strangulation when playing after leaving their bikes and while still wearing a cycle helmet. This is significant mainly in the context that it is the only unambiguous evidence showing any relationship between fatalities and cycle helmet use, there being no reliable evidence of any lives saved.
Helmets and cycle use
It is now well established that enforced cycle helmet laws result in much less cycling. In Australia falls in cycle use averaged more than 30% and in Canada 28% to 40%.
Good evidence of the safety of cycling comes from city bike hire schemes worldwide. Up to 2011, the popular schemes in London and Dublin had generated over 8 million cycle journeys with no serious casualties of any kind. This is a very low level of risk and few riders wear helmets.
Health and cycling
The health benefits of cycling are substantial. Indeed, cycling regularly is the single most effective thing that a person can do to improve their health and increase longevity. Conversely, however, cycling less – perhaps as a result of being deterred by helmet laws or the exaggerated perceptions of risk generated to promote helmet wearing – results in considerable health loss to both individuals and society
Cutting through the controversy
Analysis by de Jong in 2012 has shifted the focus of the helmet debate away from the effectiveness or otherwise of helmets onto the arguments about the degree to which the large health benefits of cycling outweigh the far smaller risks involved.
de Jong uses mathematical modelling to show that even under the most optimistic predictions of helmet benefit, the net public health outcome of helmet promotion (let alone laws) is negative. This is because the risks in cycling are so small and the health benefits so great, that no reduction in cycle use would be acceptable in public health terms.
As early as 1988 Rodgers studied 8 million cases of injury or death to cyclists in the USA over 15 years - the largest survey of its kind ever undertaken. He concluded that there was no evidence that hard shell helmets had reduced head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, he found that helmeted riders were more likely to be killed....
So far as can be determined, nowhere in the world has an increase in helmet use resulted in a fall in head or brain injuries relative to cycle use.
The effect of enforced helmet laws: less cycling and no effect on the proportion of head injuries
The [Australian] report concluded that the law had not been cost-effective. New Zealand followed Australia with a mandatory helmet law. This law was also found not to have been cost effective and the head injury rate did not decrease more than for the population at large.
In Canada, too, in those provinces where helmet laws have been enforced, no benefit is apparent. In British Columbia and Nova Scotia there was no change in the proportion of cyclists suffering head injuries post-law, although cycle use fell markedly. In Alberta, the helmet law reduced cycling by children by around 56% while the absolute number of injuries went up.
A conflict of evidence
There is a stark conflict between the predictions of widely-publicised pro-helmet research, which suggests that helmets can deliver savings in head injuries of 65% to 90%, and data from other sources that suggest no benefit at all at a population level from cycle helmet use....
Elvik (2011), applying robust statistical tests, found evidence of bias in one meta analysis that resulted in the benefits of helmets being greatly overstated. He noted that more recent research shows no net benefit from wearing a helmet. He also finds that the authors of the Cochrane Review had a conflict of interest, which was not declared, and he criticises the narrow selection criteria used for evidence considered by the Review.
The importance of researchers keeping an open mind
One research project that aimed to justify a helmet law found that helmet use made no difference to head injury rates. However, a strong link was discovered between head injury rates and the consumption of alcohol or drugs by people cycling. It just so happened that many of these cyclists did not wear helmets.
This was an important finding that could easily have been overlooked. It raises the question as to whether other research has confused the effects of alcohol (and other differences in behaviour) and not wearing helmets
Epidemiological research – an area of increasing controversy
Cycle helmet research is not the only area of research where such conflicts exist, as evidenced by an increasing number of papers in epidemiological journals drawing attention to this problem. There have been issues with studies of the effect of hormone replacement therapy on heart disease, vitamin supplements, cannabis and schizophrenia, antibiotics and the MMR triple vaccine. Findings that had appeared robust subsequently turned out to be unreliable or simply wrong.
The parallels between these other areas and cycle helmets are considerable, as is the 'snowball effect' that takes place whereby weak research is cross-referenced and becomes the conventional wisdom. A particular problem with helmets is that much of the helmet sceptic data and research come from outside the medical sector and is little known inside it.
Ethics
As well as the poor methodology used in some cycle helmet research, there are also ethical issues of concern.
