Showroom7561 @ Showroom7561 @lemmy.ca

Posts

298

Comments

5,086

Joined

2 yr. ago

Less really is more! LOL

Dr. Sbaitso never asked me to commit atrocities.

Oh, just wait. AI will all be tweaked to sell you shit.

It's only a matter of time before product placement in AI generated photos and videos becomes a thing, too.

"Stop the windmills", he said.

Wow, what a read!

I was never a Komoot user. What happened to them, and the direction they are taking, is bound to happen to any and all platforms where corporate greed is the driving force.

Every single place that mandated helmets (or heavily promoted) saw absolutely no reduction in death/injury.

There are too many variables to go over every country (i.e. mandated only for kids and teens). And even when they are mandated, compliance may still be low (B.C, Canada has helmet laws for all ages, yet compliance is <70%).

That said, every study I've seen, including meta-data analysis, shows benefit.

For instance THIS very recent study:

"The empirical evidence based on the real-world hospital and police data as well as biomechanical studies confirms that wearing a helmet while cycling is beneficial, regardless of age and crash severity, in collisions with others or not. The relative benefit is higher in high-risk situations and when cycling on shared roads. The findings from the meta-analyses studies that have been reviewed in this paper are remarkably consistent."

The classic example is Australia – it had almost no helmet usage prior to passing a nationwide law. The law was strictly enforced with extremely high fines, and yet there was no real change comparing before/after the law.

Wait, what? This Australia?

Quoting Professor Jake Olivier of UNSW’s School of Mathematics and Statistics and Deputy Director of the Transport and Road Safety (TARS) Research Centre:

"There was an immediate 46 per cent reduction in the rate of cycling fatalities per 100,000 population following the introduction of bicycle helmet legislation in Australia,” he says.

“This decline has been maintained since 1990 and we estimate 1332 fewer cycling fatalities associated with the introduction of bicycle helmet legislation to date.”

And you also have to consider that non-injuries (i.e. walking away from a fall because of your helmet) won't be reported, so the benefit may very well be significantly higher.

All I can say is that I'd rather be wearing a helmet than not, in the event that my head hits any object, at any speed. It's such a "set and forget" piece of gear, and I know people who have walked away from crashes (not involving cars, just crashes due to poor surfaces) yet their helmets basically crumbled upon impact. Way better than the alternative.

But you do you. I don't want to force anyone to do something they don't automatically see as a benefit on the bike.

As one study put it, "Unhelmeted injured cyclists were frequent commuter cyclists who generally do not regard cycling as safe yet choose not to wear helmets for reasons largely related to convenience and comfort. " 🤷‍♂️

Yup. Spend hundreds of millions so that more people can sit in traffic? No problem, we'll start work tomorrow!

Ask for a 100m multiuse path so that cyclists don't get killed by crazed SUV drivers? "ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR GODDAMN MIND?? Who is going to pay for that? What about the kids? How will seniors survive?! What about my parking space! Cyclists don't follow the rules! Where's your helmet?!! I didn't see you!!!!!" 😒😮‍💨

"There is a common goal, to make city streets safe."

Really? It sounds like cyclists are disproportionately being targeted, while the real dangers are being treated lightly.

But I'll also say that I hate the fact that an industry (i.e. food delivery) is ruining cycling for everyone else.

I wonder if a cast iron crock pot would work, too. Those are dirt cheap second hand. They weigh a ton, though 😞

Goddamn. 😮

OK, a quick double-check (all I have time for), suggests these Ill effects come in mega doses (unreasonably high doses, like the equivalent of dozens of pounds of sugar), and/or in rodents.

At the same time, I see studies claiming that stevia has quite a few health benefits, ranging from preventing tooth decay to reducing tumors.

And the fermented variety in the OP should be even safer/better.

I've never had any interferences.

All my microwaves in the last 20 years cause interference from several rooms away! Like Bluetooth headsets dropping signal.

I have a device that measures radiation and EMF, and that thing spikes when the microwave is on, too. 😮

The driver and a passenger fled on foot, and despite an "intensive search" by additional officers and the police canine unit could not be located, OPP said.

This pisses me off.

Stick your phone in it and test:

Make a phone call to it and see if it rings.

See if it remains connected to WiFi and data.

See if Bluetooth can be connected.

Considering the amount of outside interference it causes, I don't think it's as effective as a true Faraday cage, though.

So, what's the deal with the mismatched safety limits between the carcinogen Aspartame and stevia? If not because of money, surely, it's not from a lack of science (evidence).

The push for helmets in Netherlands is mainly from the "Safe" Traffic Association (the road lobby).

It's actual doctors who are advocating for it.

I remember looking into this, and not only are bike crashes unreported in the Netherlands, but head injuries are surprisingly high, too.

I know we like to use the Netherlands as the gold standard for safe cycling infrastructure, but the fact remains that people do get into crashes (on their own) with the safest cycling infrastructure in the world. We are, after all, on moving objects.

Helmets save lives and can prevent head injuries. There's no real debate here.

I don't think anyone would rather their head hit concrete or metal, at any speed, without a helmet on.

But, yes, there's definitely been a greater need for helmets with the introduction of ebikes, especially for older riders. That's a demographic that has clearly suffered a disproportionate rate of injuries.

Super old video. MIPS helmets and other advanced helmets allow the helmet to shift a little, sending more of the force away from the head.

These offer significant safety benefits.

But we shouldn't beat a dead horse. Helmets prevent more injuries than not wearing one.

Even Dutch doctors are encouraging Dutch riders to wear helmets, because quite a few head injuries result from falls, not collisions with cars.

Talk about a waste of taxpayer funds. Trump treats the government like it's his personal errand boy.

an unknown vehicle hit his motorcycle moments later and left the scene.

No arrests have been made.

Hit-and-run probably works more than 50% of the time, so people do it.

But to be honest, the driver wouldn't get much punishment anyway. Maybe a ticket.

Lives outside of cars don't seem to matter.

For sure, it's "dose dependent". I was just correcting the assumption.

For a very small 45kg human that comes out to 30 cans of coke zero per day.

Not to split hairs, but the WHO says that the limit is between 9 to 14 cans for a 150lb person, which is still a lot, but not unreasonably so.

Considering that some countries have yearly soda consumption over 200L per person, coupled with the fact that someone who might be drinking diet cola, may also be using sugar-free foods (i.e. aspartame containing foods) throughout the day, then it seems possible that some may exceed the limit.

And that doesn't factor in different metabolic rates, other foods or medications that might enhance the effect, etc.

Disappointingly, stevia has a much lower "recommended limit", despite being shown to be safe. I wonder if that's because stevia comes from a plant, and not out of a lab, so it's harder to patent and monopolize in the market. 🤔

Apollo can't seem to catch a break with stem issues.

Their Phantom model also had a recall a few years back due to a stem bolt issue: https://apolloscooters.co/pages/apollo-phantom-2021-2022-bolt-recall