Jim Elbrecht wrote:
> At first glance this seems like a good idea
>
> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/t...6N6IZIPnQKUrI?
> "Time to roll! Memorial Day bike-share debut"
>
> But the last line of this article gives me pause. In a city where
> the mayor has banned smoking in public, regulated sodium in
> restaurant, demanded posting of calorie counts at McDonalds, required
> health department grades be posted on storefronts, is trying to ban
> large sodas, and trans-fats will get you more jail time than a bit of
> cocaine--
> "Unlike several other big city bike-share programs, New York won't
> require riders to wear helmets"
>
> Really?-- 1000 inexperienced bike riders dodging cars in the Big
> Apple and they don't need helmets?
>
> Send the mayor to a neuro ward for a day-
>
> Jim

Helmets are a controversial subject for some cyclists, Jim. Although
the bulk of the evidence supports wearing them, my understanding is that
it's not quite a clear-cut as, e.g., seat belts for cars. There have
been studies - I won't go into the details - that showed non-helmeted
cyclists got into fewer accidents, that cars tend to give non-helmeted
cyclists a wider clearance when passing them, and the like.

Many bike forums and bike lists periodically deteriorate into what have
become known as the Helmet Wars.

NB: I always wear a helmet when I ride a bike but I don't make a fuss
when others don't.

-S-

On 5/7/2013 8:49 AM, Steve Freides wrote:
> Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>> At first glance this seems like a good idea
>>
>> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/t...6N6IZIPnQKUrI?
>> "Time to roll! Memorial Day bike-share debut"
>>
>> But the last line of this article gives me pause. In a city where
>> the mayor has banned smoking in public, regulated sodium in
>> restaurant, demanded posting of calorie counts at McDonalds, required
>> health department grades be posted on storefronts, is trying to ban
>> large sodas, and trans-fats will get you more jail time than a bit of
>> cocaine--
>> "Unlike several other big city bike-share programs, New York won't
>> require riders to wear helmets"
>>
>> Really?-- 1000 inexperienced bike riders dodging cars in the Big
>> Apple and they don't need helmets?
>>
>> Send the mayor to a neuro ward for a day-
>>
>> Jim
>
> Helmets are a controversial subject for some cyclists, Jim. Although
> the bulk of the evidence supports wearing them, my understanding is that
> it's not quite a clear-cut as, e.g., seat belts for cars. There have
> been studies - I won't go into the details - that showed non-helmeted
> cyclists got into fewer accidents, that cars tend to give non-helmeted
> cyclists a wider clearance when passing them, and the like.
>
That makes some sense, but I didn't get (from reading the article) the
people who will be taking advantage of this bike-share thing are
"cyclists". Don't people who do a lot of cycling own their own bicycles?

Jill

On Tue, 07 May 2013 10:16:45 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

> That makes some sense, but I didn't get (from reading the article) the
> people who will be taking advantage of this bike-share thing are
> "cyclists". Don't people who do a lot of cycling own their own bicycles?

The cyclists you're thinking of are not doing it to get from point A
to point B, they're doing it for "exercise" and the chance to drop
somewhere in the neighborhood of $2000 on a bike plus even more on
their biker outfit. NYC is a walking town, which means the people
who'd use bike-share just want to get to their destination a little
faster without paying for a cab.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 5/7/2013 1:04 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 07 May 2013 10:16:45 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> That makes some sense, but I didn't get (from reading the article) the
>> people who will be taking advantage of this bike-share thing are
>> "cyclists". Don't people who do a lot of cycling own their own bicycles?
>
> The cyclists you're thinking of are not doing it to get from point A
> to point B, they're doing it for "exercise" and the chance to drop
> somewhere in the neighborhood of $2000 on a bike plus even more on
> their biker outfit. NYC is a walking town, which means the people
> who'd use bike-share just want to get to their destination a little
> faster without paying for a cab.
>
Okay, that makes more sense, thanks sf!

Jill <---not an NYC'r

On May 7, 5:49*am, "Steve Freides" > wrote:
> Jim Elbrecht wrote:
> > At first glance this seems like a good idea
>
> >http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/t...6N6IZIPnQKUrI?
> > "Time to roll! Memorial Day bike-share debut"
>
> > But the last line of this article gives me pause. * In a city where
> > the mayor has banned smoking in public, regulated sodium in
> > restaurant, demanded posting of calorie counts at McDonalds, required
> > health department grades be posted on storefronts, *is trying to ban
> > large sodas, and trans-fats will get you more jail time than a bit of
> > cocaine--
> > "Unlike several other big city bike-share programs, New York won't
> > require riders to wear helmets"
>
> > Really?-- *1000 inexperienced bike riders dodging cars in the Big
> > Apple and they don't need helmets?
>
> > Send the mayor to a neuro ward for a day-
>
> > Jim
>
> Helmets are a controversial subject for some cyclists, Jim. *Although
> the bulk of the evidence supports wearing them, my understanding is that
> it's not quite a clear-cut as, e.g., seat belts for cars. *There have
> been studies - I won't go into the details - that showed non-helmeted
> cyclists got into fewer accidents, that cars tend to give non-helmeted
> cyclists a wider clearance when passing them, and the like.
>
> Many bike forums and bike lists periodically deteriorate into what have
> become known as the Helmet Wars.
>
> NB: I always wear a helmet when I ride a bike but I don't make a fuss
> when others don't.
>
> -S-