Medical research into helmets has assumed that cycling is comparatively risky; there never was any significant risk assessment completed to justify helmet promotion. This represents a serious failure of due diligence.
… but, a helmet saved my life!
Powerful support for cycle helmets comes from people who believe that a helmet has already saved them – or a relative or friend – from serious injury.
This is a very common experience, very much more common than the actual number of life-threatening injuries suffered by bare-headed cyclists. As there is no evidence that helmets save lives or serious injury at all across cyclists as a whole, most of these perceptions of helmet benefit must be exaggerated.
People often assume that a helmet has been beneficial because it has broken. However, it is common in these circumstances for the foam liner not to have compressed, indicating that the force towards the head was small. In many of these instances there may have been no impact at all without a helmet.
Adverse effects of cycle helmets
The apparently large proportion of helmeted cyclists who claim that a helmet has 'saved their life' suggests that helmeted riders are disproportionately more likely to suffer head-contact crashes compared with bare-headed riders. This is one of several hypotheses deserving of further investigation.
A tragic and little known outcome of helmet advocacy is the small number of young children (14 known cases world-wide) who have died through strangulation when playing after leaving their bikes and while still wearing a cycle helmet. This is significant mainly in the context that it is the only unambiguous evidence showing any relationship between fatalities and cycle helmet use, there being no reliable evidence of any lives saved.
Helmets and cycle use
It is now well established that enforced cycle helmet laws result in much less cycling. In Australia falls in cycle use averaged more than 30% and in Canada 28% to 40%.
Good evidence of the safety of cycling comes from city bike hire schemes worldwide. Up to 2011, the popular schemes in London and Dublin had generated over 8 million cycle journeys with no serious casualties of any kind. This is a very low level of risk and few riders wear helmets.
Health and cycling
The health benefits of cycling are substantial. Indeed, cycling regularly is the single most effective thing that a person can do to improve their health and increase longevity. Conversely, however, cycling less – perhaps as a result of being deterred by helmet laws or the exaggerated perceptions of risk generated to promote helmet wearing – results in considerable health loss to both individuals and society
Cutting through the controversy
Analysis by de Jong in 2012 has shifted the focus of the helmet debate away from the effectiveness or otherwise of helmets onto the arguments about the degree to which the large health benefits of cycling outweigh the far smaller risks involved.
de Jong uses mathematical modelling to show that even under the most optimistic predictions of helmet benefit, the net public health outcome of helmet promotion (let alone laws) is negative. This is because the risks in cycling are so small and the health benefits so great, that no reduction in cycle use would be acceptable in public health terms.
__________________
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.
Last edited by mconlonx; 06-25-14 at 01:30 PM.
06-25-14, 02:03 PM
#8077
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 8,849
Bikes: 2020 Masi Giramondo 700c; 2013 Lynskey Peloton; 1992 Giant Rincon; 1989 Dawes needs parts; 1985 Trek 660; 1985 Fuji Club; 1984 Schwinn Voyager; 1984 Miyata 612; 1977 Raleigh Competition GS
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 905 Post(s)
Liked 141 Times
in
118 Posts
Originally Posted by mconlonx
I don't have to disprove the statistics when the statistics you quote don't prove what you say they prove and the sites you link also support what I said.
BTW, tut-tut:
Maybe do what you say?
BTW, tut-tut:
Maybe do what you say?
06-25-14, 02:05 PM
#8078
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 8,849
Bikes: 2020 Masi Giramondo 700c; 2013 Lynskey Peloton; 1992 Giant Rincon; 1989 Dawes needs parts; 1985 Trek 660; 1985 Fuji Club; 1984 Schwinn Voyager; 1984 Miyata 612; 1977 Raleigh Competition GS
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 905 Post(s)
Liked 141 Times
in
118 Posts
Originally Posted by mconlonx
This is from the link you presented here regarding statistics and debunking of the "anti-helmet" crowd:
Not sure where you're going with all this, linking to stuff like this as a pro-helmeteer...?
Not sure where you're going with all this, linking to stuff like this as a pro-helmeteer...?
