I commute on my bicycle almost everyday. I have a really great foldable bicycle by Montague. When I'm not suing it I just fold it up and it fits in my closet at home or under my desk at work.

"I'm not at all "hard-core" about everything being legislated. I was simply pointing out that I think it's interesting that helmets aren't mandated by law yet, considering they are shown to save lives."

There are a zillion things that could be "shown to save lives" Is it interesting to you that not all of them have been legislated?

Pedestrians die almost every day in NYC after being hit by cars. I'll bet helmets and body armor would help. Even with airbags and seat belts, people in cars die. Helmets would help for sure -- why isn't the legislature doing something?

We see in Texas that there are efforts underway to force women to get a new vaccine for HPV. Great -- hey it'll save lives.

Tetanus? When did you last get your tetanus shot? I find it interesting that they are not required by law.

Quick access to portable defribillators has been shown to save lives. I'm surprised the City Council isn't requiring them in every building.

Gwin -- take a look at this, pro and con on cycling helmets:

www. chapmancentral. co.uk/ web/public.nsf/Documents/maxi-faq-helmets?OpenDocument

Gwin, even if you accept the conclusions of that study, so what? Does the fact that doing X can prevent a large number of injuries in a certain activity mean that it should be mandated that we do X. Or even, by choice, you should recommend that everyone do X?

Without looking at the odds of the thing X is trying to prevent, the cost of doing X, and the possiblity that there are other cheaper or more effective means to protect oneself, what you're talking about is nonsense.

I am sure that wearing a football helmet would prevent a large number of injuries to people's faces from slips and falls. So what? I am sure that wearing a helmet will significantly reduce the severity of head injuries sustained while walking. So what? The overall risks in walking are not that high. The overall risk of people cracking their faces open sliping are not that high. So what's the point?

The same thing general safety is true of cycling, despite scare-mongers saying otherwise.

When you start making safety recommendations for other people's activities, first take a good hard look at the issue of overall risk in your life and ask yourself why you're recommending helmets for some activities and not for others.

*sigh* Eddie, I'm not at all "hard-core" about everything being legislated. I was simply pointing out that I think it's interesting that helmets aren't mandated by law yet, considering they are shown to save lives.

But hey, way to pass quick judgment on me.

No need to take things so personally, Jack. No need for name calling either; which goes for both myself and the subject of the article.

Just because our personal freedoms are already being lost at a record pace does not mean we should throw up our arms and accept defeat. Quite the opposite, really. It seems like if people such as Gwin up there have their way we'll soon need a license to get out of bed. I exaggerate, but really, that's the biggest risk we take. People slip in showers and fall down stairs and drown in soup all the time. Doesn't mean it should be legislated against.

I'm truly tired of being protected for the sake of insurance companies under the guise of it being for my own good. There are plenty of people out there already eating out of straws. Trust me dude, you are not the primary burden carrier of this fact and never will be.

Frankly, I wasn't even responding to you personally. You've demonstrated nothing in this discussion aside from your own paranoia and ignorance. Unfortunately, people like you out there have the power to make people like me give up our freedoms for your piece of mind. It's a vicious cycle. Far worse then the relatively minor risk of a head injury due to a cycling incident.

Eddie, you crack me up you jagoff.

"Seriously, what happened to freedom and personal responsibility here?"

Do you live in the same country as the rest of us? There is no such thing for most of our society it seems.

And I was talking about the lights so bite me and my poor sentence structure. As far as the helmet goes, yeah she should have one on because if something does happen she'll be eating out of a straw if she keeps blowing those lights. Bet she wears an iPod too while riding. Whatever, just don't expect me to pick up the tab for your future diaper changer.

Oh yeah, yes, I do ride to work.

Yup a 20 minute bike ride is totally EXTREME!

I drive 15 minutes to the Metro-North station, travel 65 miles (or 111 minutes) by train to GCT and then take the 4/5 down to city hall. When everything goes well, it's a 2.5 hour commute.

I'm often tempted to tell you hard-core helmet proponents (trying damnest nto to invoke Godwin here) to fark off. Seriously, what happened to freedom and personal responsibility here? If I or anyone else chooses not to wear a helmet while performing an activity it's our own risk and none of yours. You wanna wear a helmet or full body armor, be my guest. Just leave me and my fellow risk takers alone! We have enough stupid laws to protect us from ourselves as it is.

jt: from The New England Journal of Medicine, “A Case-Control Study of the Effectiveness of Bicycle Safety Helmets": Proponents of legislating mandatory helmet use cite strong evidence that helmets can prevent many fatalities and up to 88% of potential brain injuries in bad falls.

That seems like a good enough reason to me...

"I think it's interesting that NYC doesn't (yet) have mandatory helmet laws for adults, though."

Interesting? It's entirely appropriate. We don't require helmets for lots of activities that are roughly as safe as cycling, so why should cycling get special restrictions? It shouldn't.

I live on the upper west side(west 100's) and last summer I worked at Great Kills National Recreation Area in Staten Island. Commute=40 min bike ride to S.I Ferry for 20 minute ferry ride+25 Min. on the S.I Railway+1.5 mi more bicycling to park ranger station. Did this for 5 months.

I live at 57th and 2nd and work at 34th and 5th and walk to and from work on most days unless it's pouring rain. Straight there is about 25 minutes. Good exercise and a great way to learn about blocks, alleys and avenues I wouldn't normally see. I try and mix it up, for instance, some days I'll walk to 10th and take that to 57th and then across town; a lot of different routes makes the commute interesting every day.

my commute... 15 min walk to Grand Central, 40 min train ride to White Plains, 25 minute bus ride to the office (if everything arrives on time)

I commute from Ocean County, NJ to 9th Ave. between 15th and 16th every morning, and my commute goes something like this: car to the bus stop, wait in the cold/heat/weather; travel around 80 miles to Port Authority, which is about and hour and a half on a good morning; take the subway to 14th St.; then walk a block to the office.

When it's nice, though, I'll walk to Port Authority. Takes about 30 minutes.

It would take me 20 minutes taking the west side highway. but to get to the west side highway would take me an extra fifteen minutes from the LES. So I call bullshit. Also you'd need a road bike not a mountain bike, A mountain bike would take at least an extra five minutes. also, carry no weight. If you had a road bike with nothing on it pedaling at full speed you could probably make it in 20.

"What's the big deal? 100 blocks is five miles, a trivial distance on a bike."

I second that.

Criticism of her aside, though, the biking conditions in this city are disgraceful, especially in manhattan, which ought to be a bikers' (and pedestrians') haven, thanks to its density and flatness.

devo: aha, you're right - that does look like Stuyvesant Park.

JT: I think that the "not following the rules" part was only about the blowing the lights, not about the lack of helmet (the sentence structure is a bit misleading). I think it's interesting that NYC doesn't (yet) have mandatory helmet laws for adults, though.

I also wondered about the helmet...but I wouldn't be surprised if she forsook it for the sake of looking "cute" for the photo-op. Not that that would be a good excuse...