|
|
| Re: Read these three articles about cycling (324950) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (325059) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Aug 26 09:06:34 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by R30a on Fri Aug 25 19:20:41 2017. If the reflector is in back of the bike and the bike is crossing in front of you, the rear reflector is not visible to you. That's what happened when all I was able to see were the reflecting strips on the sneakers. |
|
|
| (325060) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Sat Aug 26 21:43:13 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by Joe V on Fri Aug 25 20:25:58 2017. Motorcyclists are required to have them, so bicyclists should too.That really doesn't follow, and even the law for motorcyclists is controversial. New Hampshire (the "Live Free or Die" state), for example, does not require their use, nor does it require adults to wear seat belts. The notion that the government should force people to do things for their own safety is what is sometimes called the "nanny state", and many consider it un-American. That you and BrooklynBus simply take it for granted is troubling. Laws that could prevent accidents from occurring in the first place (such as requiring additional reflectors) are another story. |
|
|
| (325066) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Aug 27 18:42:06 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by Dyre Dan on Sat Aug 26 21:43:13 2017. I would call this particular lack of a "nanny state" (seat belts, helmets) as all of us paying for their more serious injuries through the health insurance system, and then more death claims. There is nothing "American" about that.You are on a government-owned road - you play by their rules. Driving is neither a right nor an entitlement. In an anti-public transit state like NH,they feel otherwise. |
|
|
| (325068) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by JerBear on Mon Aug 28 08:45:26 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Aug 25 14:09:05 2017. I thought he was implying that you should judge crashes per incident, a proxy of which is bicycle crashes per capita. If you have 5 more deaths a year but 5,000 more people riding regularly, then, yes, in absolute terms, more bicyclists died. But as a percentage of the moments spent riding by all citizens, crashes resulting in death became less frequent. Because you increased the denominator.Now if instead you don't like analyzing by percent of incidents and you favor overall numbers, then you should recommend helmets for all human beings, especially drivers, and definitely all pedestrians. (most of the statistics I am looking at are on the CDC website). So 2% of people who died as a result of a motor vehicle crash were bicyclists. Let's call it 37,000 road crash deaths and 740 of those were bicyclists. Broad averages, not any specific year. But it also says that traumatic brain injury deaths in 2013 were 19% of motor vehicle crash deaths. So 7,030 people died from head injuries related to motor vehicle road crashes. If only 740 of those were bicyclists, that means 6,290 weren't. Assume some of those were pedestrians, and you still have thousands of deaths that may have been mitigated by everyone in a motor vehicle wearing a helmet. Pedestrians would doubly benefit, because the leading cause of death by traumatic death by brain injury is a fall, usually of a pedestrian. So helmets for everyone always! We need to save lives, right? |
|
|
| (325071) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 28 11:05:04 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by JerBear on Mon Aug 28 08:45:26 2017. I really doubt it if helmets would make any difference for those in an automobile since they are already protected by the vehicle. I once worked with someone in an office building who walked around with a helmet on just in case. |
|
|
| (325072) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Aug 28 11:43:33 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by Joe V on Sun Aug 27 18:42:06 2017. It is OUR government. It is not a "government-owned road" it is owned by the people. The correct pronoun is "our" and not "their."I do not agree that driving is not a right. That is a myth propagated by DMVs. Travel is a right; however, cars are dangerous and the people have decided that proper regulation is necessary to make the roads work well for everyone. |
|
|
| (325074) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Aug 28 17:23:30 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Aug 28 11:43:33 2017. Travel is a right, Driving is a privilege.Whatever pronoun you want to nitpik, you obey the law or you get fined when caught. |
|
|
| (325078) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 29 08:52:37 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by Joe V on Mon Aug 28 17:23:30 2017. That's true of exercising rights too.It's not nitpicking. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||