Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Helmets cramp my style

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Helmets cramp my style

Old 01-13-07, 06:54 PM
  #1001  
N_C
Banned.
 
N_C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bannation, forever.
Posts: 2,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker
Maybe you should brush up on your physics and physiology if your faith is based on what you can see & believe to be true, or do you have your own set of rules for your own version of physics and physiology?
You're talking about the definition of faith, I know what that is. For me to have faith in something I have to see some sort of proof for me to be convinced it is real or that it happened or could happen. I do not have absolute blind faith in something. I used to, for various reasons not anymore. Let me clarify I am strictly talking about religious faith here.

Last edited by N_C; 01-13-07 at 07:09 PM.
N_C is offline  
Old 01-13-07, 07:12 PM
  #1002  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
This goes back to post #523 that I made

maybe the whole issue has to do with faith. An illogical belief in the irrational.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 01-13-07, 07:20 PM
  #1003  
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by N_C
Chipcom,

Nice for you to have such blind faith in god. I don't. I believe in god & my faith is based on what I can see & believe to be true, it is not blind.
You might believe, but you have no faith. Faith is believing without having proof. My faith has kept me alive and for all these years in situtations that you can only imagine - and virtually unscathed on a bicycle for over 40 years. You are the one who has a tendency to crash, yet I'm the one who is foolish and blind? That would be funny if it were not so sad. Perhaps if you had some real faith you would not have crashed in the first place...did you ever think of that? Nooo, you gotta have proof. Sorry pal, I wouldn't wish the kind of proof I've had on anyone, even a putz like you.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey

Last edited by chipcom; 01-13-07 at 07:33 PM.
chipcom is offline  
Old 01-13-07, 07:28 PM
  #1004  
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker
This goes back to post #523 that I made

maybe the whole issue has to do with faith. An illogical belief in the irrational.
Funny thing is, I'm not a religious guy. I don't go to church or subscribe to any religion. My faith is based upon what I have learned from experience. You know the old saying about no atheists in a foxhole?

I find it sad and ironic that so many of these church-going good Christians are not only the first to judge others on issues such as this, but also really have no faith in what they claim to believe in.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline  
Old 01-13-07, 07:44 PM
  #1005  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
In that post I used faith as a reason to believe in the protective qualities of helmets beyond their capacity to protect.

I also use an image that showed my perception of the quality of that faith

closetbiker is offline  
Old 01-13-07, 08:02 PM
  #1006  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by N_C
... For me to have faith in something I have to see some sort of proof for me to be convinced it is real or that it happened or could happen...
the definition of faith is an aceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason. (from www.carm.org/atheism/terms.htm)

Haven't you just stuck your foot in your mouth (again)?

Last edited by closetbiker; 01-13-07 at 08:38 PM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 01-13-07, 09:48 PM
  #1007  
N_C
Banned.
 
N_C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bannation, forever.
Posts: 2,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker
the definition of faith is an aceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason. (from www.carm.org/atheism/terms.htm)

Haven't you just stuck your foot in your mouth (again)?
No, because that is not my definition of faith. It is differant because of my own experiences, not because I was told to believe & have faith in something just because someone else claims it to be the truth.

What is the problem with my definition being different then the prescribed one? For that matter why do you have a problem with it? You don't agree with it? That's ok, but it doesn't change how I believe or what I believe.

Last edited by N_C; 01-13-07 at 10:00 PM.
N_C is offline  
Old 01-13-07, 09:51 PM
  #1008  
N_C
Banned.
 
N_C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bannation, forever.
Posts: 2,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom
Funny thing is, I'm not a religious guy. I don't go to church or subscribe to any religion. My faith is based upon what I have learned from experience. You know the old saying about no atheists in a foxhole?

