+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Cycling in Waterloo Region (/showthread.php?tid=186)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - creative - 09-13-2019
More bunnies with pancakes please!
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - ijmorlan - 09-13-2019
I think what Dan is trying to say, and is having trouble being really listened to, is that (to take a similar but different example) during a news report on a recent rape is not the time to dispense advice on avoiding dark pathways. It might be prudent advice (or might be irrelevant — I don’t have much expertise in avoiding becoming a victim) in a world that has not brought sufficient accountability to the perpetrators, but there is a time and a place for it, and during a report on another victim is not it. At that time the emphasis should be on somebody being hurt by the actions of others, not on what steps the local sidewalk superintendents think they should have taken to avoid being hurt.
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - Coke6pk - 09-13-2019
(09-13-2019, 12:31 PM)creative Wrote: More bunnies with pancakes please!
Ask, and you shall receive....
Coke
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - clasher - 09-13-2019
Bicycle helmets aren't a panacea for all crashes involving a cyclist, anymore than a hard hat is a replacement for proper safety on a construction site. No article about a car crash contains stuff like "if the driver would have built a roll-cafe for their car..." or "the driver wasn't wearing an F1 helmet and 5-point harness". It's kind of stupid to imply that wearing a styrofoam hat is somehow going to prevent serious injuries when a car hits a cyclist. Stories about car crashes are written with language that goes something like "the car swerved off the road and into the hotel lobby", like cars just sometimes get wild and go off the road on their own. They usually don't blame the driver for their mistake unless charges are actually laid at the scene or it's a drunk driver.
Anyone looking at a bike helmet shouldn't really think it's gonna offer much protection against the impact of a car going 50+km/h. To suggest that not wearing one is "dumb" is itself kind of a dumb position to take considering the kind of impacts that bicycle helmet is designed to take aren't high-speed collisions involving automobiles. Places where they mandate helmet use by law don't seem to show a big decline in head injuries from collisions, these places also see a decrease in the number of cyclists so the "safety in numbers" effect diminishes for all riders. See this site for a lot of studies: http://www.cycle-helmets.com/canada_helmets.html
Helmet use leads to risk compensation increases the numbers of accidents among helmeted cyclists. Motorists also tend to pass helmeted cyclists closer
There's way bigger problems with drivers and cyclists that helmets won't help; many drivers consider cyclists non-human.
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - tomh009 - 09-13-2019
(09-13-2019, 02:17 PM)Coke6pk Wrote:(09-13-2019, 12:31 PM)creative Wrote: More bunnies with pancakes please!Ask, and you shall receive....
Coke
Maybe we should have a dedicated thread for bunnies with pancakes, where we can go chill out?
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - panamaniac - 09-13-2019
Anybody heard whether any charges are being laid in the accident?
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - creative - 09-13-2019
(09-13-2019, 02:17 PM)Coke6pk Wrote:Thanks Coke!(09-13-2019, 12:31 PM)creative Wrote: More bunnies with pancakes please!
Ask, and you shall receive....
Coke
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - jeffster - 09-13-2019
(09-13-2019, 07:08 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:(09-12-2019, 10:42 PM)jeffster Wrote: It's possible had the cyclist had worn a helmet this would have not made the news.
I think you pretty much are proving this *is" victim shaming. "people doing stupid thing" "gullible people need to be reminded not to do dumb things".
So yeah mentioning the helmet is shaming the cyclist (victim) for doing "dumb" things. How is this still a discussion.
By the way, you have no idea if this would still be reported. You don't know what the injuries are you are assuming they are head injuries because you believe wearing a helmet will usually mean one can walk away from being hit by a car. This belief isn't based in fact.
If you re-read what I wrote, I said "it's possible".
This is the definition of "possible": possible is something that can happen, something that can be done, or something capable of existing. You can use possible to talk about anything that might happen.
Therefore, it is "possible" that the cyclist NOT WEARING a helmet was critical with him having life-threatening injures. It is also "possible" had he been wearing a helmet we would not be having this discussion. It is also possible that wearing a helmet or not would have not made a difference, so why the police mentioned this then become a mystery.
That said, it doesn't take a genius to guess what happened when looking at the Jeep -- clearly someones head hit the windshield. The chances of this not causing life-threatening injures and these serious injuries being something else are highly unlikely. But I suppose anything is possible.
You are also mentioning that this cyclist is a 'victim', so what makes you think that? We don't know the circumstances, but you are making it appear that the driver of the Jeep did something illegal, how do you know that? If the cyclist rode his bike onto Victoria St with no regard for vehicular traffic, that he's only a victim of himself.
As far a "victim shaming", you should also consider the other victims: the driver of the Jeep who may have not done anything illegal, the first responders who have to deal with the mess, as well as the cyclist's family.
I still believe though that this isn't victim shaming, it's just another reminder why we should do all we can to protect ourselves when out and about. For example, in yesterdays news:
Quote:Waterloo Regional Police say an 18-year-old male is dead after a serious collision in Heidelberg early Thursday morning.
First responders were called to the scene on Lobsinger Line around 6 a.m.
Police say the male driver from Mitchell was travelling east and not wearing his seatbelt when he lost control of his pickup truck, entered a ditch on the north side, and was ejected.
Victim shaming? I doubt any would think so, especially considering the man is dead. It was a single vehicle accident, by the way, so totally preventable to begin with, but it is very possible he'd be alive had he worn a seatbelt.
If these news articles can change the mind of one person to use safety devices, then they have done a great job.
