On Monday, November 12, 2012 10:01:49 PM UTC-5, James wrote:
> On 13/11/2012 1:26 PM, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > We can do something similar here. We can use the worst estimate, 6
> > million miles ridden between fatalities, and realize that our
> > conclusions are probably based on exaggerated risk. Unless you
> > prefer to use the Australian estimate instead, which last I saw was
> > about 16 million miles. Or the British one, which was even higher.
> > (That, BTW, is another approach - to use other sources of data for
> > additional insight, to reject outliers like the 6 million.)
> 16,000,000 miles ridden between deaths does not mean every person can
> ride 16,000,000 miles and have a 50/50 chance of dying, otherwise there
> would be almost no one dead at all in the past 100 years or so.
> Yet you have often ask how many million miles we (I) will likely ride in
> my lifetime, as if I should by those statistics, be able to ride for
> several lifetimes and not die on the road.
I look for ways to explain these concepts to people who are not quite familiar with them, or perhaps not quite comfortable with math or statistics. That explanation is one attempt, although you did get a detail wrong. Data shows you should be able to ride for hundreds, perhaps thousands of lifetimes without getting killed on a bike, if only other factors did not kill you. The main point being, of course, that the common fear of death by biking is silly.
> One in 1600 people, each riding 10,000 miles, at the rate I cover
> distance, will (on average) die every 1.5 years. That seems more plausible.
You can put it that way too, I suppose...
> That may seem rather worrying at first glance, but take some solace in
> the fact that drunks, kids, inexperienced and people who do stupid
> things have a much higher risk of dying and skew the data to make it
> look worse than it is for us competent bike riders.
Exactly!
> I don't expect to die on the road this lifetime, but I could be wrong.
Well said. Or to be a bit more emphatic, your chances of dying via biking are minuscule. Being careful is sensible, but the fear that so many people carry is not.
> On Monday, November 12, 2012 10:01:49 PM UTC-5, James wrote:
> > On 13/11/2012 1:26 PM, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > We can do something similar here. We can use the worst estimate, 6
> > > million miles ridden between fatalities, and realize that our
> > > conclusions are probably based on exaggerated risk. Unless you
> > > prefer to use the Australian estimate instead, which last I saw was
> > > about 16 million miles. Or the British one, which was even higher.
> > > (That, BTW, is another approach - to use other sources of data for
> > > additional insight, to reject outliers like the 6 million.)
> > 16,000,000 miles ridden between deaths does not mean every person can
> > ride 16,000,000 miles and have a 50/50 chance of dying, otherwise there
> > would be almost no one dead at all in the past 100 years or so.
> > Yet you have often ask how many million miles we (I) will likely ride in
> > my lifetime, as if I should by those statistics, be able to ride for
> > several lifetimes and not die on the road.
> I look for ways to explain these concepts to people who are not quite familiar with them, or perhaps not quite comfortable with math or statistics. That explanation is one attempt, although you did get a detail wrong. Data shows you should be able to ride for hundreds, perhaps thousands of lifetimes without getting killed on a bike, if only other factors did not kill you. The main point being, of course, that the common fear of death by biking is silly.
Have you any data supporting "the common of fear of death by biking"?
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 3:56:12 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:
> Have you any data supporting "the common of fear of death by biking"?
Yes, actually. Not that it would make a difference to many folks here.
There was an interesting op-ed piece by Lane Filler in our paper today, talking about the problems with the Republican party. Here's a bit of it:
"Many Republicans no longer believe in data-based reality.
"Ice caps measurably shrinking every year? That doesn't mean the planet is warming. Fossils and carbon-dating methods prove the world is billions of years old? The Bible says it isn't. Evolution? God created false evidence of evolution to test our faith in the Bible. Such a prankster, that God of ours!
"Ignoring data has become a consistent facet of the Republican Party..."
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:07:33 PM UTC-5, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 3:56:12 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:
> > Have you any data supporting "the common of fear of death by biking"?
> Yes, actually. Not that it would make a difference to many folks here.
> There was an interesting op-ed piece by Lane Filler in our paper today, talking about the problems with the Republican party. Here's a bit of it:
> "Many Republicans no longer believe in data-based reality.