06-25-14, 02:29 PM
#8079
Senior Member
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
No, I remember that site quite well, I posted if for good reason, to show the opposite side of the argument, however they too have no statistics to back up their entire page of words for riders in America, just like the anti helmet gang here.
Since when has this been about american riders? I know you're all "hurr pew pew 'murrica!" But this about helmets in general in the world in general. And how is 'murrica somehow different in this?
06-25-14, 07:08 PM
#8080
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 8,849
Bikes: 2020 Masi Giramondo 700c; 2013 Lynskey Peloton; 1992 Giant Rincon; 1989 Dawes needs parts; 1985 Trek 660; 1985 Fuji Club; 1984 Schwinn Voyager; 1984 Miyata 612; 1977 Raleigh Competition GS
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 905 Post(s)
Liked 141 Times
in
118 Posts
Originally Posted by elcruxio
You do realize that this isn't a purely american forum and that this isn't the "american helmet thread" and you actually can't change the subject by whining like you could when you were five?
Since when has this been about american riders? I know you're all "hurr pew pew 'murrica!" But this about helmets in general in the world in general. And how is 'murrica somehow different in this?
Since when has this been about american riders? I know you're all "hurr pew pew 'murrica!" But this about helmets in general in the world in general. And how is 'murrica somehow different in this?
So what country do you live in?
06-25-14, 07:19 PM
#8081
Senior Member
[QUOTE=elcruxio;16882014]You do realize that this isn't a purely american forum and that this isn't the "american helmet thread" and you actually can't change the subject by whining like you could when you were five?
Since when has this been about american riders? I know you're all "hurr pew pew 'murrica!" But this about helmets in general in the world in general. And how is 'murrica somehow different in this?[/QUOTE]
I suspect that N. American bicycling, is WAY DIFFERENT than bicycling in some other poarts of the world...
Since when has this been about american riders? I know you're all "hurr pew pew 'murrica!" But this about helmets in general in the world in general. And how is 'murrica somehow different in this?[/QUOTE]
I suspect that N. American bicycling, is WAY DIFFERENT than bicycling in some other poarts of the world...
06-26-14, 12:26 AM
#8082
Senior Member
[QUOTE=350htrr;16882683]
Maybe. Doesn't have to be. Some cities are putting in some real effort I hear.
Originally Posted by elcruxio
You do realize that this isn't a purely american forum and that this isn't the "american helmet thread" and you actually can't change the subject by whining like you could when you were five?
Since when has this been about american riders? I know you're all "hurr pew pew 'murrica!" But this about helmets in general in the world in general. And how is 'murrica somehow different in this?[/QUOTE]
I suspect that N. American bicycling, is WAY DIFFERENT than bicycling in some other poarts of the world...
Since when has this been about american riders? I know you're all "hurr pew pew 'murrica!" But this about helmets in general in the world in general. And how is 'murrica somehow different in this?[/QUOTE]
I suspect that N. American bicycling, is WAY DIFFERENT than bicycling in some other poarts of the world...
06-26-14, 12:27 AM
#8083
Senior Member
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
Of course I knew that, that's why I quoted an American statistics which it is plainly written that is if anyone had bothered to read it.
So what country do you live in?
So what country do you live in?
06-26-14, 01:17 AM
#8084
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: MN.
Posts: 239
Bikes: A MTB and something else with 2 pedals.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Helmets Suck!! Period.
06-26-14, 02:38 AM
#8085
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 223
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1661 Post(s)
Liked 226 Times
in
131 Posts
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
to show the opposite side of the argument, however they too have no statistics to back up their entire page of words for riders in America, just like the anti helmet gang here.
OK, the US of A produced the biggest POS to ever ride a bicycle, so I'll give you guys that, but that's about it.
Last edited by CarinusMalmari; 06-26-14 at 06:48 AM.
06-26-14, 03:59 AM
#8086
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 223
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1661 Post(s)
Liked 226 Times
in
131 Posts
Another article that tries to proof that bicycle helmets are cool. I personally think it's telling that it's hard to even convince toddlers they are cool. but to each their own.
Helmet Head on Pinterest
It's is however clear that while you don't have to be clueless about bicycle safety to be a bicycle helmet advocate, it sure helps a lot if you fancy to be a one. The article about the coolness of bicycle helmets, contains among other things this bicycle helmet design.