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - jeffster - 09-13-2019
(09-13-2019, 11:19 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Well, at least now we've gotten past the point of denying we're shaming, and I'll let someone else handle the issue of whether it's "dumb" "idiotic" and "against common sense" to not wear a helmet...
OK: So we don't call these people dumb (I haven't) or other names (despite the "victim" calling themselves that after the fact) we'll call it as it ultimately is: convenient and/or lazy, or poor habits.
Why don't people have working fire detectors?
Why don't people buckle up?
Why do people drink and drive, rather than take a taxi?
Why don't people wear helmets when biking?
It's going to be because it's more convenient, laziness or poor habits. One of the three or combination of 2 or 3, your pick. However, when news outlets so-called 'shame' these people, as you put it, it is a reminder to everyone else: I should put a new battery into my fire detector -- I need to start wearing a helmet -- I need to stop looking at my phone when driving -- I need to taxi to the bar so I am forced to taxi home, etc.
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - plam - 09-13-2019
(09-13-2019, 06:41 PM)jeffster Wrote: OK: So we don't call these people dumb (I haven't) or other names (despite the "victim" calling themselves that after the fact) we'll call it as it ultimately is: convenient and/or lazy, or poor habits.
Why don't people have working fire detectors?
Why don't people buckle up?
Why do people drink and drive, rather than take a taxi?
Why don't people wear helmets when biking?
It's going to be because it's more convenient, laziness or poor habits. One of the three or combination of 2 or 3, your pick. However, when news outlets so-called 'shame' these people, as you put it, it is a reminder to everyone else: I should put a new battery into my fire detector -- I need to start wearing a helmet -- I need to stop looking at my phone when driving -- I need to taxi to the bar so I am forced to taxi home, etc.
I think there's a fundamental non-communication going on here. I believe that it is ultimately harmful to society to think that one has to wear a helmet when riding a bicycle. The benefits of helmets don't outweigh the harms on a society-wide level and perhaps on an individual level. Other commenters have stated their reasons for having similar beliefs.
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - panamaniac - 09-13-2019
There are society-wide harms that result from bicyclists not wearing helmets?
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - plam - 09-13-2019
(09-13-2019, 09:34 PM)panamaniac Wrote: There are society-wide harms that result from bicyclists not wearing helmets?
Society-wide harms from expectations to wear helmets. Places with mandatory helmet laws have pathetic cycling mode share: some people are just not going to wear helmets and so they're going to drive their car instead of their bicycle. This makes biking less safe for those who do ride their bicycles.
Is it reasonable to think that you should have to wear a helmet while walking?
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - panamaniac - 09-13-2019
You've lost me ....
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - jeffster - 09-14-2019
(09-13-2019, 10:43 PM)plam Wrote:(09-13-2019, 09:34 PM)panamaniac Wrote: There are society-wide harms that result from bicyclists not wearing helmets?
Society-wide harms from expectations to wear helmets. Places with mandatory helmet laws have pathetic cycling mode share: some people are just not going to wear helmets and so they're going to drive their car instead of their bicycle. This makes biking less safe for those who do ride their bicycles.
Is it reasonable to think that you should have to wear a helmet while walking?
People should wear a helmet if they're walking into traffic like idiots. Otherwise, no, because most walkers don't move fast enough. Helmets are supposed to protect bikers from certain accidents, including falling off of their bike and whacking their head. It doesn't take much to get a concussion and/or a hematoma.
That said, I don't see the harm in the expectation of having to wear a helmet. Many bikers wear a helmet without complaint, and without any sort of PTSD or other psychological harm. But one can still decide NOT to wear a helmet, but there is a risk to that, especially if the biker himself/herself doesn't follow basic traffic laws. (For example, today I saw two bikers almost run over by the Ion when they road around the gates where Courtland meet Fairway. Sure, motorists are guilty of not watching out for bikers (when the biker is riding legally), but many bikers are guilty of not obeying any road rules.)
However, it seemed to be that this discussion was about whether or not publishing important information was 'shaming' or not. Many people here believe it isn't, some believe it is. My take on it, it could be for some, but the reason isn't to shame, but rather remind the public of consequences of certain actions. We have constant reminders in the news, for example, of people being ripped off in regard to the Canada Revenue Agency. They even publish names of the person ripped off. It's with hopes that people might pick up on this type of stuff. More recently, Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro has been demanding bit coin and iTunes cards from there customers -- but of course it actually isn't Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro, but scammers. However, no face, no names, so no news articles, just a tweet (IIRC).
We, as society, could decide to ignore all of these things and never publish any incidences. If we did that, then some getting a call from "the CRA" might believe it. Some might actually forget the need for smoke/fire detectors. We don't even need to report these idiots being charged for street racing when then kill themselves when travelling 220 kph in a 50 kph zone.
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - ijmorlan - 09-14-2019
(09-14-2019, 12:52 AM)jeffster Wrote: However, it seemed to be that this discussion was about whether or not publishing important information was 'shaming' or not.
You seem to be assuming that whether or not the cyclist was wearing a helmet is “important information”.
What I think is important is whether the car was someplace/sometime it shouldn’t have been.
It is perfectly possible for the cyclist to do/not do something relevant, but whether they have a helmet on isn’t really it, certainly not with respect to the occurrence of the collision (rather than its effects).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpP7gMPzC78
To go back to my admittedly provocative rape analogy, is it an important fact whether the crime occurred next to a hedge that provides a hiding place, which the (probably female) victim hypothetically could have avoided by significantly restricting her movements at all times?