ldrcycles wrote:il padrone wrote:ldrcycles wrote:Ok, this is something i see all the time and i just don't get it. My fiancee isn't interested in riding for various reasons, but she has never for a moment mentioned any kind of issue with wearing a helmet. They are available from Big W for $18 so cost and availability can hardly be an impediment.
Here we go again. The topic has been covered numerous times in this thread. Be aware - there was a significant drop-off in cycle use in 1990, about 30% for adults and in excess of 50% for teenagers.
You may not see the helmet as a negative - you're an enthusiast, committed to your recreation/transport pursuit. It's all the average folk who don't ride that are put off by the need for a helmet (yes, amongst other things). Just take a look at some videos of European cities and see just who is riding.... and how.
As you can understand, reading through the whole 205 pages here is more than i have time for, so my apologies for not having read previous explanations. I have seen plenty of graphs etc showing the drop off in participation AT THE TIME MHL WAS INTRODUCED, but that was nearly a quarter of a century ago. There are a lot of people such as myself who have grown up knowing nothing else, it is just the way things are that if you are going to ride a bike you must have a helmet.
People don't ride because they are lazy, they consider it beneath them, because they are scared of cars, having to wear a helmet just doesn't enter into it.
I know if i was to ask the people i worked with why they don't commute by bike, the answer would be an almost universal "it's too far".
^^^ and every single one of those things you raise are cultural norms that have been reinforced by the decimation of the riding population. We live in an age where gym membership is skyrocketing... fitness is a goal, looking good has never been more important. The number of people willing to exercise is quite high... these people could ride a bike to get the milk.
The huge drop off in riding after the MHL was brought in managed to abnormalise bike use. A large chunk of people would ride a bit and after the MHL, they wouldn't. They are justified in their thoughts about riding - "well you need a lid, its too dangerous for me".
Lazy lifestyles are created by cultures that do not support or encourage active lifestyles. If you work your white collars so hard that they don't have the energy to exercise, then you are discouraging active lifestyles.
They consider it beneath them because riding was abnormalised by the MHL... or perhaps they are fat. They are probably prepared to pay someone to shout at them while they do situps... is riding really beneath such people?
Scared of cars? Idiots. You shouldn't go near a road. If they were afraid of cars, they wouldn't sit in a moving car either.
It's rarely too far... but most of the reason it IS too far is because we have so much urban sprawl, which was in turn encouraged by developers who saw cities without serious cycling and walking culture.
The helmet is key to it... I would be prepared to agree if we were forced to ride fixies everywhere with TT chainrings. But that's not the deal, is it?
Most of these deadbeats who claim it is too this, too that, are likely to be dead at 60 from something, because such resistance to physical activity isn't good for the human body.