It's only merit seems to be that it quickly removes the genes from whoever is stupid enough to wear it from the gene-pool. You don't even have to be in an accident in order to kill yourself with this wearable death trap.
Helmet Head on Pinterest
It's is however clear that while you don't have to be clueless about bicycle safety to be a bicycle helmet advocate, it sure helps a lot if you fancy to be a one. The article about the coolness of bicycle helmets, contains among other things this bicycle helmet design.
It's only merit seems to be that it quickly removes the genes from whoever is stupid enough to wear it from the gene-pool. You don't even have to be in an accident in order to kill yourself with this wearable death trap.
Last edited by CarinusMalmari; 06-26-14 at 04:09 AM. Reason: removed fighting words, and with words, i really mean alineas
06-26-14, 07:23 AM
#8088
Str*t*gic *quivoc*tor
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
Wow you really can't disprove can you, so you just blab on and on with worthless nonsense, your words alone don't cut it, and now you're showing us just how little your words mean.
__________________
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.
06-26-14, 07:35 AM
#8089
Str*t*gic *quivoc*tor
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
No, I remember that site quite well, I posted if for good reason, to show the opposite side of the argument, however they too have no statistics to back up their entire page of words for riders in America, just like the anti helmet gang here.
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
More statistics and debunking of the helmets don't work crowd:
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html
If you are grouping me in your supposed "anti-helmet" crowd within this thread, you are incredibly incorrect and ignorant, like you haven't once read my oft-repeated stance regarding personal helmet use.
Within this thread, you are one of the shrill, useless, pro-helmeteers, posting links which don't say what you think they do, misquoting statistics because you don't understand them. As bad or worse than any of the worst of your perceived "anti-helmet" crowd. A vast majority rightfully write off anything you post; intelligent pro-helmeteers cringe at your posts. Keep posting here -- you only support arguments against rabid, misdirected pro-helmeteers by example.
__________________
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.
06-26-14, 02:40 PM
#8090
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 8,849
Bikes: 2020 Masi Giramondo 700c; 2013 Lynskey Peloton; 1992 Giant Rincon; 1989 Dawes needs parts; 1985 Trek 660; 1985 Fuji Club; 1984 Schwinn Voyager; 1984 Miyata 612; 1977 Raleigh Competition GS
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 905 Post(s)
Liked 141 Times
in
118 Posts
[QUOTE=elcruxio;16883206]
Maybe. Doesn't have to be. Some cities are putting in some real effort I hear.
America is a far cry different than any country in the EU. The average commute to work here is 25 to 26 minutes, and the average distance of that average commute is 16 miles; in the EU the average time is 32 minutes but the average distance is only 8 miles; add on top of that the much more expensive gas you people in the EU have to pay for at around $7 a gallon vs us currently at $3.55. So in the EU it benefits the general population to commute more by bike then by car due to cost and the relative short distance needed to get to work and knowing you could beat the car driver to work!! So more people take bikes to work in the EU vs here in the US very few people, so few it's around 2.9% of the commuting population, and that figure is up 60% over the last 10 years, so it is going up but very slowly. What's really weird race wise African Americans hate riding bikes and only 0.3% commute by bike! As bike commute percentages increase walking to work has decreased. Anyway all of that is simply to show you that due to all the cars on the roads in the US the bicycle rider will have more a risk colliding with another car than a bike like in the EU, thus helmets statistically as was shown is more effective in those types of accidents; whereas colliding with another bike due to the lower speeds involves less risk to the head, thus riding without a helmet won't present any significant disadvantage.
At least that's how I would reason it to be.
Does all that I said mean the US shouldn't try to improve? not in the least bit, but I seriously don't believe that we will see anywhere near the number of averages that the EU has for biking to work due to logistics. As a side note, the beneficial thing America can do is not so much improve their system for promoting cycling, which we should do, but we should concentrate on establishing more telecommuting where the worker would remain home and do their work via computer.