I find it sad and ironic that so many of these church-going good Christians are not only the first to judge others on issues such as this, but also really have no faith in what they claim to believe in.
Interesting because I too am not a religious person. I don't go to church except maybe twice a year or when I attend a wedding. My faith is is based on my experiences in my life as well. Part of it has been weakened because at the time I really needed god I feel he was not there. There was a time when I had no faith at all, that has since changed. But I have always believed in god, that has never changed.
N_C is offline  
Old 01-13-07, 09:59 PM
  #1009  
N_C
Banned.
 
N_C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bannation, forever.
Posts: 2,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom
You might believe, but you have no faith. Faith is believing without having proof. My faith has kept me alive and for all these years in situtations that you can only imagine - and virtually unscathed on a bicycle for over 40 years. You are the one who has a tendency to crash, yet I'm the one who is foolish and blind? That would be funny if it were not so sad. Perhaps if you had some real faith you would not have crashed in the first place...did you ever think of that? Nooo, you gotta have proof. Sorry pal, I wouldn't wish the kind of proof I've had on anyone, even a putz like you.
I did not mean my comment about you having blind faith as mean spirited. I think it is good that you do. It was a compliment, sorry you didn't see it that way & took offense to it.

I have not crashed on a bike in a very long time, thankfully. I don't remember the last time I crashed. Why? Well I have faith in my abilities as a cyclist. Which get stronger every time I ride. The proof I have seen is from my experiences when I ride. That is faith in my abilities backed up by tangible proof.

If you have never crashed or it has been 40 years since you have well then good for you. I hope I can go that long with out crashing on my bike. I'd like to think I can, but will I? I don't know, time will tell. I have faith in my abilities to help prevent me from crashing. But there is always the unkown & unpredictable that can happen when riding. Like the car that may run the stop sign as I am passing through an intersection & collides with me. If I see it in time I will of course try to avoid it but sometimes that does not happen. And sometimes even if I can avoid it I still may crash because I hit the curb on the other side of the roadway, etc.
N_C is offline  
Old 01-13-07, 10:14 PM
  #1010  
jwc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 399

Bikes: Specialized (2) Trek 400, Raleigh 3spd

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Just wondering, based on some of the posts that mention helmets causing the general public to preceive cycling as dangerous....

Helmet legislation is really in its infancy. While it has affected children nationwide, it is just beginning to affect adult riders. I do believe that consumer safety groups find bicycles just a dangerous consumer product.

In reviewing this thread, there is are a lot of comments that proclaim it is a personal choice. Advocacy groups and consumer protection groups perceive bicycles as a danger, something they see as a toy or just an appliance. They want to pass legislation to protect the public from a dangerous product. In this case, by requiring helmets.

The question is, will they go any further? New Jersey tried to pass legislation to change quick release designs. In one article, it was mentioned that many believe it isn't the fault of the quick release design, but the design of bicycles.

Will there be a day when mirrors will be required?

Will a ban on clipless pedals be next? I googled "clipless pedals dangerous" and the hits that turned up included a lot of questions about the perceived danger of clipless pedals. Usually asked by someone unfamiliar with them. In the hand of an uneducated legislator or city councilman, that perception could lead to an attempt to ban something perceived as a dangerous accessory.

One thing I did learn is that in a couple of states, it is illegal to ride with clipless pedals at night, unless you have ankle reflectors. It is also illegal to sell a bicycle in some states with pedals that do not have some kind of reflector.

It is that old slippery slope again, but a friend once suggested that if laws requiring helmets for children are passed, adult laws wouldn't be far behind. It turns out he was correct.
jwc is offline  
Old 01-13-07, 10:24 PM
  #1011  
N_C
Banned.
 
N_C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bannation, forever.
Posts: 2,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jwc
Just wondering, based on some of the posts that mention helmets causing the general public to preceive cycling as dangerous....

Helmet legislation is really in its infancy. While it has affected children nationwide, it is just beginning to affect adult riders. I do believe that consumer safety groups find bicycles just a dangerous consumer product.

In reviewing this thread, there is are a lot of comments that proclaim it is a personal choice. Advocacy groups and consumer protection groups perceive bicycles as a danger, something they see as a toy or just an appliance. They want to pass legislation to protect the public from a dangerous product. In this case, by requiring helmets.