> "Ice caps measurably shrinking every year? That doesn't mean the planet is warming. Fossils and carbon-dating methods prove the world is billions of years old? The Bible says it isn't. Evolution? God created false evidence of evolution to test our faith in the Bible. Such a prankster, that God of ours!
> "Ignoring data has become a consistent facet of the Republican Party..."
> And it's not just Republicans.
> - Frank Krygowski
Could that be because often times surveys from which statistics are often derived have leading questions that engender answers the survey wants? Or could it bd because many times statistics are twisted to prove a point the statiscian wants to make? Samuel Clemens once stated, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics."
This is why I think it is very interesting to see the actual questions on which a survey is based.
Just for fun here's an example of a question someone with an agenda might ask. "There were 1000 bicycling related accidents last year in this state. Do you think bicycling is dangerous?"
Often times the wording of a question can be used to create a desired answer.
> "Ice caps measurably shrinking every year? That doesn't mean the planet is warming. Fossils and carbon-dating methods prove the world is billions of years old? The Bible says it isn't. Evolution? God created false evidence of evolution to test our faith in the Bible. Such a prankster, that God of ours!
The church across at the end of the block here has a sign out front:
"If you're more conservative than [dog], you'd better scoot over."
Cute, but I have to wonder how anyone could be *less* conservative
than dog? "Hmm... I'm bored. I think I'll scoop up some dust and
create a Universe... and hey! I'll *specifically* add a bunch of the
most unimaginably wacky creatures... oh! ... and to top it off, give
them free will :-)"
> > Gentlemen:
> > With all due respect, this is rec.bicycles.tech. Note:http://sheldonbrown.com/recbikes.html > > If you must continue helmet discussion please take that elsewhere
> > where it is appropriate and do not cross post here.
> > Feel free to note where you are going, but please leave it at that.
> > Even private email might be better.
> > Nobody here is the least bit interested, nor is anyone's opinion going
> > to be changed.
> > Point taken. Forgive me this is my first forray. If this topic has been debated here ad nauseum before, which appears could well be the case, then I can appreciate your position and I for one will take it no further here. If anyone feels strong enough to want to carry on then remove the mice from my email address and reply direct.
> > Graham.
> I had missed this response. Thank you.
> And welcome to the group.
> Now if Krygowski can offer the same sort of courtesy maybe we can
> clean up a bit.
> As nauseum does not begin to describe the bandwidth wasted here by
> Krygowski on his holy crusade.
> For perspective:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/42a8fafee4415b12
> I can assure you that if that you are interested in discussing the
> topic Frank will be more than happy to accommodate you.
> It's his reason for living.
> But again, I speak for many who appreciate that topic being taken
> elsewhere.
Sorry. (Personally, I think helmets *are* bicycling technology - at
least they should be.)
Graham is too smart to get hooked like me, but he sure did spell it
out - very nicely put, too. Even that, however, didn't seem to
register for Frank. Talk about a silly little dog.
I really should call it quits; catharsis keeps pulling me back, I
guess.
> > On Monday, November 12, 2012 9:24:52 PM UTC-5, DirtRoadie wrote:
> > > Love your straw men! Identify someone _presently_ here who is a helmet
> > > skeptic as a result of these threads.
> > B. You tried to stop this thread. Why are you posting to it? Is it a case of "Let me have my say, then shut up"?
> Nope. You shut up and I'll shut up and we'll agree to encourage anyone
> who tries to start a helmet thread to take it elsewhere so that this
> can be tech discussions.
> Capice?
> DR
Score 1 point for James for calling it.
Frank prefers tilting at windmills to helping this group get on track.
DR
> > > Gentlemen:
> > > With all due respect, this is rec.bicycles.tech. Note:http://sheldonbrown.com/recbikes.html > > > If you must continue helmet discussion please take that elsewhere
> > > where it is appropriate and do not cross post here.
> > > Feel free to note where you are going, but please leave it at that.
> > > Even private email might be better.
> > > Nobody here is the least bit interested, nor is anyone's opinion going
> > > to be changed.
