Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

The “reason balance” is to require use of mitigation, e.g. use a bear canister or wear a helmet. Clearly you have not thought this through.

The nice thing about drivers, unlike bears, is that you can make rules that govern their behavior and expect them to at least understand them, if not actually follow them. You can also change cars' habitats more readily than you can bears'. Which is all to say, unlike with bears, people who want protection from cars don't have to do all the work themselves.

First, the vast majority of bike accidents have nothing to do with vehicles. So you are focused on the wrong thing.

Second, it’s never either or. Safety always should be multi-faceted such that you are not solely reliant on one point of potential failure.

Wear a friggin’ helmet. And if you don’t have helmets on your kids you should be criminally prosecuted.

I see parents carrying children in their laps on ebikes without helmets.

I see drivers running red lights and stop signs without repercussion every day, what's your point? Can we start with enforcement of drivers? I only drive, but I have to get my kid into their school and it's sometimes a bit challenging with the number of people who don't bleeping know to fully stop before the line at a stop sign. Can we start with those idiots first?

We could slash the number of head injuries overnight with a helmet requirement. Pretty simple and effective and costs the government nothing. It's odd the bikers who claim to care about safety are so angry about the idea that they should have to wear a helmet.

Are we going to start making pedestrians wear helmets? Otherwise, I still prefer to enforce the driving law as a priority and when that is fixed, fix the bike helmets. As it is, what do you think, DC MPD is going to chase down bicyclists about helmets when they don't pull anyone over, EVER for running lights and stop signs? I mean 15 years in this city and never saw a cop pull anyone over for a traffic infraction but they are going to start pulling bikers over?

Sorry, no, pull the drivers over first. Start there, please.

Bikers want to do this really dangerous thing -- ride their bikes is a huge, congested city -- but they don't want to take any responsibility for anything that would make it safer. It's always someone else's job to make it safer, and always someone else's fault when they get hurt. No rules for them, endless rules for everyone else.

Sure, bikers should wear helmets. Why are you so mad about rules for everyone else though? Is there a particular rule you're mad about? Bikers haven't caused me to have to follow any new rules as a driver. I don't know what you are talking about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

The “reason balance” is to require use of mitigation, e.g. use a bear canister or wear a helmet. Clearly you have not thought this through.

The nice thing about drivers, unlike bears, is that you can make rules that govern their behavior and expect them to at least understand them, if not actually follow them. You can also change cars' habitats more readily than you can bears'. Which is all to say, unlike with bears, people who want protection from cars don't have to do all the work themselves.

First, the vast majority of bike accidents have nothing to do with vehicles. So you are focused on the wrong thing.

Second, it’s never either or. Safety always should be multi-faceted such that you are not solely reliant on one point of potential failure.

Wear a friggin’ helmet. And if you don’t have helmets on your kids you should be criminally prosecuted.

I see parents carrying children in their laps on ebikes without helmets.

I see drivers running red lights and stop signs without repercussion every day, what's your point? Can we start with enforcement of drivers? I only drive, but I have to get my kid into their school and it's sometimes a bit challenging with the number of people who don't bleeping know to fully stop before the line at a stop sign. Can we start with those idiots first?

We could slash the number of head injuries overnight with a helmet requirement. Pretty simple and effective and costs the government nothing. It's odd the bikers who claim to care about safety are so angry about the idea that they should have to wear a helmet.

Are we going to start making pedestrians wear helmets? Otherwise, I still prefer to enforce the driving law as a priority and when that is fixed, fix the bike helmets. As it is, what do you think, DC MPD is going to chase down bicyclists about helmets when they don't pull anyone over, EVER for running lights and stop signs? I mean 15 years in this city and never saw a cop pull anyone over for a traffic infraction but they are going to start pulling bikers over?

Sorry, no, pull the drivers over first. Start there, please.

Bikers want to do this really dangerous thing -- ride their bikes is a huge, congested city -- but they don't want to take any responsibility for anything that would make it safer. It's always someone else's job to make it safer, and always someone else's fault when they get hurt. No rules for them, endless rules for everyone else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

The “reason balance” is to require use of mitigation, e.g. use a bear canister or wear a helmet. Clearly you have not thought this through.

The nice thing about drivers, unlike bears, is that you can make rules that govern their behavior and expect them to at least understand them, if not actually follow them. You can also change cars' habitats more readily than you can bears'. Which is all to say, unlike with bears, people who want protection from cars don't have to do all the work themselves.