The question is, will they go any further? New Jersey tried to pass legislation to change quick release designs. In one article, it was mentioned that many believe it isn't the fault of the quick release design, but the design of bicycles.

Will there be a day when mirrors will be required?

Will a ban on clipless pedals be next? I googled "clipless pedals dangerous" and the hits that turned up included a lot of questions about the perceived danger of clipless pedals. Usually asked by someone unfamiliar with them. In the hand of an uneducated legislator or city councilman, that perception could lead to an attempt to ban something perceived as a dangerous accessory.

One thing I did learn is that in a couple of states, it is illegal to ride with clipless pedals at night, unless you have ankle reflectors. It is also illegal to sell a bicycle in some states with pedals that do not have some kind of reflector.

It is that old slippery slope again, but a friend once suggested that if laws requiring helmets for children are passed, adult laws wouldn't be far behind. It turns out he was correct.
When such laws are passed why do the legislators not speak with cyclists? Both for & against such laws? Why do they just blindly pass such legislation?

We know that when seat belt laws were passed it was because in part the states would loose federal highway funds. But were they also passed because some groups view driving or riding in a vehicle as dangerous too? Otherwise why pass the laws? If they did so with that logic then seeing cycling as dangerous is not that great of a leap for the legislators to make. Even though it is far from dangerous.

Let me guess they want to ban clipless pedals because first they do not have reflectors on them & second they think that with your feet "locked" in it is harder to control the bike.

This is exactly why organizations like the LAB & the similar state groups exist.

I don't mind legislation for helmets as long as it is done after speaking with both the pro-ponents & the opponents on the matter & not because cycling is thought to be dangerous. Just don't blindly do so because some non-cycling law maker thinks it is dangerous.
N_C is offline  
Old 01-13-07, 10:31 PM
  #1012  
jwc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 399

Bikes: Specialized (2) Trek 400, Raleigh 3spd

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
My town just passed an ordinance, not an uncommon one, that requires me to ride on a bike path or lane if one is present. Why? Well, I talked to the mayor. (I went to high school with him). Seems that riding on the street is very dangerous and it is just a matter of time before someone gets killed. This is also why the town passed an ordinance allowing the chief of police to ban bicycles on any roadway he wants to.

Ironically, no one has been killed or seriously injured riding a bike in this town in at least thirty years.

And......there are no bike paths.

Their perception of danger led to the passing of ordinances based on fear and without any basis in reality.
jwc is offline  
Old 01-13-07, 10:36 PM
  #1013  
jwc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 399

Bikes: Specialized (2) Trek 400, Raleigh 3spd

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Maybe one reason legislators do not talk to cyclists is because we're biased. Or because they have read the CPSC papers and know better than we what the dangers are in regards to cycling..
jwc is offline  
Old 01-13-07, 10:42 PM
  #1014  
Biketime
Biketime
 
Biketime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 58

Bikes: 2005 Cannondale R700

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jwc
My town just passed an ordinance, not an uncommon one, that requires me to ride on a bike path or lane if one is present. Why? Well, I talked to the mayor. (I went to high school with him). Seems that riding on the street is very dangerous and it is just a matter of time before someone gets killed. This is also why the town passed an ordinance allowing the chief of police to ban bicycles on any roadway he wAnd......there are no bike paths.ants to.

Ironically, no one has been killed or seriously injured riding a bike in this town in at least thirty years.

And......there are no bike paths.

Their perception of danger led to the passing of ordinances based on fear and without any basis in reality.
"And......there are no bike paths." Priceless.

Folks ask me why the streets and not the trail. My reply is always that I have apretty good idea what the cars are and are not going to do. I have no idea what that 7 yr old is going to do. Therefore, I feel safer in the street.
Biketime is offline  
Old 01-13-07, 10:51 PM
  #1015  
Biketime
Biketime
 
Biketime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 58

Bikes: 2005 Cannondale R700

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jwc
Will there be a day when mirrors will be required?
It's something I'd even consider supporting. They are required on cars and motorcycles as helmets for the latter are not here in Ohio.