> > > Point taken. Forgive me this is my first forray. If this topic has been debated here ad nauseum before, which appears could well be the case, then I can appreciate your position and I for one will take it no further here. If anyone feels strong enough to want to carry on then remove the mice from my email address and reply direct.
> > > Graham.
> > I had missed this response. Thank you.
> > And welcome to the group.
> > Now if Krygowski can offer the same sort of courtesy maybe we can
> > clean up a bit.
> > As nauseum does not begin to describe the bandwidth wasted here by
> > Krygowski on his holy crusade.
> > For perspective:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/42a8fafee4415b12
> > I can assure you that if that you are interested in discussing the
> > topic Frank will be more than happy to accommodate you.
> > It's his reason for living.
> > But again, I speak for many who appreciate that topic being taken
> > elsewhere.
> Sorry. (Personally, I think helmets *are* bicycling technology - at
> least they should be.)
I think that is questionable.
But more importantly, I think Andrew hit the nail on the head. Nobody
is going to change their mind. The group is being dragged down as a
result.
> Graham is too smart to get hooked like me, but he sure did spell it
> out - very nicely put, too.
+1 - very articulate. A breath of fresh air. Yet I can't help but
wonder how long it would have taken Frank to evoke a well deserved
"fuck you" response.
>Even that, however, didn't seem to
> register for Frank. Talk about a silly little dog.
Maybe I missed something. You expect ANYTHING to register with Frank?
He has no "input" mode and his output mode plays like a broken record.
> I really should call it quits; catharsis keeps pulling me back, I
> guess.
That's your call.
And too many of the folks who actually talked "tech" are gone.
> On Nov 13, 4:53 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Graham is too smart to get hooked like me, but he sure did spell it
>> out - very nicely put, too.
> +1 - very articulate. A breath of fresh air. Yet I can't help but
> wonder how long it would have taken Frank to evoke a well deserved
> "fuck you" response.
"James" <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:k7v3cs$fum$1@dont-email.me...
> On 14/11/2012 2:09 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
>> On Nov 13, 4:53 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Graham is too smart to get hooked like me, but he sure did spell it
>>> out - very nicely put, too.
>> +1 - very articulate. A breath of fresh air. Yet I can't help but
>> wonder how long it would have taken Frank to evoke a well deserved
>> "fuck you" response.
> James<james.e.stew...@gmail.com> considered Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:26:59
> +1100 the perfect time to write:
>> In over 25 years of cycling, I've never had something remove my wig, or
>> been hit from behind for that matter. It's not magic, you know. You
>> must be doing something wrong. Try learning to do better.
> James<james.e.stew...@gmail.com> considered Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:33:05
> +1100 the perfect time to write:
>> On 13/11/2012 11:56 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
>>> James<james.e.stew...@gmail.com> considered Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:20:06
>>> +1100 the perfect time to write:
>>>> On 13/11/2012 3:34 AM, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 10:58:30 PM UTC-5, James wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/11/12 13:47, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> And yes, some people obviously must inhabit the farthest reach of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> bell curve describing riding risk. But also obviously, _most_
>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>> are not in that extreme tail of the bell curve. Most are in the
>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>> large middle of the curve, the part described by the average
>>>>>>> data,
>>>>>>> the thousands of miles of riding between even minor scrapes, and
>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>> millions of riding between fatalities. Is that not obvious?
>>>>>> Except that your data doesn't count minor scrapes, inaccurately
>>>>>> counts
>>>>>> severe injury and only reasonably accurately counts fatalities.
>>>>> Regarding the severe injury and fatality counts: If you claim the
>>>>> many sources of data I use are inaccurate, you really should post the
>>>>> accurate numbers. Otherwise, you're in the position of saying "That's
>>>>> wrong, but I don't know what's right." Logically, that's pretty
>>>>> weak!
>>>> No, logically it is correct to say that severe injury statistics are not
>>>> particularly accurate, and minor injury statistics not accurate at all.
>>>> It does not weaken my position at all, only yours as you rely so
>>>> heavily on statistics for your argument.
>>> That seems to be a very convenient departure from your more usual
>>> position, which (if I've understood it correctly) is that anything is
>>> better than nothing, even if you can't be certain of it's value.
>>> At least, that is what you claim to be the case for foam hats.
