The fact of the matter is that anyone willing to pay $75K-$100K on average to climb a mountain is a prime mark for a $5K scam.

deleted by creator

They have (had?) these across the California border from Vegas. Bright as fuck, you could see them dozens of miles away when flying in on a plane, but couldn’t look directly at them.

Kinda feels like we’re talking in circles now, I keep putting context on your point that a helmet is always safer and you keep talking past the context and repeating that a helmet is always safer. It’s kinda silly. But one more try.

Statistically speaking it’s always better to wear a helmet no matter what you’re doing. Walking down the sidewalk with a helmet is safer than walking down the sidewalk without one. What I’ve been saying though, is that if only we build an environment that actually accommodates cyclist safety we find ourselves at a point where the benefits of wearing a helmet arguably outweigh the costs. And this isn’t just theory, the entirety of The Netherlands has been at this point for decades. They have both the highest rate of cycling and the lowest helmet use in the entire western world, both as a result of their dedication to infrastructure and culture that accommodates safe cycling. There is a Dutch person right here laughing at the “everyone should wear a helmet” truism that started this thread because they’re living my point. Of course this only applies once you actually have meaningful cycling infrastructure. I’m not saying that American cyclists shouldn’t wear a helmet most of the time. But I’m pushing back on the blanket cliché that “Everybody should wear a helmet all the time” because it’s not only untrue, when it is presented as the primary recommendation for improving cyclist safety it effectively functions to derail or minimize discussions of the things that actually make baseline everyday cycling safer: Good infrastructure. Good culture. Protection from the 40-ton trucks who’s tires will pop your skull like a watermelon regardless of if you have a helmet over it or not.

Does that make sense?

I still don’t get it, we know helmets protect, so the less cranial trauma you come across in your life the longer your life will be. It’s rather simple.

For most people a helmet’s inconvenience, discomfort, or cost is overkill for the danger presented by typical transportation cycling on good cycling infrastructure. This fact is not incompatible with your fact. Your fact is also correct.

What you are addressing here is just anti bike politics. If tomorrow everyone would agree to wear helmets, they would come up with speed restrictions for cycling. The goal is to be anti cycling. The idea they hide behind is replaceable.

That is a very strong argument for not promoting universal helmet use as a primary cycling safety concern.

There’s no faction, just statistics. When a helmet comes into play it’s overwhelmingly likely that the cyclist was either going intentionally fast or there was a car involved. But since not all cycling is for sport or alongside motor vehicles (Nor should it be!), universal helmet requirements often serve as an unnecessary obstacle to safe ubiquitous cycling and effectively function to displace blame for injuries caused by poor infrastructure or inattentive motorists onto the cyclist. Especially when universal helmet use is the first or primary suggestion brought up in discussions of bicycle safety, which is why it’s getting pushback here. Helmets have their place (I wear one as I like going fast and have to bike with cars where I live), but that place isn’t as the premiere prescription for cyclist safety.

No, only if going sporting speeds or riding alongside cars. Which to be fair, is 99.5% of cycling in NYC.

“Wing” is not the term to use. Liberals sat on the left side of parliament, literally the left wing of a hall, so it’s accurate and quite literal to call them “left wing”. What isn’t accurate is calling them leftist, as in socialist, and I think that’s the term everyone is actually talking about? Everyone is talking past each other here cause of the wing thing.

He got the 50 signatures required for a study, the study just didn’t meet the city’s criteria for reevaluation. I couldn’t be less interested in the validity of illegalism, root issue is that a community’s concern isn’t being addressed by their government. A smart rep would seize on this opportunity as an easy win.

DAE remember Kim’s Video in NYC? The main store was 4 floors of rentable media in a skinny former tenement building on St. Marks with a yellow/black facade. They had every movie imaginable from all over the world mostly in DVD and VHS formats in nondescript black cases, sorted by nationality and then director. You’d pick a case and bring it to the art students manning the desk, they’d judge your tastes without subtlety then go into the vault in the back and return with the media. Members only, no more than two rentals at a time, strict late fees. Friends and I were there every day or so rotating out an endless stream of cinema.

This is all because I never returned those DVDs in 2006, isn’t it.

Everything is political, and there has never been a time that proves that better than now.

Remember how some car drivers get mad about cyclists because they feel like cyclists don’t pay for roads because bikes don’t pay gas tax?

That’s kind of the color of NYC’s outer borough cabs (The ones that can only pick up fares outside lower Manhattan)

Vegan here, no not really. The energy industry (Primary driver of soy production) and animal ag industry (Largest consumer of soy by mass) just needed a scapegoat for the subsidies and overproduction.

I have zero enthusiasm for deleting the names of cancelled leftists from our society while streets, schools, cities, entire counties all over the county are still named after notorious slavers and rapists who’s cancellation discussions are apparently verboten in halls of government. Columbus, Lee, Jefferson, etc…

I want a movement focused on the fight for material well-being of everybody in society, not a movement preoccupied with questions of self virtue. This moment reminds me of how the left dealt with Al Franken, and how petty that seems in the context of today’s political pantheon.

Yeah I’m originally from New York where everything is cement and steel by code but now I live in Portland where tall timber buildings are the norm and it definitely does give me pause in regard to fire safety. I guess a caveat is that the structural timber in those new buildings is a dense composite that is supposed to burn less intensely or resist fire altogether but yeah we’ll see…

I wouldn’t mind living an an apartment building nearly so much if only the building came with shared versions of the amenities a single family home might have: A yard for kids and dogs to run around in, a garden area with planters, a garage so people can work on their vehicles… If a 12 or 24 unit building just had single shared versions of these amenities it would make the apartment lifestyle a lot less restrictive to people who feel pressure to buy a house but don’t want to burn their life savings. Two reasons this doesn’t happen are regressive zoning codes and landlords treating shelter as an investment to squeeze value.

Yeah if the dye is in the asphalt then that’s fine, doesn’t ruin the rolling properties. I wonder how that looks after it gets torn up and recycled (Old asphalt that gets torn up gets remixed and reused).

Being a whacked out zionist.