I guess a bike helmet is better than nothing but they basically really
don't do much...especially for a face plant.

Steve Freides wrote:
>
> Helmets are a controversial subject for some cyclists, Jim. Although
> the bulk of the evidence supports wearing them, my understanding is
> that it's not quite a clear-cut as, e.g., seat belts for cars. There
> have been studies - I won't go into the details - that showed
> non-helmeted cyclists got into fewer accidents, that cars tend to
> give non-helmeted cyclists a wider clearance when passing them, and
> the like.

People who don't wear seat belts also have fewer accidents.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing remove the last word.

On Wed, 8 May 2013 01:52:26 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> wrote:

>
> Steve Freides wrote:
> >
> > Helmets are a controversial subject for some cyclists, Jim. Although
> > the bulk of the evidence supports wearing them, my understanding is
> > that it's not quite a clear-cut as, e.g., seat belts for cars. There
> > have been studies - I won't go into the details - that showed
> > non-helmeted cyclists got into fewer accidents, that cars tend to
> > give non-helmeted cyclists a wider clearance when passing them, and
> > the like.
>
> People who don't wear seat belts also have fewer accidents.

Because they're more careful?

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 5/7/2013 8:27 PM, sf wrote:
> On Wed, 8 May 2013 01:52:26 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Steve Freides wrote:
>>>
>>> Helmets are a controversial subject for some cyclists, Jim. Although
>>> the bulk of the evidence supports wearing them, my understanding is
>>> that it's not quite a clear-cut as, e.g., seat belts for cars. There
>>> have been studies - I won't go into the details - that showed
>>> non-helmeted cyclists got into fewer accidents, that cars tend to
>>> give non-helmeted cyclists a wider clearance when passing them, and
>>> the like.
>>
>> People who don't wear seat belts also have fewer accidents.
>
> Because they're more careful?
>

I'm guessing because more people wear seat belts. People that don't wear
any clothes have even more fewer accidents.

On Tue, 07 May 2013 21:55:34 -1000, dsi1
> wrote:

>On 5/7/2013 8:27 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 May 2013 01:52:26 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Steve Freides wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Helmets are a controversial subject for some cyclists, Jim. Although
>>>> the bulk of the evidence supports wearing them, my understanding is
>>>> that it's not quite a clear-cut as, e.g., seat belts for cars. There
>>>> have been studies - I won't go into the details - that showed
>>>> non-helmeted cyclists got into fewer accidents, that cars tend to
>>>> give non-helmeted cyclists a wider clearance when passing them, and
>>>> the like.
>>>
>>> People who don't wear seat belts also have fewer accidents.
>>
>> Because they're more careful?
>>
>
>I'm guessing because more people wear seat belts. People that don't wear
>any clothes have even more fewer accidents.

That's what I was thinking--- 'But officer, I was just trying to
reduce my chance of having an accident. . .'

Jim

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Tue, 07 May 2013 10:16:45 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
> > That makes some sense, but I didn't get (from reading the article) the
> > people who will be taking advantage of this bike-share thing are
> > "cyclists". Don't people who do a lot of cycling own their own bicycles?
>
> The cyclists you're thinking of are not doing it to get from point A
> to point B, they're doing it for "exercise" and the chance to drop
> somewhere in the neighborhood of $2000 on a bike plus even more on
> their biker outfit. NYC is a walking town, which means the people
> who'd use bike-share just want to get to their destination a little
> faster without paying for a cab.

Not all of us paid $2000 for a bike. I inherited my bike from my grad
school roommate when she switched to a recumbent for back reasons. I do
not have a bike computer, heart rate monitor, or clip pedals with
special shoes. I do have a helmet (and wear it), leggings, shorts, and
knickers with "whoopie cushions", as the SO says.

My guess is that many of the people who will rent bikes in NYC will be
tourists who want to ride around Central Park, or natives who want to do
occasional outings on two wheels.

Cindy

--
C.J. Fuller

Delete the obvious to email me