>>> Maybe you take a different approach depending on what suits your
>>> purpose?
>> You haven't whacked your bare head on something hard recently have you?
> Ah, an ad hominem response.
> Nice to have it confirmed that you don't have a valid explanation.
Again your comprehension is lacking. I asked a question.
>Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> considered Tue, 13 Nov 2012
>14:46:18 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:
>>On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:07:33 PM UTC-5, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 3:56:12 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:
>>> > Have you any data supporting "the common of fear of death by biking"?
>>> Yes, actually. Not that it would make a difference to many folks here.
>>> There was an interesting op-ed piece by Lane Filler in our paper today, talking about the problems with the Republican party. Here's a bit of it:
>>> "Many Republicans no longer believe in data-based reality.
>>> "Ice caps measurably shrinking every year? That doesn't mean the planet is warming. Fossils and carbon-dating methods prove the world is billions of years old? The Bible says it isn't. Evolution? God created false evidence of evolution to test our faith in the Bible. Such a prankster, that God of ours!
>>> "Ignoring data has become a consistent facet of the Republican Party..."
>>> And it's not just Republicans.
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>Could that be because often times surveys from which statistics are often derived have leading questions that engender answers the survey wants? Or could it bd because many times statistics are twisted to prove a point the statiscian wants to make? Samuel Clemens once stated, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics."
>>This is why I think it is very interesting to see the actual questions on which a survey is based.
>>Just for fun here's an example of a question someone with an agenda might ask. "There were 1000 bicycling related accidents last year in this state. Do you think bicycling is dangerous?"
>>Often times the wording of a question can be used to create a desired answer.
>>Cheers
>Mostly it isn't done that way though.
>Surveys are used, but the truth of the matter is obvious to anyone who
>looks for it.
>The perception of cycling being dangerous is made clear from things
>like schools banning children from riding to school, or parents
>refusing to allow their children to.
>Or scare campaigns using demonstrations with eggs in tiny replica
>helmets to "prove" how essential foam hats are - amusingly, one kid in
>every class will immediately catch on, and stand on the helmeted egg.
>A detailed study of all post-mortem records of cyclist deaths in the
>UK for a short period established that even if you make the (somewhat
>rash) assumption that a foam hat would save 50% of those killed by an
>injury in the area covered by the helmet, a total of 3 lives per year
>would be saved in the whole country if every cyclist wore a helmet.
>The 50% effectiveness was somewhat undermined by the fact that all but
>one case examined involved the head passing beneath the wheels of the
>motor vehicle.
>There was actually a case here in the UK where the parents were
>threatened with having their children taken into care because they
>"irresponsibly" allowed them to cycle to school (less than a mile, on
>a shared use footway/cycleway, with only one major road to cross,
>which had a crossing attendant.at school travel times).
>The very fact that we are having this discussion proves that the
>perception exists. We wouldn't be having to gather statistics to
>prove how safe it is unless it had been challenged.
Disclaimer: Bicycle riding is an inherently dangerous sport. The
responsibility for each riders safety, fitness and the soundness of
his or her bicycle lies solely with each rider. The weekly rides are
open to the public and The Miami Bike Scene does not organize,
sponsor, nor assume any liability for your participation in these
rides.
> James<james.e.stew...@gmail.com> considered Thu, 15 Nov 2012 08:12:33
> +1100 the perfect time to write:
>> On 15/11/12 06:13, Phil W Lee wrote:
>>> James<james.e.stew...@gmail.com> considered Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:26:59
>>> +1100 the perfect time to write:
>>>> In over 25 years of cycling, I've never had something remove my wig, or
>>>> been hit from behind for that matter. It's not magic, you know. You
>>>> must be doing something wrong. Try learning to do better.
>>> I have.
>>> When will you?
>> Now start learning comprehension.
> This from the person who invented a bicycle riding pedestrian?
> > James<james.e.stew...@gmail.com> considered Thu, 15 Nov 2012 08:12:33
> > +1100 the perfect time to write:
> >> On 15/11/12 06:13, Phil W Lee wrote:
> >>> James<james.e.stew...@gmail.com> considered Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:26:59
> >>> +1100 the perfect time to write:
> >>>> In over 25 years of cycling, I've never had something remove my wig, or
> >>>> been hit from behind for that matter. It's not magic, you know. You
> >>>> must be doing something wrong. Try learning to do better.