First, the vast majority of bike accidents have nothing to do with vehicles. So you are focused on the wrong thing.

Second, it’s never either or. Safety always should be multi-faceted such that you are not solely reliant on one point of potential failure.

Wear a friggin’ helmet. And if you don’t have helmets on your kids you should be criminally prosecuted.

I see parents carrying children in their laps on ebikes without helmets.

I see drivers running red lights and stop signs without repercussion every day, what's your point? Can we start with enforcement of drivers? I only drive, but I have to get my kid into their school and it's sometimes a bit challenging with the number of people who don't bleeping know to fully stop before the line at a stop sign. Can we start with those idiots first?

Nothing but strawmen and whataboutism. Neither of which will help some poor kid with a traumatic brain injury.

It's not whataboutism, it's realism about what DC is actually going to do. If you expect MPD to ticket bikers when they don't ticket cars, you live under a rock.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

The “reason balance” is to require use of mitigation, e.g. use a bear canister or wear a helmet. Clearly you have not thought this through.

The nice thing about drivers, unlike bears, is that you can make rules that govern their behavior and expect them to at least understand them, if not actually follow them. You can also change cars' habitats more readily than you can bears'. Which is all to say, unlike with bears, people who want protection from cars don't have to do all the work themselves.

First, the vast majority of bike accidents have nothing to do with vehicles. So you are focused on the wrong thing.

Second, it’s never either or. Safety always should be multi-faceted such that you are not solely reliant on one point of potential failure.

Wear a friggin’ helmet. And if you don’t have helmets on your kids you should be criminally prosecuted.

I see parents carrying children in their laps on ebikes without helmets.

I see drivers running red lights and stop signs without repercussion every day, what's your point? Can we start with enforcement of drivers? I only drive, but I have to get my kid into their school and it's sometimes a bit challenging with the number of people who don't bleeping know to fully stop before the line at a stop sign. Can we start with those idiots first?

We could slash the number of head injuries overnight with a helmet requirement. Pretty simple and effective and costs the government nothing. It's odd the bikers who claim to care about safety are so angry about the idea that they should have to wear a helmet.

Are we going to start making pedestrians wear helmets? Otherwise, I still prefer to enforce the driving law as a priority and when that is fixed, fix the bike helmets. As it is, what do you think, DC MPD is going to chase down bicyclists about helmets when they don't pull anyone over, EVER for running lights and stop signs? I mean 15 years in this city and never saw a cop pull anyone over for a traffic infraction but they are going to start pulling bikers over?

Sorry, no, pull the drivers over first. Start there, please.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

The “reason balance” is to require use of mitigation, e.g. use a bear canister or wear a helmet. Clearly you have not thought this through.

The nice thing about drivers, unlike bears, is that you can make rules that govern their behavior and expect them to at least understand them, if not actually follow them. You can also change cars' habitats more readily than you can bears'. Which is all to say, unlike with bears, people who want protection from cars don't have to do all the work themselves.

First, the vast majority of bike accidents have nothing to do with vehicles. So you are focused on the wrong thing.

Second, it’s never either or. Safety always should be multi-faceted such that you are not solely reliant on one point of potential failure.

Wear a friggin’ helmet. And if you don’t have helmets on your kids you should be criminally prosecuted.

Yeah that's what I've been saying. I always wear a helmet. My kids always wear helmets. I support helmet laws. But I don't understand why some people here seem to think that should be the only thing we do about bike safety. When I've been hit by cars, fortunately, I didn't hit my head. But wearing a helmet didn't keep my wrist from getting hurt by the Uber driver who ran into me in an unprotected bike lane.

My daughter plays soccer. Wearing shin guards didnt stop her from getting a knee injury. My response was not to question the relevance of shin guards. Grow up.

I'm not questioning the relevance of helmets. As you can see. I'm suggesting that — as the post I quoted also said — safety involves more than one form of protection. So you can both have bike lanes and helmet laws, instead of just saying no one deserves bike lanes because some people don't wear helmets.

Yep, that's this entire thread, it's a couple of anti-bike people trying to imply that [b]"no one deserves bike lanes because some people don't wear helmets"[/b]

If you point this out, they either ignore you or insult you.

It doesn't do anything to help their cause, certainly not to me as a driver who does not bike.

Nonsense. No one has said or implied any such thing. This is just you trying to change the subject.

Well this is my point as a driver. DC MPD does the bare minimum to enforce basic driving law. Camera tickets that are barely enforced, especially given most of them are committed by MD/VA drivers commuting into DC who face zero repercussion if they don't pay those tickets due to lack of reciprocity.

