X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.2.0-r431796 Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE Return-Path: Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k8MKcBnw030266 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:38:11 -0400 Received: from anniehall.mr.itd.umich.edu (anniehall.mr.itd.umich.edu [141.211.93.141]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k8MKc7ie003822; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:38:08 -0400 Received: FROM newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) BY anniehall.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 4514499F.E99A8.26355 ; 22 Sep 2006 16:37:51 -0400 Received: from boston.eecs.umich.edu (boston.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.61]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k8MKbmca003584 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:37:48 -0400 Received: from boston.eecs.umich.edu (localhost.eecs.umich.edu [127.0.0.1]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k8MKblnw030260 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:37:48 -0400 Received: from localhost (dreeves Æ localhost) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) with ESMTP id k8MKblsQ030257; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:37:47 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: boston.eecs.umich.edu: dreeves owned process doing -bs X-X-Sender: dreeves Æ boston.eecs.umich.edu In-Reply-To: <2b7f1e190609221230naa30892q9a5cc5fb16cc5423 Æ mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <5ed707a10609221138r4495c3d1ydbf13de0b4a3a13b Æ mail.gmail.com> <2b7f1e190609221230naa30892q9a5cc5fb16cc5423 Æ mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.0-r431796 (2006-08-16) on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:37:47 -0400 (EDT) To: "Mark A. Sibert" cc: bethany soule , inlinenc , improvetheworld Æ umich.edu From: Daniel Reeves Subject: Re: [InlineNC] helmet usage Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 746 > Of course, there is the website http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ that refutes > the need for helmets when cycling. It took me a while to figure out what the hell their deal was but I think I found it: from the perspective of current cyclists, what improves safety even more than helmet usage is *more cyclists on the road*. (I don't doubt this, and it's one reason I feel safer in New York City. Cars being used to cyclists makes all the difference.) So from their perspective, anything that presents a barrier to entry for cycling makes cycling more dangerous, even helmet use. But most of the site is unforgivably disingenuous. > And, hey, at least being a woman the article says you're less likely to get > hit too -- so you'e got that going for you! I wonder what's safer, a helmet a or a long, blonde, curly wig... > On 9/22/06, bethany soule wrote: >> >> I wanted to send out a counter argument to this article claiming that >> cycling (and we can probably infer skating too, though I guess drivers >> are often so surprised to see you on the road, they're likely to give >> you a pretty wide berth) with a helmet is actually "more dangerous": >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5334208.stm >> >> Check out this report from the NYC DOT on bicycle accidents in the >> city over the past 10 years. Of 225 fatalities, 97% of the riders were >> not wearing helmets, and 74% involved a head injury. Drivers may be >> more reckless around you if you're wearing a helmet (because you look >> more competent or something) -- but you're still at a much higher risk >> of serious injury and death without the helmet. >> www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf >> >> (One could also conclude from the nycdot's data that nyc is actually a >> pretty safe place to bike comparatively. The accident rate per million >> is the same as 'elsewhere' in the country, while there are twice as >> many cyclists per million out there. (#2 under the 'key findings' >> section)) >> >> Bethany >> __._,_.___ Messages in this topic >> ( >> 1) Reply (via web post) >> | >> Start >> a new topic >> >> Messages >> InlineNC.net * InlineNC-subscribe Æ yahoogroups.com >> [image: Yahoo! >> Groups] >> Change settings via the >> Web(Yahoo! >> ID required) >> Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily >> Digest| >> Switch >> format to >> Traditional >> Visit Your Group >> | >> Yahoo! >> Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe >> >> Recent Activity >> >> - 1 >> New >> Members >> >> Visit Your Group >> >> SPONSORED LINKS >> >> - High >> point >> - Inline >> skating >> - Aggressive inline >> skating >> - Inline skating >> equipment >> >> Ads on Yahoo! >> >> Learn more >> now. >> >> Reach customers >> >> searching for you. >> Y! Toolbar >> >> Get it >> Free! >> >> easy 1-click access >> >> to your groups. >> Yahoo! Groups >> >> Start a >> group >> >> in 3 easy steps. >> >> Connect with others. >> . >> >> __,_._,___ >> > -- http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves" "I cannot overemphasize the importance of good grammar. What a crock. I could easily overemphasize the importance of good grammar. For example, I could say: "Bad grammar is the leading cause of slow, painful death in North America," or "Without good grammar, the United States would have lost World War II." -- Dave Barry, "An Utterly Absurd Look at Grammar"