> >>> I have.
> >>> When will you?
> >> Now start learning comprehension.
> > This from the person who invented a bicycle riding pedestrian?
And legally speaking (here anyway)... Except as otherwise specifically
provided by law, a bicyclist on a sidewalk or in a crosswalk has the
same rights and duties as a pedestrian on a sidewalk or in a
crosswalk.
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:48:05 +0000, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk>
> wrote:
>> Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> considered Tue, 13 Nov 2012
>> 14:46:18 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:
>>> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:07:33 PM UTC-5, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 3:56:12 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:
>>>>> Have you any data supporting "the common of fear of death by biking"?
>>>> Yes, actually. Not that it would make a difference to many folks here.
>>>> There was an interesting op-ed piece by Lane Filler in our paper today, talking about the problems with the Republican party. Here's a bit of it:
>>>> "Many Republicans no longer believe in data-based reality.
>>>> "Ice caps measurably shrinking every year? That doesn't mean the planet is warming. Fossils and carbon-dating methods prove the world is billions of years old? The Bible says it isn't. Evolution? God created false evidence of evolution to test our faith in the Bible. Such a prankster, that God of ours!
>>>> "Ignoring data has become a consistent facet of the Republican Party..."
>>>> And it's not just Republicans.
>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>> Could that be because often times surveys from which statistics are often derived have leading questions that engender answers the survey wants? Or could it bd because many times statistics are twisted to prove a point the statiscian wants to make? Samuel Clemens once stated, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics."
>>> This is why I think it is very interesting to see the actual questions on which a survey is based.
>>> Just for fun here's an example of a question someone with an agenda might ask. "There were 1000 bicycling related accidents last year in this state. Do you think bicycling is dangerous?"
>>> Often times the wording of a question can be used to create a desired answer.
>>> Cheers
>> Mostly it isn't done that way though.
>> Surveys are used, but the truth of the matter is obvious to anyone who
>> looks for it.
>> The perception of cycling being dangerous is made clear from things
>> like schools banning children from riding to school, or parents
>> refusing to allow their children to.
>> Or scare campaigns using demonstrations with eggs in tiny replica
>> helmets to "prove" how essential foam hats are - amusingly, one kid in
>> every class will immediately catch on, and stand on the helmeted egg.
>> A detailed study of all post-mortem records of cyclist deaths in the
>> UK for a short period established that even if you make the (somewhat
>> rash) assumption that a foam hat would save 50% of those killed by an
>> injury in the area covered by the helmet, a total of 3 lives per year
>> would be saved in the whole country if every cyclist wore a helmet.
>> The 50% effectiveness was somewhat undermined by the fact that all but
>> one case examined involved the head passing beneath the wheels of the
>> motor vehicle.
>> There was actually a case here in the UK where the parents were
>> threatened with having their children taken into care because they
>> "irresponsibly" allowed them to cycle to school (less than a mile, on
>> a shared use footway/cycleway, with only one major road to cross,
>> which had a crossing attendant.at school travel times).
>> The very fact that we are having this discussion proves that the
>> perception exists. We wouldn't be having to gather statistics to
>> prove how safe it is unless it had been challenged.
> Disclaimer: Bicycle riding is an inherently dangerous sport. The
> responsibility for each riders safety, fitness and the soundness of
> his or her bicycle lies solely with each rider. The weekly rides are
> open to the public and The Miami Bike Scene does not organize,
> sponsor, nor assume any liability for your participation in these
> rides.
Thank the insurance companies. My club has a similar disclaimer.
But there's nothing here that says cycling is EXTREMELY dangerous.
There is an inherent danger. We're not talking about someone riding alone. In groups, you have to know how to ride to prevent accidents. You have to maintain a line and not make quick moves. You have to maintain your bicycle. You have to be in good enough shape to ride at the level of the group that you're with.
Is this kind of thing at the root of the Danger! Danger! fears? Does someone here think that descending at 70k/h on a poorly maintained bicycle has no danger at all?