That is the priority for MPD and DDOT and whoever else in the DC government to fix. AFTER we've fixed that, then sure, we can focus on bike helmets.

FWIW, I virtually never see kids on bikes in traffic, (.e. on a parent's bike) without helmets, just occasionally kids on sidewalks near their home without them. So this does not anecdotally seem as much of a priority to me as drivers who I see EVERY. DAMN. DAY breaking the law. It is difficult to navigate the streets of DC due to drivers who don't even know how to come to a complete, legal, stop at a stop sign.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

The “reason balance” is to require use of mitigation, e.g. use a bear canister or wear a helmet. Clearly you have not thought this through.

The nice thing about drivers, unlike bears, is that you can make rules that govern their behavior and expect them to at least understand them, if not actually follow them. You can also change cars' habitats more readily than you can bears'. Which is all to say, unlike with bears, people who want protection from cars don't have to do all the work themselves.

First, the vast majority of bike accidents have nothing to do with vehicles. So you are focused on the wrong thing.

Second, it’s never either or. Safety always should be multi-faceted such that you are not solely reliant on one point of potential failure.

Wear a friggin’ helmet. And if you don’t have helmets on your kids you should be criminally prosecuted.

I see parents carrying children in their laps on ebikes without helmets.

I see drivers running red lights and stop signs without repercussion every day, what's your point? Can we start with enforcement of drivers? I only drive, but I have to get my kid into their school and it's sometimes a bit challenging with the number of people who don't bleeping know to fully stop before the line at a stop sign. Can we start with those idiots first?

We could slash the number of head injuries overnight with a helmet requirement. Pretty simple and effective and costs the government nothing. It's odd the bikers who claim to care about safety are so angry about the idea that they should have to wear a helmet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

The “reason balance” is to require use of mitigation, e.g. use a bear canister or wear a helmet. Clearly you have not thought this through.

The nice thing about drivers, unlike bears, is that you can make rules that govern their behavior and expect them to at least understand them, if not actually follow them. You can also change cars' habitats more readily than you can bears'. Which is all to say, unlike with bears, people who want protection from cars don't have to do all the work themselves.

First, the vast majority of bike accidents have nothing to do with vehicles. So you are focused on the wrong thing.

Second, it’s never either or. Safety always should be multi-faceted such that you are not solely reliant on one point of potential failure.

Wear a friggin’ helmet. And if you don’t have helmets on your kids you should be criminally prosecuted.

I see parents carrying children in their laps on ebikes without helmets.

I see drivers running red lights and stop signs without repercussion every day, what's your point? Can we start with enforcement of drivers? I only drive, but I have to get my kid into their school and it's sometimes a bit challenging with the number of people who don't bleeping know to fully stop before the line at a stop sign. Can we start with those idiots first?

Nothing but strawmen and whataboutism. Neither of which will help some poor kid with a traumatic brain injury.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

The “reason balance” is to require use of mitigation, e.g. use a bear canister or wear a helmet. Clearly you have not thought this through.

The nice thing about drivers, unlike bears, is that you can make rules that govern their behavior and expect them to at least understand them, if not actually follow them. You can also change cars' habitats more readily than you can bears'. Which is all to say, unlike with bears, people who want protection from cars don't have to do all the work themselves.

First, the vast majority of bike accidents have nothing to do with vehicles. So you are focused on the wrong thing.

Second, it’s never either or. Safety always should be multi-faceted such that you are not solely reliant on one point of potential failure.

Wear a friggin’ helmet. And if you don’t have helmets on your kids you should be criminally prosecuted.

I see parents carrying children in their laps on ebikes without helmets.

I see drivers running red lights and stop signs without repercussion every day, what's your point? Can we start with enforcement of drivers? I only drive, but I have to get my kid into their school and it's sometimes a bit challenging with the number of people who don't bleeping know to fully stop before the line at a stop sign. Can we start with those idiots first?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

The “reason balance” is to require use of mitigation, e.g. use a bear canister or wear a helmet. Clearly you have not thought this through.

The nice thing about drivers, unlike bears, is that you can make rules that govern their behavior and expect them to at least understand them, if not actually follow them. You can also change cars' habitats more readily than you can bears'. Which is all to say, unlike with bears, people who want protection from cars don't have to do all the work themselves.

First, the vast majority of bike accidents have nothing to do with vehicles. So you are focused on the wrong thing.

