• 0 Posts
  • 110 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle


  • I don’t doubt anything you are saying, but it’s worth mentioning that (iirc) 80%+ of severe injury and death on a bicycle is caused by motor vehicles, or complications of motor vehicle involvement. People very rarely have severe injury or death on dedicated bike infrastructure. The primary risk on bicycles is motor vehicles. If you remove motor vehicles, there is still risks, but someone might decide that risk is low enough to forgo a helmet. I don’t feel those people should be called stupid for their choice.

    There is considerable evidence that everyone wearing a helmet in a car would save vastly more lives and prevent severe head injury, and yet pretty much no one even considers that as a normal thing to do. The bike helmet thing is therefore just as much a cultural attitude, as it is about safety.

    I still use a helmet, and more importantly, visibility gear, on my bicycle in 100% of my rides. I’ve never worn a bike helmet walking or driving in a car, even though my cousin died from a head injury getting hit by a car while walking and my grandma-in-law died of a head injury in a car…


  • MonkRome@lemmy.world
    cake
    toNo Stupid Questions@lemmy.worldPros / cons of riding a bike?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    A helmet is only needed if you intend to spend significant time in traffic. Most of the world doesn’t use one.

    The math behind using one is a lot more on the margins than people realize. In order for it to save you, it first has to prevent a head injury, and then prevent one that is in the range of severity that makes it useful. The vast majority of bike injuries won’t fall in that range, they’ll either be related to another part of the body, or in the case of high speed crashes from a car, too severe for a helmet to matter. But helmets do give people a false sense of security. Statistically people ride faster and take more risks with a helmet on. Lastly, again statistically, the visibility gear you put on yourself while riding does more to keep you safe in traffic than a helmet. Lights, reflectors, reflective vest, etc.

    All this to say, the religiosity with which people proselytize helmets is misplaced. I still wear one, but I don’t judge people who choose not to.










  • Under your simplified system a person making 55k brings in less than someone making 49k. Which disincentives getting a raise at that salary range. There is a reason that currently we only tax money over the brackets set.

    Progressive taxation isn’t really the problem here though, our low tax on investment profit is. We should also probably enforce a 2% wealth tax on anyone making over a billion dollars.


  • MonkRome@lemmy.world
    cake
    toMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldSon, we need to have a serious talk!
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    The grizzlies were far more likely to attack but due to distance and spotting them early to avoid there was no issue.

    They are not more likely to attack, you just perceive them that way. As long as you don’t do something that makes them feel threatened you are statistically in far more danger around the humans you cross paths with. I don’t remember where I read it, but even with the tiny amount of bear attack, even those attacks are most often the result of human fear causing humans to be aggressive and then lose the fight they started. For instance a hunter with a gun may get scared, shoot the grizzly, and then hit it without a fatal shot. They just created a danger that wasn’t there. “Fear is the mind killer”.


  • MonkRome@lemmy.world
    cake
    toMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldSon, we need to have a serious talk!
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Black bears are less dangerous than nearly every other larger mammal. They are terrified of everything and not violent. Grizzly attacks are caused by you being perceived as a threat, if given the perceived option, most grizzly bears will run away. Fatal attacks are far more rare than people think 3 in all of north america in the last year. Humans are far far more dangerous to encounter.



  • “They constantly attack the right” if you view reporting what they have learned from investigation as an attack on the right, you should really asses what you think journalism’s role is. Should they report belief as truth, or truth as truth? “Only have liberal guests on” this is an obvious lie, and makes me question whether you ever actually listen to NPR or if you just have severe confirmation bias and view ANY liberal or Democrat on as proof of no conservatives even when they have both on at the same time… I hear conservatives on there pretty regularly.

    What is true is that slightly more of the guests are Democrats than Republicans, but NPR has been very honest about how difficult it has been to get Republicans on their channel. They might ask 12 Republican senators to come on before one agrees meanwhile the first Democrat they ask agrees. With the decades long effort by the right to delegitimize any news that isn’t their tightly controlled propaganda machine, is this a surprise?

    I don’t think it’s proof of bias to just attempt to report the investigative results of their work and have one party be anti-truth and then claim bias. Real news channels have an obligation to report reality irregardless of one parties unsubstantiated belief in anti-science, anti-fact, and anti-democracy demagoguery.

    With that said, their is no such thing as unbiased news as humans are all biased. At least channels like NPR attempt to be unbiased, unlike the hundreds of propaganda rags all over this country.