BTW, in their pic, they don't seem to have mandatory helmet requirements...
> Disclaimer: Bicycle riding is an inherently dangerous sport. The
> responsibility for each riders safety, fitness and the soundness of
> his or her bicycle lies solely with each rider. The weekly rides are
> open to the public and The Miami Bike Scene does not organize,
> sponsor, nor assume any liability for your participation in these
> rides.
Interesting. Someone has a deep fear of being sued - which, unfortunately, may not be unreasonable in today's America.
And I've seen far worse. I got one registration form mailed to me for an organized bike tour that contained about eight column inches of warnings, cautions and fear mongering, mentioning not only roads not closed to traffic, potholes, gravel, etc. but tornadoes, thunderstorms and more. Danger indeed!
> > Disclaimer: Bicycle riding is an inherently dangerous sport. The
> > responsibility for each riders safety, fitness and the soundness of
> > his or her bicycle lies solely with each rider. The weekly rides are
> > open to the public and The Miami Bike Scene does not organize,
> > sponsor, nor assume any liability for your participation in these
> > rides.
> Interesting. Someone has a deep fear of being sued - which, unfortunately, may not be unreasonable in today's America.
> And I've seen far worse. I got one registration form mailed to me for an organized bike tour that contained about eight column inches of warnings, cautions and fear mongering, mentioning not only roads not closed to traffic, potholes, gravel, etc. but tornadoes, thunderstorms and more. Danger indeed!
> - Frank Krygowski
I think there is a loophole that would let a die hard anti-helmet person get out of having to wear a helmet on their head in a group ride. Most liability avoidance clauses that I have seen wherein it states that, "I promise to wear a helmet" do NOT say that the helmet must be worn on the head.If you hang the helmet from a waist belt or slung on a strap over your shoulder you are still wearing it.
> > Disclaimer: Bicycle riding is an inherently dangerous sport. The
> > responsibility for each riders safety, fitness and the soundness of
> > his or her bicycle lies solely with each rider. The weekly rides are
> > open to the public and The Miami Bike Scene does not organize,
> > sponsor, nor assume any liability for your participation in these
> > rides.
> Thank the insurance companies. My club has a similar disclaimer.
> But there's nothing here that says cycling is EXTREMELY dangerous.
Right. They don't use the term "extremely." Just "inherently dangerous."
Now let's think: Would that warning be appropriate for, say, walking tours of a city's downtown? You know - where the risk of fatality per mile is something like triple that of biking?
> There is an inherent danger. We're not talking about someone riding
> alone. In groups, you have to know how to ride to prevent accidents.
> You have to maintain a line and not make quick moves. You have to
> maintain your bicycle. You have to be in good enough shape to ride at
> the level of the group that you're with.
Yep. Sounds a lot like other activities.
> Is this kind of thing at the root of the Danger! Danger! fears? Does
> someone here think that descending at 70k/h on a poorly maintained
> bicycle has no danger at all?
Put your straw man back in your closet, Duane. Nobody here has _ever_ said riding a bicycle has no danger at all.
If you're reduced to such a lame tactic, you must be really short of actual facts.
> > > Disclaimer: Bicycle riding is an inherently dangerous sport. The
> > > responsibility for each riders safety, fitness and the soundness of
> > > his or her bicycle lies solely with each rider. The weekly rides are
> > > open to the public and The Miami Bike Scene does not organize,
> > > sponsor, nor assume any liability for your participation in these
> > > rides.
> > Interesting. Someone has a deep fear of being sued - which, unfortunately, may not be unreasonable in today's America.
> > And I've seen far worse. I got one registration form mailed to me for an organized bike tour that contained about eight column inches of warnings, cautions and fear mongering, mentioning not only roads not closed to traffic, potholes, gravel, etc. but tornadoes, thunderstorms and more. Danger indeed!
> > - Frank Krygowski
> I think there is a loophole that would let a die hard anti-helmet person get out of having to wear a helmet on their head in a group ride. Most liability avoidance clauses that I have seen wherein it states that, "I promise to wear a helmet" do NOT say that the helmet must be worn on the head.If you hang the helmet from a waist belt or slung on a strap over your shoulder you are still wearing it.