Second, it’s never either or. Safety always should be multi-faceted such that you are not solely reliant on one point of potential failure.

Wear a friggin’ helmet. And if you don’t have helmets on your kids you should be criminally prosecuted.

Yeah that's what I've been saying. I always wear a helmet. My kids always wear helmets. I support helmet laws. But I don't understand why some people here seem to think that should be the only thing we do about bike safety. When I've been hit by cars, fortunately, I didn't hit my head. But wearing a helmet didn't keep my wrist from getting hurt by the Uber driver who ran into me in an unprotected bike lane.

My daughter plays soccer. Wearing shin guards didnt stop her from getting a knee injury. My response was not to question the relevance of shin guards. Grow up.

I'm not questioning the relevance of helmets. As you can see. I'm suggesting that — as the post I quoted also said — safety involves more than one form of protection. So you can both have bike lanes and helmet laws, instead of just saying no one deserves bike lanes because some people don't wear helmets.

Yep, that's this entire thread, it's a couple of anti-bike people trying to imply that [b]"no one deserves bike lanes because some people don't wear helmets"[/b]

If you point this out, they either ignore you or insult you.

It doesn't do anything to help their cause, certainly not to me as a driver who does not bike.

Nonsense. No one has said or implied any such thing. This is just you trying to change the subject.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

The “reason balance” is to require use of mitigation, e.g. use a bear canister or wear a helmet. Clearly you have not thought this through.

The nice thing about drivers, unlike bears, is that you can make rules that govern their behavior and expect them to at least understand them, if not actually follow them. You can also change cars' habitats more readily than you can bears'. Which is all to say, unlike with bears, people who want protection from cars don't have to do all the work themselves.

First, the vast majority of bike accidents have nothing to do with vehicles. So you are focused on the wrong thing.

Second, it’s never either or. Safety always should be multi-faceted such that you are not solely reliant on one point of potential failure.

Wear a friggin’ helmet. And if you don’t have helmets on your kids you should be criminally prosecuted.

I see parents carrying children in their laps on ebikes without helmets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

The “reason balance” is to require use of mitigation, e.g. use a bear canister or wear a helmet. Clearly you have not thought this through.

The nice thing about drivers, unlike bears, is that you can make rules that govern their behavior and expect them to at least understand them, if not actually follow them. You can also change cars' habitats more readily than you can bears'. Which is all to say, unlike with bears, people who want protection from cars don't have to do all the work themselves.

First, the vast majority of bike accidents have nothing to do with vehicles. So you are focused on the wrong thing.

Second, it’s never either or. Safety always should be multi-faceted such that you are not solely reliant on one point of potential failure.

Wear a friggin’ helmet. And if you don’t have helmets on your kids you should be criminally prosecuted.

Yeah that's what I've been saying. I always wear a helmet. My kids always wear helmets. I support helmet laws. But I don't understand why some people here seem to think that should be the only thing we do about bike safety. When I've been hit by cars, fortunately, I didn't hit my head. But wearing a helmet didn't keep my wrist from getting hurt by the Uber driver who ran into me in an unprotected bike lane.

My daughter plays soccer. Wearing shin guards didnt stop her from getting a knee injury. My response was not to question the relevance of shin guards. Grow up.

I'm not questioning the relevance of helmets. As you can see. I'm suggesting that — as the post I quoted also said — safety involves more than one form of protection. So you can both have bike lanes and helmet laws, instead of just saying no one deserves bike lanes because some people don't wear helmets.

Yep, that's this entire thread, it's a couple of anti-bike people trying to imply that "no one deserves bike lanes because some people don't wear helmets"

If you point this out, they either ignore you or insult you.

It doesn't do anything to help their cause, certainly not to me as a driver who does not bike.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

The “reason balance” is to require use of mitigation, e.g. use a bear canister or wear a helmet. Clearly you have not thought this through.

The nice thing about drivers, unlike bears, is that you can make rules that govern their behavior and expect them to at least understand them, if not actually follow them. You can also change cars' habitats more readily than you can bears'. Which is all to say, unlike with bears, people who want protection from cars don't have to do all the work themselves.

First, the vast majority of bike accidents have nothing to do with vehicles. So you are focused on the wrong thing.

Second, it’s never either or. Safety always should be multi-faceted such that you are not solely reliant on one point of potential failure.

Wear a friggin’ helmet. And if you don’t have helmets on your kids you should be criminally prosecuted.