The only problem I have with increasing bike paths and lanes in the colder climates, and I witnessed this situation here in Fort Wayne Indiana, is that taxpayers pay out money to have these expensive paths built and when I ride them I hardly see anyone on them except on weekends then there is a few more. But I've ridden 25 miles one way and 25 back on several occasions on a trail and run into 1 or 2 cyclists the whole time! And for that kind of use of a path that cost between $5,000 to $25,000 per mile seems a bit of a waste of taxpayers money. Shame on me for thinking that. Some places like in California and New York taxpayers have paid out as much as $535,000 per mile, that's not a typo! The average per mile cost in the US is $130,000. So while some cities are indeed putting out a real effort to put in paths and lanes it's costing the taxpayers a fortune.
Originally Posted by 350htrr
Maybe. Doesn't have to be. Some cities are putting in some real effort I hear.
At least that's how I would reason it to be.
Does all that I said mean the US shouldn't try to improve? not in the least bit, but I seriously don't believe that we will see anywhere near the number of averages that the EU has for biking to work due to logistics. As a side note, the beneficial thing America can do is not so much improve their system for promoting cycling, which we should do, but we should concentrate on establishing more telecommuting where the worker would remain home and do their work via computer.
The only problem I have with increasing bike paths and lanes in the colder climates, and I witnessed this situation here in Fort Wayne Indiana, is that taxpayers pay out money to have these expensive paths built and when I ride them I hardly see anyone on them except on weekends then there is a few more. But I've ridden 25 miles one way and 25 back on several occasions on a trail and run into 1 or 2 cyclists the whole time! And for that kind of use of a path that cost between $5,000 to $25,000 per mile seems a bit of a waste of taxpayers money. Shame on me for thinking that. Some places like in California and New York taxpayers have paid out as much as $535,000 per mile, that's not a typo! The average per mile cost in the US is $130,000. So while some cities are indeed putting out a real effort to put in paths and lanes it's costing the taxpayers a fortune.
06-26-14, 03:12 PM
#8091
Senior Member
[QUOTE=elcruxio;16883206]
Maybe. Doesn't have to be. Some cities are putting in some real effort I hear.
I believe elcruxio said this...
[QUOTE=350htrr;16882683]
I said the last sentance... 
Originally Posted by 350htrr
Maybe. Doesn't have to be. Some cities are putting in some real effort I hear.
[QUOTE=350htrr;16882683]
Originally Posted by elcruxio
You do realize that this isn't a purely american forum and that this isn't the "american helmet thread" and you actually can't change the subject by whining like you could when you were five?
Since when has this been about american riders? I know you're all "hurr pew pew 'murrica!" But this about helmets in general in the world in general. And how is 'murrica somehow different in this?[/QUOTE]
I suspect that N. American bicycling, is WAY DIFFERENT than bicycling in some other poarts of the world...
Since when has this been about american riders? I know you're all "hurr pew pew 'murrica!" But this about helmets in general in the world in general. And how is 'murrica somehow different in this?[/QUOTE]
I suspect that N. American bicycling, is WAY DIFFERENT than bicycling in some other poarts of the world...
06-27-14, 12:51 AM
#8092
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: San Francisco, California
Posts: 73
Bikes: 1987 Specialized Hard Rock
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I must know where I can buy one of those mickey mouse helmets.
06-27-14, 02:38 AM
#8093
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 223
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1661 Post(s)
Liked 226 Times
in
131 Posts
@rekmeyata: I shared this earlier. About a quarter of all car commutes is an ideal-for-cycling 2x5=10 miles or less and about half is a less-than-ideal-but-still-doable 2x10=20 miles or less. So I think Americans are more car-dependent on a psychological level than that they really need cars for the great majority of their trips.
Last edited by CarinusMalmari; 06-27-14 at 04:09 AM.
06-27-14, 04:40 AM
#8094
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 223
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1661 Post(s)
Liked 226 Times
in
131 Posts
Originally Posted by Gothic Sunshine
I must know where I can buy one of those mickey mouse helmets.
06-27-14, 06:30 AM
#8095
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,502
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2092 Post(s)
Liked 639 Times
in
430 Posts
Originally Posted by CarinusMalmari
It's in the like I provided. Let me also spell out (again) that it's a completely ******** design from a safety POV. There's a good possibility that if the ears will act as a lever in case of an accident, greatly increasing both chances and severity of a neck injury.