As I lost some hearing, I've been riding with a helmet mirror since about 1989. Personally, I don't understand how one can ride w/o one. You wouldn't want to drive a car or motorcycle w/o one, so why not a bike? It adds 180 degrees to the field of vision, and that ain't unimportant. It also allows one to look a vehicle back and let it know you know of its presence w/o turning all the way around preventing possible drift into the center of the lane.

I am seeing more cyclists with mirrors every season.

Just a thought.
Biketime is offline  
Old 01-13-07, 10:53 PM
  #1016  
Biketime
Biketime
 
Biketime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 58

Bikes: 2005 Cannondale R700

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jwc
Maybe one reason legislators do not talk to cyclists is because we're biased. Or because they have read the CPSC papers and know better than we what the dangers are in regards to cycling..
And yet they let insurancefirms, HMOs, oil companies, etc., write legislation.
Biketime is offline  
Old 01-13-07, 11:02 PM
  #1017  
N_C
Banned.
 
N_C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bannation, forever.
Posts: 2,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jwc
My town just passed an ordinance, not an uncommon one, that requires me to ride on a bike path or lane if one is present. Why? Well, I talked to the mayor. (I went to high school with him). Seems that riding on the street is very dangerous and it is just a matter of time before someone gets killed. This is also why the town passed an ordinance allowing the chief of police to ban bicycles on any roadway he wants to.

Ironically, no one has been killed or seriously injured riding a bike in this town in at least thirty years.

And......there are no bike paths.

Their perception of danger led to the passing of ordinances based on fear and without any basis in reality.
My city has a similar ordinance regarding the MUP's. But only when it parallels a roadway. It is not enforced, nor could it hold up if a cyclist was cited for violating it. The reason is because bicycles are recognized as legal vehicles of the roadways & is not considered by law enforcment or the law makers for that matter as being dangerous. I have even ridden with an off duty police officer on the roadway rather then the MUP, more then once.
N_C is offline  
Old 01-13-07, 11:07 PM
  #1018  
jwc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 399

Bikes: Specialized (2) Trek 400, Raleigh 3spd

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Biketime
It's something I'd even consider supporting. They are required on cars and motorcycles as helmets for the latter are not here in Ohio.

As I lost some hearing, I've been riding with a helmet mirror since about 1989. Personally, I don't understand how one can ride w/o one. You wouldn't want to drive a car or motorcycle w/o one, so why not a bike? It adds 180 degrees to the field of vision, and that ain't unimportant. It also allows one to look a vehicle back and let it know you know of its presence w/o turning all the way around preventing possible drift into the center of the lane.

I am seeing more cyclists with mirrors every season.

Just a thought.
I mentioned it because of any safety legislation that could be offered as law, this is one I would agree with. I also feel it is the one safety item that should would make a bigger difference that a helmet. A mirror has the potential to prevent an accident, not try to "save" you after the fact.

Once, mirrors were the domain of the Freds for me. I never had a problem with people cutting me off when I lived in California, but here in NC, it is a problem. It has made a big difference for me in the number of "close calls".
jwc is offline  
Old 01-13-07, 11:10 PM
  #1019  
jwc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 399

Bikes: Specialized (2) Trek 400, Raleigh 3spd

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by N_C
My city has a similar ordinance regarding the MUP's. But only when it parallels a roadway. It is not enforced, nor could it hold up if a cyclist was cited for violating it. The reason is because bicycles are recognized as legal vehicles of the roadways & is not considered by law enforcment or the law makers for that matter as being dangerous. I have even ridden with an off duty police officer on the roadway rather then the MUP, more then once.
I brought this up a few weeks ago in a separate thread. In researching the "bike path" and "street restriction" ordinance on the state's DOT site, I found that, indeed, the state left a loophole for individual towns and cities to do as they wish within their area of jurisdiction. So, while the state says a bike has the same rights as a motorized vehicle, that changes within town or city limits.
jwc is offline  
Old 01-13-07, 11:16 PM
  #1020  
jwc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 399

Bikes: Specialized (2) Trek 400, Raleigh 3spd

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Actually, looking up regulations in Iowa, the state's regs says that cities and towns may have ordinances regulating the operation of bicycles and you should consult local law enforcement.