Yeah that's what I've been saying. I always wear a helmet. My kids always wear helmets. I support helmet laws. But I don't understand why some people here seem to think that should be the only thing we do about bike safety. When I've been hit by cars, fortunately, I didn't hit my head. But wearing a helmet didn't keep my wrist from getting hurt by the Uber driver who ran into me in an unprotected bike lane.

My daughter plays soccer. Wearing shin guards didnt stop her from getting a knee injury. My response was not to question the relevance of shin guards. Grow up.

I'm not questioning the relevance of helmets. As you can see. I'm suggesting that — as the post I quoted also said — safety involves more than one form of protection. So you can both have bike lanes and helmet laws, instead of just saying no one deserves bike lanes because some people don't wear helmets.

Unfortunately this is the state of the discourse for some on here. Continuous leaping to the next bad-faith and illogical argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

The “reason balance” is to require use of mitigation, e.g. use a bear canister or wear a helmet. Clearly you have not thought this through.

The nice thing about drivers, unlike bears, is that you can make rules that govern their behavior and expect them to at least understand them, if not actually follow them. You can also change cars' habitats more readily than you can bears'. Which is all to say, unlike with bears, people who want protection from cars don't have to do all the work themselves.

First, the vast majority of bike accidents have nothing to do with vehicles. So you are focused on the wrong thing.

Second, it’s never either or. Safety always should be multi-faceted such that you are not solely reliant on one point of potential failure.

Wear a friggin’ helmet. And if you don’t have helmets on your kids you should be criminally prosecuted.

Yeah that's what I've been saying. I always wear a helmet. My kids always wear helmets. I support helmet laws. But I don't understand why some people here seem to think that should be the only thing we do about bike safety. When I've been hit by cars, fortunately, I didn't hit my head. But wearing a helmet didn't keep my wrist from getting hurt by the Uber driver who ran into me in an unprotected bike lane.

My daughter plays soccer. Wearing shin guards didnt stop her from getting a knee injury. My response was not to question the relevance of shin guards. Grow up.

I'm not questioning the relevance of helmets. As you can see. I'm suggesting that — as the post I quoted also said — safety involves more than one form of protection. So you can both have bike lanes and helmet laws, instead of just saying no one deserves bike lanes because some people don't wear helmets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

The “reason balance” is to require use of mitigation, e.g. use a bear canister or wear a helmet. Clearly you have not thought this through.

The nice thing about drivers, unlike bears, is that you can make rules that govern their behavior and expect them to at least understand them, if not actually follow them. You can also change cars' habitats more readily than you can bears'. Which is all to say, unlike with bears, people who want protection from cars don't have to do all the work themselves.

First, the vast majority of bike accidents have nothing to do with vehicles. So you are focused on the wrong thing.

Second, it’s never either or. Safety always should be multi-faceted such that you are not solely reliant on one point of potential failure.

Wear a friggin’ helmet. And if you don’t have helmets on your kids you should be criminally prosecuted.

Yeah that's what I've been saying. I always wear a helmet. My kids always wear helmets. I support helmet laws. But I don't understand why some people here seem to think that should be the only thing we do about bike safety. When I've been hit by cars, fortunately, I didn't hit my head. But wearing a helmet didn't keep my wrist from getting hurt by the Uber driver who ran into me in an unprotected bike lane.

My daughter plays soccer. Wearing shin guards didnt stop her from getting a knee injury. My response was not to question the relevance of shin guards. Grow up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

The “reason balance” is to require use of mitigation, e.g. use a bear canister or wear a helmet. Clearly you have not thought this through.

The nice thing about drivers, unlike bears, is that you can make rules that govern their behavior and expect them to at least understand them, if not actually follow them. You can also change cars' habitats more readily than you can bears'. Which is all to say, unlike with bears, people who want protection from cars don't have to do all the work themselves.

First, the vast majority of bike accidents have nothing to do with vehicles. So you are focused on the wrong thing.

Second, it’s never either or. Safety always should be multi-faceted such that you are not solely reliant on one point of potential failure.

Wear a friggin’ helmet. And if you don’t have helmets on your kids you should be criminally prosecuted.

Yeah that's what I've been saying. I always wear a helmet. My kids always wear helmets. I support helmet laws. But I don't understand why some people here seem to think that should be the only thing we do about bike safety. When I've been hit by cars, fortunately, I didn't hit my head. But wearing a helmet didn't keep my wrist from getting hurt by the Uber driver who ran into me in an unprotected bike lane.