-mr. bill
06-27-14, 07:40 AM
#8096
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 8,849
Bikes: 2020 Masi Giramondo 700c; 2013 Lynskey Peloton; 1992 Giant Rincon; 1989 Dawes needs parts; 1985 Trek 660; 1985 Fuji Club; 1984 Schwinn Voyager; 1984 Miyata 612; 1977 Raleigh Competition GS
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 905 Post(s)
Liked 141 Times
in
118 Posts
Originally Posted by CarinusMalmari
@rekmeyata: I shared this earlier. About a quarter of all car commutes is an ideal-for-cycling 2x5=10 miles or less and about half is a less-than-ideal-but-still-doable 2x10=20 miles or less. So I think Americans are more car-dependent on a psychological level than that they really need cars for the great majority of their trips.
HOWEVER, if people paid more attention to area weather forecasts they could do a better job of at least commuting by bike in the late spring, summer and early fall part time.
Again I'm not arguing against commuting by bike, but in most places in our nation it isn't really going to happen due to logistics as I spoke of earlier and weather. And I do agree with you that people are lazy in general here, I use to have friend who lived a block from me, would come over by firing up his 10 mpg truck and drive over to my house! He never walked over!! I don't think it's so much psychological as it is just plain laziness...at least in my opinion.
06-27-14, 12:47 PM
#8097
Senior Member
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
However accurate that graph is is anyone's guess, but lets assume that it is, about 2/3rds of the nation has people living in areas of dramatic weather changes, it could be sunny leaving then be raining returning or vice a versa, so with such potential weather issues most don't want to risk riding in the rain. And in that same 2/3rds of the nation they can't ride a bike to work for at least 5 months out of the year due to bad weather called snow, this year in Indiana was one of the worse winters on record and the cold and snow and ice lasted 7 months, so for 7 months commuting by bike would have been treacherous not to mention miserable. Also keep in mind that for various reason a person goes to work then for lunch they take off in the car to either get food or run errands, although with some planning that wouldn't be necessary.
HOWEVER, if people paid more attention to area weather forecasts they could do a better job of at least commuting by bike in the late spring, summer and early fall part time.
Again I'm not arguing against commuting by bike, but in most places in our nation it isn't really going to happen due to logistics as I spoke of earlier and weather. And I do agree with you that people are lazy in general here, I use to have friend who lived a block from me, would come over by firing up his 10 mpg truck and drive over to my house! He never walked over!! I don't think it's so much psychological as it is just plain laziness...at least in my opinion.
HOWEVER, if people paid more attention to area weather forecasts they could do a better job of at least commuting by bike in the late spring, summer and early fall part time.
Again I'm not arguing against commuting by bike, but in most places in our nation it isn't really going to happen due to logistics as I spoke of earlier and weather. And I do agree with you that people are lazy in general here, I use to have friend who lived a block from me, would come over by firing up his 10 mpg truck and drive over to my house! He never walked over!! I don't think it's so much psychological as it is just plain laziness...at least in my opinion.
Americans are made of sugar (which actually fits the obesity epidemic pretty well...)
Thankfully I live in a nation which is known for its hardiness and guts. I could not take such pansy assery. "Ooo I can't ride in the rain in case I get water on my prescious skin!"
06-27-14, 02:29 PM
#8098
Senior Member
Originally Posted by elcruxio
Thankfully I live in a nation which is known for its hardiness and guts. I could not take such pansy assery. "Ooo I can't ride in the rain in case I get water on my prescious skin!"
06-28-14, 07:42 AM
#8099
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 223
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1661 Post(s)
Liked 226 Times
in
131 Posts
However accurate that graph is is anyone's guess,
gain I'm not arguing against commuting by bike,
06-28-14, 08:45 AM
#8100
20+mph Commuter
Originally Posted by enigmaT120
Nobody denies you guys are tough. Even moreso since any rain in Mordor would probably be acid rain from all of the volcanic activity.
Mods: ^^This is every bit as relevant as the last few posts RE: "Toughness around the world". Just way more entertaining.