The same application in NC may also apply in Iowa.
jwc is offline  
Old 01-13-07, 11:17 PM
  #1021  
N_C
Banned.
 
N_C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bannation, forever.
Posts: 2,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jwc
I brought this up a few weeks ago in a separate thread. In researching the "bike path" and "street restriction" ordinance on the state's DOT site, I found that, indeed, the state left a loophole for individual towns and cities to do as they wish within their area of jurisdiction. So, while the state says a bike has the same rights as a motorized vehicle, that changes within town or city limits.
That is true. County laws & ordinances trump state & city trump both. But it is not effective unless it is activley enforced. I've yet to have it enforced in my community. I have inquired about having it removed but was told not to push it as it may cause them to start enforcing it because it would bring it to their attention. I think many officers do not know it exists. Then again maybe they do & do not care about it.

Here is a copy of that ordinance in my city:

Section 10.52.040 Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.

3. Wherever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway.
N_C is offline  
Old 01-13-07, 11:22 PM
  #1022  
jwc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 399

Bikes: Specialized (2) Trek 400, Raleigh 3spd

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I would worry about it since the ordinance was just passed, if there was a bike path or MUP in this town.

The last attempt to put an MUP in this county was defeated because it would run along side a creek that spanned the county. It would have been a beautiful ride, but farmers along the route vetoed it.
jwc is offline  
Old 01-13-07, 11:23 PM
  #1023  
N_C
Banned.
 
N_C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bannation, forever.
Posts: 2,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jwc
I mentioned it because of any safety legislation that could be offered as law, this is one I would agree with. I also feel it is the one safety item that should would make a bigger difference that a helmet. A mirror has the potential to prevent an accident, not try to "save" you after the fact.

Once, mirrors were the domain of the Freds for me. I never had a problem with people cutting me off when I lived in California, but here in NC, it is a problem. It has made a big difference for me in the number of "close calls".
I never used a mirror when I rode a road bike. I started using one when I started riding my recumbent over 5 years ago. It is harder for me to look behind me so I use a mirror to help see what is behind. I do not think mirrors, either handle bar or helmet, should be legislated. I never needed one on a road bike. It was easy to look behind me, either over my shoulder or under my arm. On my 'bent it is not so easy to do so.
N_C is offline  
Old 01-13-07, 11:27 PM
  #1024  
N_C
Banned.
 
N_C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bannation, forever.
Posts: 2,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jwc
I would worry about it since the ordinance was just passed, if there was a bike path or MUP in this town.

The last attempt to put an MUP in this county was defeated because it would run along side a creek that spanned the county. It would have been a beautiful ride, but farmers along the route vetoed it.
Let me guess right of eminent domain issue, right? Not to mention a matter of pride for the farmers to tightly hold onto land they can not farm anyway because some large company did something to their family long ago, they got the land back & will not let go of it ever again.

This has happened in Iowa. A century ago the railroad companies used right of eminent domain to gain land from the farmers that was not able to be farmed. When the rr companies stopped using the particular railroad routes & closed down the tracks the land was regained by the farmers. Now counties & other organizations want to build trails on the old rr beds. The farmers refuse to even sell the land because of what happened a century ago.
N_C is offline  
Old 01-13-07, 11:35 PM
  #1025  
jwc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 399

Bikes: Specialized (2) Trek 400, Raleigh 3spd

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
The county controls the right of way along the creek, but the farmers have a say in it's use. Their fear was that people would stray upon their land and get hurt, then sue.
jwc is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.